Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fine, give me all the instances that you and I haven't seen on the news of criminals in the United States using automatic weapons to perpetrate their crimes. If your hypothesis is correct, there should be scores of examples, as gun laws only keep banned guns in the hands of criminals.
I'll wait patiently.
I believe I saw on the news that they had tried to locate even ONE instance of multiple intruders armed with even semi-automatic weapons trying to invade a home, and could not find even one instance of it. This idea that there are going to be multiple well-armed intruders that a homeowner is going to have to engage in a shoot-out with apparently hardly ever happens.
The question is guns, not cell phones, whether you agree that guns should remain as they were in the 1800's is irrevelent, the supreme court has already held that there are restrictions. If you agree there are no limits then citizens shoul have grenade and rocket launchers. The point is that there is no such legal interpretation as you stated.
You can believe what ever you want, facts are in conflict with your opinions.
Supreme Court decisions aren't facts, they are opinions. They can be overturned or rendered obsolete with new legislation, particularly with new consititional amendments. It is absolutely a worthwhile pursuit to discuss potentially incorrect interpretations on the part of the Court in light of the ability of the people through their elected representatives to overturn Court decisions. And given that the Court's decisions are often narrowly split and dissenting opinions are written, it's evident that Justices do make mistakes.
Supreme Court decisions aren't facts, they are opinions. They can be overturned or rendered obsolete with new legislation, particularly with new consititional amendments. It is absolutely a worthwhile pursuit to discuss potentially incorrect interpretations on the part of the Court in light of the ability of the people through their elected representatives to overturn Court decisions. And given that the Court's decisions are often narrowly split and dissenting opinions are written, it's evident that Justices do make mistakes.
Maybe just computerize the Supreme Court; the justices are all creeps.
I believe I saw on the news that they had tried to locate even ONE instance of multiple intruders armed with even semi-automatic weapons trying to invade a home, and could not find even one instance of it. This idea that there are going to be multiple well-armed intruders that a homeowner is going to have to engage in a shoot-out with apparently hardly ever happens.
Well the news producers may be specifically creating stringent conditions for the situation they're looking for precisely because they want to be able to report they can't locate it. I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying it's a possiblity and I didn't see the newscast you're referring to so I don't know what the precise requirements were that they were looking for. Such things are far from unheard of - CBS got caught presenting forged documents to attack George Bush. They claimed they didn't know, but random people on the internet managed to detect the forgery so you'd think their professional verification people and lawyers could have caught it if they were really being thorough. Then you have NBC being caught doctoring a 911 call in the Trayvon Martin case to make it sound racist when it wasn't.
In reality though, multiple armed intruders is enough. They don't need machine guns when there is a group of them. Six shot revolvers can be more dangerous than submachine guns if you have a group of them with revolvers assaulting a single person with an automatic weapon, given that one person will be facing multiple targets firing simultaneously from different directions and taking one down does not reduce the threat from the others.
Anyway, here's a quick link I found. Story doesn't specify exactly what they were armed with but it refers to them as "3 armed gunmen"
Also if you take the "home" part out of it, you've got the "crime that started it all" - Columbine. Multiple heavily armed shooters conducting a surprise attack.
So you are not a strict constitutionalist? You believe that you can make reasonable restrictions on guns?
These are not mutually exclusive.
A strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment indicates that people have a right to bear whatever personal arms are appropriate to protecting themselves and their property. As discussed multiple times, it doesn't need to spell out specific permitted arms because the context of the amendment makes it quite clear what arms are meant by it.
A reasonable restriction on guns would be prohibiting guns which are not appropriate for people to use to protect themselves and their property. This point is admittedly subjective because people can have widely varying ideas of what "reasonable" and "appropriate" are. I sure as heck don't want Ruth Bader Ginsburg deciding for me what apppropriate restrictions on my rights are. However, the point I'm making is that limited restrictions can be placed on the right to bear arms in the same way that your right to free speeh is not violated by not yelling "Fire!" in a theater. As long as the restrictions do not violate the understanding of what the 2nd amendment is intended to do. For example, a few day waiting period to be sure an emotionally distressed person isn't trying to get a gun to commit violence, and to allow time for a background check is reasonable. It does not meaningfully infringe on the person's right to defend themselves with a firearm. A deliberately long wait with deliberately confusing forms expressly designed to discourage people from getting firearms by making the process as burdensome as possible - which some gun control people do advocate? No, that's not constitutional.
Now, Thomas Jefferson was one of those people who refused to accept the constitution as originally written until a Bill of Rights was added to it, and one of the things he specifically said he wanted in the Bill of Rights was protection against standing armies. So he is an excellent source for the 2nd. Here's what he said about the government and the people:
"No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government."
So background checks are entirely consistent with being a reasonable restriction on guns and also with a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
A convicted felon is not encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice.
