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.
No different from how people misunderstand the first and fourth amendments. Suppose the first amendment had been worded as "a well-educated citizenry being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to own and carry books shall not be infringed." Would that mean that speech could now be regulated by the government? No.
This is just a dumb guy who is unable to think things through.
I support the Constitution and oppose all those who would usurp it. As a veteran, I know you swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or domestic, and that includes traitors to the Constitution in Washington.
What you fail to understand is every American alive today was born with the current interpretation of the second amendment.
No one alive today has changed the original intent as written into the Constitution. We all have to live with restrictions to our rights, because generations of Americans chose to make those changes for the good or the bad.
Gun restrictions were written by colonies 100 years before the signing of the Constitution. After the signing of the Constitution, restrictions were written, adopted, and never challenged in the courts..because the people of that era wanted those gun restrictions.
To want the "original" interpretation to only be considered today...is an exercise in futility.
The problem with this topic. The topic being gun ownership is extremists from both sides. 1 side can be rabidly aggressive towards any perceived threat, or mention of any form of regulation. The other side can be equally extreme in their views and desires to see fire arms regulated. Before people complain look at some of the threads that have been started. How many of the titles begin with (Gun Nut)???
So what happens is any valid discussion quickly becomes derailed.
I am a shooter and I own several hand guns, several rifles and a shotgun. I had to pass a background check before the purchase of all 3 handguns. Does this mean that I will never commit a crime? No. Does it mean the shop who sold the firearms to me is negligent if I do? NO Should all other law abiding people be denied access to a fire arm if I do use mine to commit a crime? No.
The fact is that some people will misuse a firearm and use it to commit a crime and nothing short of an absolute ban will prevent this. A gun safety course will not prevent this. What a safety course might prevent is some accidental discharges. They might prevent unintended uses like a child gaining access.
I stress might. I have a feeling that lazy, sloppy, or careless owners no matter the amount of safety courses they endure will never change the way they treat their weapons. Some people require a life changing event before they are willing to adjust.
Case in point drunk drivers, reckless drivers and careless drivers. Ask them and one and all will tell you they can handle it. Drunks "I actually drive better when I am drunk because I am more careful." Yeah we all believe that.
The question is will safety laws make a difference or will safety laws infringe upon ownership? I would say that all depends upon the law and how they are written.
It's really only on boards like these, where people come to argue instead of have discussions, that the topic brings out extremists in both sides.
I'm not a gun owner, I believe in people's right to own guns, but think it's totally asinine to not expect there to be strict regulations on owning them.
My sister & brother in law are not only gun owners, but hunters and are teaching my nephew how to properly handle a firearm. They, too believe that it's totally asinine to not expect there to be strict regulations on owning them.
Most people I encounter in the real world, off of political message boards, whether they are gun owners or not support people's rights to own them and understand the necessity for strict regulations.
In fact the only person I know who would be classified as a "gun grabber" is a soldier friend, who worked with weapons in Afghanistan, he believes in the abolishing all guns. But even he understands this is impossible, so in the end he too will admit that people have the right to own guns but it's completely asinine to not expect there to be strict regulations on them
Most people I encounter in the real world, off of political message boards, whether they are gun owners or not support people's rights to own them and understand the necessity for strict regulations.
Except for those who apparently believe that the Second Amendment demands that absolutely everyone -- felons, the mentally ill, etc. -- be allowed to walk into a gun shop and walk out again with an AK-47 and as much ammo as they can afford.
Except for those who apparently believe that the Second Amendment demands that absolutely everyone -- felons, the mentally ill, etc. -- be allowed to walk into a gun shop and walk out again with an AK-47 and as much ammo as they can afford.
Felons that are not allowed to purchase guns can not do so through due process. Hardly anyone is against that. Many would like to address the mentally ill but the medical community has fought that.
Felons that are not allowed to purchase guns can not do so through due process. Hardly anyone is against that. Many would like to address the mentally ill but the medical community has fought that.
Mentally ill is a subjective assesment where there is no pathology involved in the diagnosis.
At one time homosexualty was considered a mental illness, and so too could the term apply to anyone who doesnt fit the norms of whatever ideological group is in power.
Also, many felons are non violent offenders thanks to our police state, why shouldnt they have the same rights to defend person and property as anyone else?
Felons that are not allowed to purchase guns can not do so through due process. Hardly anyone is against that.
Well, how is a gun dealer supposed to know who's a felon and who isn't? Presumably by asking for ID or running some sort of check. And isn't that an unconstitutional infringement in the minds of 2A absolutists?
Mentally ill is a subjective assesment where there is no pathology involved in the diagnosis.
At one time homosexualty was considered a mental illness, and so too could the term apply to anyone who doesnt fit the norms of whatever ideological group is in power.
Also, many felons are non violent offenders thanks to our police state, why shouldnt they have the same rights to defend person and property as anyone else?
Mentally ill is a subjective assesment where there is no pathology involved in the diagnosis.
At one time homosexualty was considered a mental illness, and so too could the term apply to anyone who doesnt fit the norms of whatever ideological group is in power.
Also, many felons are non violent offenders thanks to our police state, why shouldnt they have the same rights to defend person and property as anyone else?
In your opinion, is there anyone who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm?
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.
