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.
Neither should guns manufactured in one state that are shipped or carried to another state.
The 2nd amendment is an amendment, remember?
It modified the Constitution.
One part of the Constitution that it modified, was the Commerce Clause.
Before the BOR was added to the Constitution, it was arguable that the Federal govt could regulate guns that were shipped in interstate commerce.
Once the 2nd amendment was added, that was no longer true. The 2A forbade the Fed govt (and state and local govts) from having ANY authority to regulate, restrict, or ban ANY guns for ANY reason. Including reasons that used to come from the Commerce Clause.
Something to keep in mind... and bring up and the next gun-case hearing before the Supreme Court. (But with the Supremes' habit of rewriting things they don't like, the result may be unpredictable.)
I'm in 100% agreement that "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. But unfortunately, we can't turn back almost 100% of gun laws at once (though I would like to).
Every Amendment carries the same weight. Replace 2nd with 1st and see how long anyone would stand quietly on the sidelines and put up with these laws.
I'm not sure what type of rifles you are speaking of, but my father owns some basic rifles that actually shoot pretty slow. I know because I've seen him shoot deer and other animals with them.
I remember reading an article about cops being killed with criminals started getting AK-47s after the assault ban was lifted.
So what exactly do you need to own an AK-47 for?
And what exactly is wrong with stricter screening of gun owners? Unless you have something to hide it shouldn't bother you.
What's wrong with random searches of your house? Unless you have something to hide it shouldn't bother you.
Like I said, it is not the bill of needs, it is the bill of rights.
Aaah, how about we regulate guns in an effective manner.
The civilized world does it.
I love these suggestions.
Please, I beg you.. Which law can we pass that this fella would have obeyed? Same with Adam Lanza.
Keep in mind privately owned handguns in Mexico are illegal unless 9mm or smaller. Doesn't seem to stop the cartels, and of course we have an open border....I can't imagine where that might lead eh?
I'm not sure what type of rifles you are speaking of, but my father owns some basic rifles that actually shoot pretty slow. I know because I've seen him shoot deer and other animals with them.
I remember reading an article about cops being killed with criminals started getting AK-47s after the assault ban was lifted.
So what exactly do you need to own an AK-47 for?
And what exactly is wrong with stricter screening of gun owners? Unless you have something to hide it shouldn't bother you.
"Basic rifles"? That covers a lot. The bit about cops dying from AK fire after the AWN sunsetted...never heard about that. Hell, the gangs and dealers had AKs M4s UZIs MACS and all the real, honest, "assault" type weapons they wanted all through the period of the ban. So, that is not an accurate statement.
What does a person "need" ans AK style rifle for? For one purpose or another, I suppose. They can be used for many things, but are known best for shear, 100%, relibability, in the harshest conditions and a decent, medium power, cartridge. I had one for years that just banged around the cab as a coyote zapper. What someone else might have in mind for one, I won't be speak to, however, its not a question of "need" anyway.
The current background check system works fine. It has been working for a long time now, and the government got to hang a shiny new BS tax on firearms purchases with it. New background check regs won't slow down a THING for criminal gun buys. So, why make it harder for the good guys?
Another piece of misinformation, you seem to be operating on, is that magazine capacity and rate of fire, somehow makes a certain rifle more effective or deadly. Not even. Aimlessly spraying bullets about may look cool in the movies, but, in reality, shooting that way results in far more misses tban hits. Personally, I would rather be trying to evade some nut with an AK, hip shooting, than some nut in a bell tower with one oc those "basic rifles"have you mentioned. It's not the capabilities of a firearm that matter, its the capabilities of tbe operator, that are "deadly"or effective".
Last edited by NVplumber; 08-21-2013 at 08:47 PM..
So, you admit, they break the law...you know, the current law....so add more laws that they can still ignore...yea, that great....perfect...
Please provide me where a criminal, under the law, that is still a criminal, has not had a pardon, has had his gun rights restored....
Yes criminals break the law. Now back to what I was actually saying and you so obviously missed, I'll try to make it simple for you and you read it really slow so as not to miss the point.
A person commits a crime, they do their time and get out, they do not commit any more crimes and after time goes by they ask to regain their gun ownership rights. See how easy the first part is, if you need to re-read that please by all means feel free to do so as often as it takes.
Now as for someone that is a convicted criminal that is still commiting crimes they will not be getting their legal rights back and I do not know any that have. Still with me?
Final point, if said criminal is still committing crimes and they do not have the right to own a gun does go out and buys one illegally and they get caught with it they are sent back to prison for once again violating the law. Now with no laws in place that same criminal can go out and do the same and buy a gun but now if he gets caught with it nothing happens to them. Think about it as long as it takes.
Need to know exact details of the why they were reinstated....not just that you heard....
Exact, and, if you are unable to provide those circumstances, then you have nothing....
Depends on your State, they vary. In their cases they were able to show the court they were living honest lives with families, friends, jobs and crime free, in every case they were granted back their rights. Hopefully that helps, check your State laws to see the requirements if you or someone you know is trying to get their right to own guns back after conviction.
Neither should guns manufactured in one state that are shipped or carried to another state.
The 2nd amendment is an amendment, remember?
It modified the Constitution.
One part of the Constitution that it modified, was the Commerce Clause.
Before the BOR was added to the Constitution, it was arguable that the Federal govt could regulate guns that were shipped in interstate commerce.
Once the 2nd amendment was added, that was no longer true. The 2A forbade the Fed govt (and state and local govts) from having ANY authority to regulate, restrict, or ban ANY guns for ANY reason. Including reasons that used to come from the Commerce Clause.
Something to keep in mind... and bring up and the next gun-case hearing before the Supreme Court. (But with the Supremes' habit of rewriting things they don't like, the result may be unpredictable.)
Yes, NO laws at all, Brillant Idea
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.
