Is there anyone else here who is a gun owner and thinks our gun control laws are ridiculously lax? (Iraq, terrorism)
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.
Kinda depends on where you live. I live in IL. The gun laws here are just as strict as the state government can manage without getting shot down by the SCOTUS. So I wouldn't say they're lax at all.
I couldn't believe they got rid of the law keeping documentedly mentally ill people from buying guns. That, to me is the ultimate in common sense gun control laws.
The problem was that it was too broad. For example, if people were diagnosed with an eating disorder, they were on the list. Similarly, if a veteran chose to self-voluntarily go in for mental health for PTSD, even if it was several decades ago, they were on the list. It needed to be better written.
I'm still not following. We're holding the Constitution's text as sacred, yet we're only focusing on one part of the sentence. A well regulated militia seems to be the entire premise of the entire amendment.
The definition of that was different in 1788 than today.
To understand it you really have to read some of the ancillary writings of some of the author's.
The problem was that it was too broad. For example, if people were diagnosed with an eating disorder, they were on the list. Similarly, if a veteran chose to self-voluntarily go in for mental health for PTSD, even if it was several decades ago, they were on the list. It needed to be better written.
I see this as following under the "well regulated militia" portion of the amendment. If you have PTSD and the military kicks you out, should you be able to buy mortar rounds? On the one hand you've given up your right to own military weapons, yet you're getting free treatment. Is it you they're expecting to defend against tyranny or invasion?
I'm still not following. We're holding the Constitution's text as sacred, yet we're only focusing on one part of the sentence. A well regulated militia seems to be the entire premise of the entire amendment.
It isn't. As I pointed out, it's merely an explanation for why the right shall not be infringed. It would have no actual effect, whether the text was "sacred" or not.
The definition of that was different in 1788 than today.
To understand it you really have to read some of the ancillary writings of some of the author's.
I understand the context, yet if the politicians of 1788 knew we could level entire cities with one nuclear weapon, I'm sure they would have left a caveat in there somewhere.
I take it to mean a "well regulated militia" as being someone conscripted by the state (colony, city, state, county or any other local authority) in which a majority of your peers in the community felt you could handle the responsibility and training of firearms, regardless if they're bows and arrows or nuclear weapons. Not any gang banger off the street.
I'm still not following. We're holding the Constitution's text as sacred, yet we're only focusing on one part of the sentence. A well regulated militia seems to be the entire premise of the entire amendment.
If the 2nd amendment were being written today, in modern English, it would say something like:
"Because an armed, disciplined population is necessary for security in a free country, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns cannot be restricted."
And that takes in EVERY part of the actual 2nd amendment that's part of the Constitution.
There's no point in worrying about "militia membership" or "well regulated" or any of those things, because they have no effect on the amendment's command that the right cannot be restricted by any government.
The reason we're only focusing on one pat of the sentence, is because that's what the people who wrote it did. They wrote out the command (" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), and then put an explanatory phrase in front of it, as normal English suggests. That phrase means the same today as it meant in the late 1700's: An explanation only, having no effect on the command.
A few other parts of the Constitution have such explanatory phrases too. And they have the same effect: Zero.
I walked into the gun shop, selected my preferred weapon, purchased it and walked out within 30 minutes. My background is in criminal investigations and I can tell you there is NO WAY you can do a thorough background check in 30 minutes. So, my answer is that no we do not do a good enough job of screening people prior to allowing them to purchase a firearm.
Is it the first weapon you have purchased? Do you have access to the ATF database like Licensed Sellers of Firearms have?
Do you have a CCW permit?
The purchase of my first firearm took much more time then my subsequent purchases, especially after getting a CCW.
I understand the context, yet if the politicians of 1788 knew we could level entire cities with one nuclear weapon, I'm sure they would have left a caveat in there somewhere.
I take it to mean a "well regulated militia" as being someone conscripted by the state (colony, city, state, county or any other local authority) in which a majority of your peers in the community felt you could handle the responsibility and training of firearms, regardless if they're bows and arrows or nuclear weapons. Not any gang banger off the street.
No, you really don't. Regulated had a different meaning then, it meant "in working order". And no one advocates that " a gang bangers" off the street should be allowed to buy, legally since they don't buy guns legally in any event, if he's a prohibited person.
Although the push to restore voting rights to convicted felons creates an interesting conundrum as it relates to firearms. Especially since voting isn't an enumerated right.
It isn't. As I pointed out, it's merely an explanation for why the right shall not be infringed. It would have no actual effect, whether the text was "sacred" or not.
This makes no sense. If the "right shall not be infringed" yet we ignore "by a well regulated militia", you're just picking and choosing. A crazy cat lady is not a "well regulated militia".
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.
Reasoning behind it
