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.
The Constitution once said we could own slaves and woman couldn't vote. Once in a while that document needs to be updated. Our Founding Founders never envisioned our modern assault weapons of war.
You've been "Gubbered"
"Our Founding Founders never envisioned our modern assault weapons of war."
WRONG. They wrote the 2nd Amendment and did NOT state which arms should or should NOT be banned.
The ALLOWED ALL the "modern" arms of the time.
If they didn't want cannons, they would have said so.
If they did NOT want the musket, the most "modern" rifle of the time, they would have said so.
To come up with your opinion only shows a lack of knowledge on why they wrote what they did.
The musket WAS the "assault" weapon of the time.
And has been stated, probably hundreds of times and you have been part of those discussions, the "assault weapons" you and others like to talk about are NOT "assault weapons of war".
And some wonder why we get so infuriated with people like you who are told the truth and you just keep coming back with the same old drivel
I am beginning to believe people like you are INCAPABLE of learning.
Practically the war on the 2nd has already been lost. The USSC made it clear that it can be regulated. That is effectively fatal. I would think a flat ban on semi automatics with more than six rounds. Maybe require direct load. No clips or magazine. That should be fine for all purposes other than killing people. Buy back any non conforming weapons. But after a delay make having one a felony.
The fourth is safe. Just need some correct court action to put the Feds back into their place.
"Practically the war on the 2nd has already been lost."
I disagree.
MANY older rulings by the SC have been overturned by newer courts.
If hillary gets in and appoints even 2 new anti's, the court COULD overturn the current rulings.
" I would think a flat ban on semi automatics with more than six rounds. Maybe require direct load. No clips or magazine. That should be fine for all purposes other than killing people."
How would enforce such a ridiculous, IMO, law?
Say 3 armed men break into you house and EACH is armed with a semi-automatic gun with a 30 round capacity.
How are YOU going to defend you and your family if yOUR gun is NOT a sem-automatic and only have 6 rounds in it?
" Buy back any non conforming weapons."
Criminals bu definition do NOT obey the law.
How are you going to get THEM to comply to your "buy back" program?
I am constantly AMAZED how some people come up with these idea WITHOUT thinking them through.
Most state and local politicians have already said they won't enforce anti second amendment federal laws. There is already precedent for this with sanctuary cities and non-enforcement of drug laws.
That could be when the real excitement starts.
Yep. Exactly. We have learned due to the above that federal laws have absolutely no enforceability. Ignore one? Ignore them all. Precedent is set...
This is all nothing more than political posturing. A dog and pony show for the non-thinkers.
The Constitution once said we could own slaves and woman couldn't vote. Once in a while that document needs to be updated.
That's exactly what the Constitutional Amendment process is for. Want to strip 2nd Amendment rights from Americans? Pass an Amendment.
Though, that would set up an interesting conflict. "Shall not be infringed" is very clear and precise language. An Amendment repealing the 2nd would absolutely be an infringement.
Practically the war on the 2nd has already been lost. The USSC made it clear that it can be regulated. That is effectively fatal. I would think a flat ban on semi automatics with more than six rounds. Maybe require direct load. No clips or magazine. That should be fine for all purposes other than killing people.
Are you from an urban area? Ever try to stop a charging wild boar (or any other deadly wild animal) with a "direct load" firearm?
" I also think most opposition to "sensible" gun control"
"Sensible", is a relative term.
I have YET TO SEE a "sensible" gun law.
A serious question.
Which, of the thousands of gun laws on the books, do YOU think are "sensible"?
And I's like to see which ones actually work? Chicago? Strict gun control laws. High number of shootings and gun deaths. France? Strict gun control. Massacre committed by Muslims with guns.
"Our Founding Founders never envisioned our modern assault weapons of war."
WRONG. They wrote the 2nd Amendment and did NOT state which arms should or should NOT be banned.
The ALLOWED ALL the "modern" arms of the time.
If they didn't want cannons, they would have said so.
If they did NOT want the musket, the most "modern" rifle of the time, they would have said so.
To come up with your opinion only shows a lack of knowledge on why they wrote what they did.
The musket WAS the "assault" weapon of the time.
And has been stated, probably hundreds of times and you have been part of those discussions, the "assault weapons" you and others like to talk about are NOT "assault weapons of war".
And some wonder why we get so infuriated with people like you who are told the truth and you just keep coming back with the same old drivel
I am beginning to believe people like you are INCAPABLE of learning.
Even Justice Scalia had said, presumptively lawful regulations include prohibitions on firearm possessions by felons and the mentally ill, possessions in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, restrictions on the commercial sale of guns.
There were lots of regulations of guns at the time of the framing of the constitution. You had to register your muskets (in most areas). There were limitations on who could own and possess firearms. There's some distasteful regulations. But essentially, for the framers, the individual right to bear arms was consistent with lots of regulation.
The Founding-era laws indicate why the First Amendment is not a good analogy to the Second. While there have always been laws restricting perjury and fraud by the spoken word, such speech was not thought to be part of the freedom of speech.
The Second Amendment, by contrast, unambiguously recognizes that the armed citizenry must be regulated—and regulated “well.”
This language most closely aligns with the Fourth Amendment, which protects a right to privacy but also recognizes the authority of the government to conduct reasonable searches and seizures.
Nothing in the Constitution is absolutely off limits to all regulations under all circumstances
I don't know which two these are but if they get rid of a couple of the older ones there will be room for two newer, better ones...could be something for selfies or twerking or something like that
This just in, guns nuts should buy more guns to help the economy before the government comes and takes them all away.
Nobody will be taking my property away. Period.
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.