A mentally disturbed person idoes not have a mind informed by education of what is right and wrong.
So restricting these people from having firearms is consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers and their understanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights and who it applied to.
Making carry permits rare and difficult to get I am generally against. It violates the right to bear the arm. Making elaborate laws about storing firearms I am of mixed feelings on. The firearm does no good if you can't get to it when you need it. But the responsibility to keep the firearm away from children isn't something you can ignore. I tend to think something like requiring it to be stored out of reach of children is okay but having to keep it unloaded, trigger locked, and in a safe defeats the purpose of having it.
Nope what I'm saying is that certain materials are regulated by *not* the federal govt. The Federal Govt. CANNOT regulate ownership of arms. PERIOD! Regardless of the arm. the 2nd makes no statements on the use of an arm, just that it can be owned (if you consider bearing as in responsibility rather than physically carrying).
Since the federal government can regulate commerce I think it could regulate what arms are and aren't available for sale. So long as the regulations didn't approach a violation of the 2nd.
Also, given that the 10th amendment reserves powers not expressly permitted to the federal government to the states, there would be no need for the 2nd amendment if the federal government did not have the power to regulate firearms in some way. If that were the case, the 10th amendment would already cover the isue and no 2nd amendment would be needed. A restriction placed on a power that doesn't exist serves no purpose. So given that the 2nd amendment does exist, some power of the federal government over firearms must exist which made the 2nd amendment necessary to prevent that power from being abused.
The militia clause makes clear that you cannot consider the 2nd amendment to provide no right to fire your weapons. The militia would not be well regulated by the people bearing arms if bearing arms did not allow the people to use the arms. A gun simply hanging on a gun rack doesn't serve any purpose. Also some rights which may not be explicitly granted as "gun rights" may be covered by general property rights. And finally, the definition you're trying to use for "bear" is already covered by "keep".
Quote:
Thus within the limits of the second amendment, a 50kT nuclear warhead is as safe as a paperclip, since both sitting idle are not dangerous at all (they're being owned, and the owner bears responsibility). They only become dangerous to me if either someone begins the detonation sequence of the Nuke, or if I'm tied to a chair and someone straightens that paperclip to push through my eyeball, orbit and into my frontal lobe. If you consider this is not the case, could you please point me at the news reports of spontaneously detonating nuclear warheads, the US has had since 1945 tens of thousands, I'm sure if there was a hazard in the millions of man years those warheads have existed, been remanufactured and decommissioned at least one would have spontaneously detonated.
As I covered earlier, bear does not mean "bear the responsibility for", as "keep" already means that. Bearing arms means you have the right to be strapped. You have the right to use a gun in your own self defense. Given that, you don't have the right to a nuclear weapon because it isn't a weapon that would be used to regulate a militia. Or in modern times, to fend off some gangbangers trying to mug you.
Quote:
By the same measure they [the federal government] are not required to make the ownership of all arms easy either. Basically they have no say what weaponry is or is not legal, they can say all they like if they're used, or cause harm, but nothing about what is or is not legal. Thus the Federal Govt is not required under the 2nd to sell 50kT Nukes to civilians, nor is it required under the 2nd to sell U235, or Pu239 to civilians, nor Phosphonite (the precursor to VX).
They do indeed have a requirement to make ownership of arms easy insofar as making it hard would constitute infringing on your right to keep arms. And any weapon which fell under the category of the government having no right to make illegal would by default be legal. And while the government is not required by the 2nd to sell you any particular weapon, it is required by the 2nd to refrain from preventing you from buying a weapon which is permitted under the 2nd, again because they cannot infringe on your right to keep arms.
Quote:
International treaties can regulate the ownership of precursor materials to manufacture various known WMD's. States can if they wish regulate the ownership of arms, materials, and whatever they want to within the limits of state constitutions where appropriate.
No, they can't. Under the 14th amendment states are bound by the 2nd amendment and thus the state can no more infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms than the federal government can.
Why has gun control against automatic weapons been successful?
as a former NFA holder and owner of fully automatic firearms, they have been successful full auto firearms because every full auto firearms cost in excess of $10,000 each. lots cost more than 20 grand.
most NFA holders make more than 200-300 grand a year.
the only time that NFA full auto firearms was used to commit a crime after 1934 was by a cop, who had the fireearm through his department.
I believe I saw on the news that they had tried to locate even ONE instance of multiple intruders armed with even semi-automatic weapons trying to invade a home, and could not find even one instance of it. This idea that there are going to be multiple well-armed intruders that a homeowner is going to have to engage in a shoot-out with apparently hardly ever happens.
Be prepared!
Life is full of the unknowns.
I'd rather have 30 to 100 and not need it, than have 1-3 and need 30-100
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
