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.
I fully understand the 2 sides can work together, that has been happeneing since the 4473 inception in 1968.
No offense or confrontation was intended. I was just trying to provide a real world example of common sense gun law and used your post to launch my example.
Many of the extremists on both sides of the issue are rabidly against the two sides working together and consider anyone who is willing to sit down with the opposition as the enemy.
No offense or confrontation was intended. I was just trying to provide a real world example of common sense gun law and used your post to launch my example.
No offense or confrontation was intended. I was just trying to provide a real world example of common sense gun law and used your post to launch my example.
Many of the extremists on both sides of the issue are rabidly against the two sides working together and consider anyone who is willing to sit down with the opposition as the enemy.
In my life time I have seen many people try to negotiate with the left. They want what they want up front and then promise to meet your demands later. The problem is, once they get what they want, they aren't willing to stick to their end of the bargain. You never get what you are promised. So if that makes me a raving right wing lunatic, so be it. I will not support ANY negotiations on gun control measures or for that matter anything else with the left. If they were to give what they promise up front, I might reconsider, but without their concessions up front, we have nothing to talk about.
In my life time I have seen many people try to negotiate with the left. They want what they want up front and then promise to meet your demands later. The problem is, once they get what they want, they aren't willing to stick to their end of the bargain. You never get what you are promised. So if that makes me a raving right wing lunatic, so be it. I will not support ANY negotiations on gun control measures or for that matter anything else with the left. If they were to give what they promise up front, I might reconsider, but without their concessions up front, we have nothing to talk about.
Thank you for dialing in and validating the point I was trying to make.
No, its not. Founding fathers states also had restrictions on when yiu could carry your weapon, who coukd own them, it was illegal to carry a loaded musket in Richmond in 1792, as well as an axe because of the intimidation of other citizens.
The second amendment was written for national defense, not the overthrow of the government. Now that we had a standing army, it wasn't necessary to give the right to buy full auto weapons. And no, a hunting rifle is no match against a hellfire missile.
Thats the fallacy. The heller decision was a landmark case because the court said you had a right to a firearm to protect your home and family. Banning semiautomatic weapons doesn't infringe on that ruling, because you can still buy manual reload weapons.
I think banning semiautomatic weapons is stupid. If Tennessee or the federal government decided to ban new semiautomatic weapons, I'd oppose it. But it isn't unconstitutional for a state to ban semiautomatic weapons. Scalia even said that the heller decision wasn't open ended, and if the peoples legislatures in states enacted bans on magazine size and reload options, that those were not stopping people from defending tgeir home.
The supreme court will get the final say on this, but limiting your optiin for reload is not, in itself, an infringement on the second amendment. It infringes on common sense, but its constitutional. Otherwise we couldn't have outlawed the sales of fully automatic weapons.
actually, the founders had regulations for militias, not the individual citizens whom had the right of the 2nd Amendment.
actually, the founders had regulations for militias, not the individual citizens whom had the right of the 2nd Amendment.
They had them on individuals also. Not owning a gun, but making laws like, no loaded muskets in town, or not carrying an axe because of intimidation factors.
Read the militia acts of 1792. This proves what I'm saying. The second amendment was a way of appeasing those states who feared a standing army. It guaranteed that we would have a citizen army. The militia acts spelled that out, going as far as to say every able bodied man had to report, with his own ammunition, to defend the country when the president called. Its how they put down the whiskey rebellion.
Yall sure have a short, narrow view of history.
Last edited by Memphis1979; 09-17-2013 at 03:56 AM..
Yes. Reasonable restrictions to the 2nd amendment ARE constitutional. You see, the same founding fathers who wrote the constitution also set up the structure of the entire government. They knew that the words of the constitution would be open to interpretation and that legislatures and citizens would have various differences on the meaning and application of the constitution.
So, as a safe guard and a final check on the legality and application of law as pertains to the constitution, they established a supreme court. The supreme court is as the name states, "SUPREME". It is the final arbiter of "What is" and "What isn't" constitutional. I would have thought that you, with your knowledge of the constitution and the establishment of our government, would have known this without question.
The Heller decision was a landmark victory for the right to bear arms for the average citizen. It also re-affirmed the long standing application of reasonable restrictions as applied to the 2nd amendment. Just because you, personally do not agree with this inclusion into the ruling does not negate the application of reasonable restrictions to the 2nd amendment.
In the post of mine that you quoted, I readily acknowledged that the proposed legislation by California, concerning semi-auto weapons is absolutely crazy, unnecessary, stupid and totally devoid of value to society. You conveniently left that part out of your response.
My only point was to highlight the fact that the 2nd amendment absolutists refuse to even sit down at the table and be a part of the process in determining "WHAT" actually qualifies as "Reasonable Restrictions". This refusal to participate does more harm to the legal, sane, reasonable, responsible gun owners than any other actions gun owners do and give power to the anti gunners. This is the exact reason WHY you get such stupid, meaningless gun control bills on the state and local level. I say again, If you are not part of the process, you won't be part of the solution.
Though I understand your point about dialouge, in the current climate that is quite difficult. Absolutists are in control of both sides of this debate. As a 2A supporter, and believer in the miliyia as a required force, it is hard for me to envision sitting down with someone who has labeled me a "gun humper" out of hand. Such a person loses all crdibility and benefit of the doubt with two words. Any intelligence and actual reasoning power I may have been willing to see in such a person evaporates.
Reasoned debate, and a willinness to actually listen is absent here. In the past, I had been very active in the 2A issue. Sitting on boards of various advocacy groups, pushing to get our side told. I am still an active shooter, and belong to a couple organizations, helping to bring youth shooters up and such, but I am quieter now.
I would be willing to have a real discussion regarding this issue, but have concluded a quiet, peaceful and semi secluded life, posessing my arms and hanging with people of like mind is preferable to a life of endless shouting, barbs and insulting rhetoric. Your advocacy of reason and intelligent discourse are well placed, and I agree, however, to much bad blood exists to overcome readily. The comments some posters have made here bring my hackles up enough to know discussion of facts with them is irrelevant. I have concluded that this issue will probably come to a head outside the realm of verbal debate. Not in some violent uprising against the government per se, but when a common, violent, foe pops up.
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.
