Common Sense Gun laws. Discuss without emotion.. (stats, abortion, support)
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 realize that the Second Amendment provides: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
However, the Courts have rather consistently said that prohibiting the sale of some guns does not infringe on this right.
Here is an example I have used in the past:
Suppose there was a Constitutional Amendment that provided that: ‘the right of the people to keep and eat candy shall not be infringed’.
That means that the people may keep and eat Milky Ways, M&M’s, Hershey Bars, Three Musketeers, etc.
Yet, it turns out, that there are a few particular brands of ‘candy’ that can be used to harm other people. Let us say that there is a poison that is detectable if put into most candy bars, but that it is not detectable in Milky Ways. Poisonings are on the rise!
May Congress or the States pass laws prohibiting Milky Ways?
In my view, yes. Although one would not be able to purchase, legally, Milky Ways anymore, there are still plenty of other brands of candy to ‘keep and eat’.
Now, Congress or the States could not simply ban ‘candy’,for that is prohibited by the Constitutional Amendment. Yet, banning one or two specific candy bars would not prevent Americans from keeping and eating ‘candy’.
The District of Columbia got into trouble with the Supreme Court by banning all ‘handguns’, save for those already owned by people or those in law enforcement. It was too broad, by any measure. Some States have successfully banned ‘junk guns’ ('Saturday Night Specials’, as they were once called). Such laws did not prevent Americans from owning handguns, just a particular few.
If Congress or the States want to ban AR-15s and other weapons that mass murderers seem to prefer, that would not mean that an American is not allowed to ‘keep and bear Arms’, for there are other Arms available. Simply saying “but I like to us an AR-15 for target practice’ does not seem a compelling reason for keeping such weapons available for purchase. Obviously, to me at least, those that already own such weapons would be able to keep them. Hopefully, future mass murderers would, in time, find them more difficult to obtain. However, Americans would still have Arms to defend themselves, and so the Second Amendment is not violated.
I've lived all over the country and here is what I noticed.
When I lived in South Carolina it was comically easy to get guns. Walmart could give you fully automatic weapons at one point (not sure if its still true). Gun shows gave them out without checks easily.
While others have responded to this, here are some more details and history showing you are completely wrong.
People get drunk and end up shooting each other over a girl at a bar or some nonsense. Like I said having a gun in your home is fine. Carrying a concealed weapon to work or the bar has more
chances of leading to problems.
Alcohol and guns existed side by side for the first 125 years of this nation.
The beginning of this very nation, was built with guns and alcohol.
It was not such a bad thing then and it would not be now. Murder is still murder.
There was a reason for matched pistols at 10 paces..... and as legal as walking down the street.
You didn't just go around insulting everyone you disagreed with... You debated them civilly, or you shut up.
I realize that the Second Amendment provides: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
However, the Courts have rather consistently said that prohibiting the sale of some guns does not infringe on this right.
Here is an example I have used in the past:
Suppose there was a Constitutional Amendment that provided that: ‘the right of the people to keep and eat candy shall not be infringed’.
That means that the people may keep and eat Milky Ways, M&M’s, Hershey Bars, Three Musketeers, etc.
Yet, it turns out, that there are a few particular brands of ‘candy’ that can be used to harm other people. Let us say that there is a poison that is detectable if put into most candy bars, but that it is not detectable in Milky Ways. Poisonings are on the rise!
May Congress or the States pass laws prohibiting Milky Ways?
In my view, yes. Although one would not be able to purchase, legally, Milky Ways anymore, there are still plenty of other brands of candy to ‘keep and eat’.
Now, Congress or the States could not simply ban ‘candy’,for that is prohibited by the Constitutional Amendment. Yet, banning one or two specific candy bars would not prevent Americans from keeping and eating ‘candy’.
The District of Columbia got into trouble with the Supreme Court by banning all ‘handguns’, save for those already owned by people or those in law enforcement. It was too broad, by any measure. Some States have successfully banned ‘junk guns’ ('Saturday Night Specials’, as they were once called). Such laws did not prevent Americans from owning handguns, just a particular few.
If Congress or the States want to ban AR-15s and other weapons that mass murderers seem to prefer, that would not mean that an American is not allowed to ‘keep and bear Arms’, for there are other Arms available. Simply saying “but I like to us an AR-15 for target practice’ does not seem a compelling reason for keeping such weapons available for purchase. Obviously, to me at least, those that already own such weapons would be able to keep them. Hopefully, future mass murderers would, in time, find them more difficult to obtain. However, Americans would still have Arms to defend themselves, and so the Second Amendment is not violated.
Candy is not comparable to Liberty for you the individual to choose. It is governments job to educate, not ban freedom.
A word can be compared to a gun and can be harmful and cause all kinds of destruction. What words are banned by the federal government?
When they run their mouths, a broken jaw and some missing teeth can be cause to sue the crap out of someone, for profit.
Pushing daisies for running their mouths to the wrong person, isn't so appealing to them.
Insulting someone, always has had the possibility of death.
I want every state to honor ANY state's legally issued CCW
The 2nd amendment in the bill of rights, make conceal carry legal in all 50 states.
The 10th amendment cannot over ride the 2nd amendment. Read the 10th. The 2nd has already been defined as left to the people. Federal, State, and local government, have no say. State constitutions have to allow the very things the US Constitution has. They can only allow more liberty than the Us Constitution, but never take liberty.
Remember. Constitutions, chain governments, not free people.
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.
