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 am still somewhat torn on this. On the one hand, there is a part of me that believes "shall not be infringed" could easily and legitimately be interpreted as "anyone who wants a gun can own whatever gun they like anytime they like,"
That part of you would be correct to believe that.
Quote:
I also believe it's utter lunacy to allow a mentally ill, drug addicted, convicted murderer and armed robber to walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15 with a conversion kit.
It's not utter lunacy. It's merely dangerous in a few cases, for the few individuals it would pertain to.
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment to ban all govt interference with owning and carrying weapons, didn't do it because they thought it would correct all possible ills of people owning weapons.
They did it because (after decades of study of many different govts dealing with this issue) they thought it would be less dangerous for society for there to be no govt restrictions on weapons, than it would be for government to have even the slightest authority to decide who can own/carry and what they could own/carry. They knew government would always expand, and ultimately abuse, that power. And govt could and would do far more harm than a few nutcases running around with personal weapons.
People who wish for "just a few regulations" on mental cases owning weapons, or on ownership of small machine guns (aka "assault weapons"), are kidding themselves. Government will never leave it at that. Once granted that authority, govt will expand its power every time, restricting more and more people from carrying more and more kinds of weapons.
As personal defense is the paramount consideration I think we should start by eliminating the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and then get rid of the rest on Federal, State and Local levels.
I agree.
Actually that law (properly called the 1934 National Firearms Act) was found unconstitutional by a Federal district court, within 20 minutes of the case being opened. The judge declared it a gross infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. In part because it imposed a $200 tax (then a month's wages) every time a weapon such as an old, cheap short-barreled shotgun worth maybe $5 was sold or transferred.
Govt appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and the defense didn't even show up for the trial. So the justices rubber-stamped several lies by the govt prosecutors, into a nearly-incoherent Opinion (US v. Miller), and the rest was history.
If the 1934 NFA is ever revisited by the Supremes, with counsel present for both sides this time, it will be found unconstitutional every bit as quickly as it was the first time.
But more to the point I support the idea that some guns should not be sold. * Not on shelves. * Not at gun shows. * Not sold under any circumstances except to law enforcement agencies.
I am a gun owner (Ruger Blackhawk), a Viet Nam veteran ('68 Tet Offensive), a Republican who has never voted for a Democrat, a movie-goer who thoroughly enjoyed John Wick, and I support a federal restriction on the types of firearms sold in America. The federal government should enact the ban - not the states. The ban would include almost all semi-automatic firearms.
I have no hope that my particular vision will ever be enacted, but it is what I would prefer.
I never understood those who make the argument that "I respect the Second Amendment, but semi-automatic weapons should be banned"...
Those guns you think ought to be banned are the only guns that are actually relevant to the Second Amendment. When the founders authored the Second Amendment, it wasn't about hunting, it wasn't even about self defense from the village cat burglar: It was a provision with a militaristic purpose in mind. It was intended to ensure that the government didn't have a monopoly on force, and to ensure that should the need ever arise, a body of citizens could be called up immediately to serve in the militia and perform militaristic duties, presumably armed with weapons that are militaristically useful. Your Ruger Blackhawk is nice, but it has no militaristic value. Semi-automatic weapons DO have value in the types of militaristic situations the founders had in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment.
What you are saying would be the equivalent of saying "I support freedom of speech but I just think that criticism of the government should be banned"... Defeats the whole purpose the Amendment was created for in the first place....
To me, the 2nd Amendment is somewhat ambiguous because of the cumbersome way it was phrased
What is cumbersome and/or ambiguous about the way it was phrased? Here's the text:
"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."
Only in a discussion about the Second Amendment and guns could this be considered ambiguous or unclear. Who has the right to keep and bear arms? The people? The militia? Let's look at another phrase using this same structure...
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to a nutritional diet, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed"
So is it the breakfast, or the people, that posses the right to keep and eat food? Obviously a basic understanding of the English language tells us it's the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and eat food, not the breakfast. The breakfast is the reason we have the right to keep and eat food. Cut to the wording of the Second Amendment.... In the gun control debate, we are told that our basic understanding of how the English language is structured no longer applies, and that it's only the militia that has the right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to it being merely the REASON that the people have the right.
It's their consolation, everyone gets a trophy prize, they'll never let it go.
Well then, we ought to mail them all ARs and AKs a range pass with a voucher for 1000 rounds, perhaps their minds will change. Or... They'll be striken with the PTSD...
Well then, we ought to mail them all ARs and AKs a range pass with a voucher for 1000 rounds, perhaps their minds will change. Or... They'll be striken with the PTSD...
If they don't want it I'll take it, I don't have an AK yet
We are talking about people who are too sick to hold down a job, or even manage their own disability check. .
My almost 99 year old Grandmother does not hold a job and does not control her finances other than whatever cash she asks for, she is sharp as a tack though and certainly has the mental capacity to own a gun if she desired.
If they don't want it I'll take it, I don't have an AK yet
Sandy Hook and the SAFE Act would cause tears to anyone who hates sporting rifles.
If the media sensationalized DWI (a far greater threat to society in NY state) like they did these shootings, I'm sure regulation of private transportation would be heavily regulated and NY compliant cars trucks and suvs would only be allowed and any previous to the year they enacted the bill would require ridiculous registration or modification to become compliant...
What Cuomo and those who share his agenda don't realise, even after being proven wrong on this...
Regardless of how tragic the event was, does not give them the right to tread our rights. Not anyones. I have said this to someone who lost a nephew in Sandy Hook to their face.
How dare anyone get on a pedestal and use their loss to further an agenda. All of our rights, are far more important. The real outrage should be, why are banks and bank trucks protected with arms, but our schools aren't? Not why is this weapon or that weapon legal. Of course dude wanted to swing, emotion is a powerful thing. Process that for a minute. To those who live by a victim mentality, or throw the parent card, thats cruel and vile. No matter how heartless, cold, rude, or inconsiderate its the hard truth. Constitution is bigger and greater than anyones loss.
If I was gunned down and slain by some sadistic troll, (chances are it occurred in a gun free zone) and someone wanted to pass legislation for more gun control, I would haunt them. I'd be the worst ghost in the history of paranormal activity...
Even had this debate with my ex who was absolutely baby crazy and had said on multiple occasions that she would want me to sell every gun I owned when she became pregnant. That made me want to go get a vasectomy. Took 2 junkies, 1 armed, who wanted to commit a home invasion to change her mind
Growing up, my parents viewed my love of dirtbikes and quads to that of "assault rifles" as hard as they tried to shelter me from them out of fear and what ifs, only pushed me to pursue those hobbies even more so. One of the worst accidents I had on a dirtbike, they both figured I'd want nothing to do with them ever again. Next day I was on my back up bike pulled a wheelie leaving the garage in front of both of them and took off to the trails.
Then came stock cars... Oh boy
I've grown to accept the fact there are people who live with a victim mentality that legitimise fear, and use it to push their agendas onto others whether they are receptive to it or not, mostly driven by emotion and fear. Whether its finding a boogeyman or wanting needing desiring more "big brother" intervention onto others for they themselves are too weak to handle life on their own... I guess I'll never understand why... I try to see it from their perspective but only see fear and emotion and the constant need to throw statistics around instead of individual expirience... Somehow stats and fear are most peoples reasoning skills these days...
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.
