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.
Isn't it discrimination against someone who is trying to assert his natural right to self defense? Isn't there is a natural right to self-defense? And isn't gun ownership is inherently connected to that right in a modern society?
You don't think there is so why do you care?
However, you do realize that the 2nd Amendment, like the Constitution is to limit the government. No individuals.
Then you AGREE with gun control. I think I'm winning!
That Walmart case was real, not a strawman.
What are you winning praytell? "Gun control" such as you want no, I dont agree. What is there already, at least where I live, I'm ok with.
Now, just make it a criminal matter when LE diesnt do their job. Which they dont. Their to busy harassing legal gun owners to bother with the real criminals. Besides, those criminals are dangerous. They actually shoot at cops.
Legal gun owners dont. Take CA for example. They arrest, charge cited and confiscate far more firearms from legal owners for petty violations of stupid laws, mainly transportation violations, than they do from criminals.
Yeah, THAT makes sense. This is the type of "gun control " you're advocating. And no, I vehemently oppose it. You're not winning a thing. So sorry...but no.
I have heard worse rants on this forum than someone saying Jews and blacks are somehow mind controlling them. And the context of that speech doesn't dictate he wants to kill them, nor does buying 20 high capacity magazines. I have purchased at least 10 magazines for every magazine fed weapon I own the same day I purchase the weapon. There's nothing abnormal about that. Want to know why?
First, a day at the range goes through lots of rounds, especially with semiautos. Let's say you don't have a speed loader accessory, and are planning tomorrow at the range. You're doing ten round groups at various ranges, and you are doing that x10. OK, well that right there is 10 magazines you'd want to preload. Why? Because stopping your shooting groove to reload a magazine disrupts the shooting rhythm, so why not simply have 10 magazines that can be preloaded and you spend your range time shooting, not reloading?
So why 20? Well, I brought 10 to the range that day, and if I have 20, that means when I CYCLE magazines to protect the longevity of the springs, I can swap out those 10 for the other 10 the next time I am at the range.
You see, to a shooting enthusiast, 20 magazine purchases are simply no big deal, not suspicious, and not even particularly noteworthy. Pretty ho hum, average purchase actually. As to the rant that precedes that purchase? So what? Still doesn't make the person a would be murderer, just another weirdo who watches too much cable news. My dad makes rants like that about Republicans all the time, but 1) he watches MSNBC 16 hours a day and 2) he's harmless and wouldn't hurt a fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma
Everyone has their own interpretation. I understand THAT. It's what this thread is about.
There's only one interpretation - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That one interpretation means that government shall not infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms. That they have, in countless violations of the 2nd Amendment, does not negate the 2nd Amendment nor change its meaning. All the violations mean is that the people are complacent and haven't reminded the government who the boss is in quite some time.
Since this is a panic buy for many people, when this crisis ends (whenever that may be), there may be a huge number of new-in-the-box guns on the used market. I've got a feeling that many folks won't feel the need for a gun any more, or simply won't feel comfortable with having one.
It happens every time. ARs will be below 400 bucks by summer or fall.
The 2nd amendment is a statement of the Framers' opinion that the country is better off with government having NO say in which people can own and carry guns, than the country would be if government has ANY say in the question.
Felons and crazy people existed in George Washington's time and were just as prominent as they are today. The Framers believed that even if a few nutcases got guns and killed some innocents, that harm was less than if government had the power to choose who could or couldn't own and carry.
They also left the decision of last resort, to juries who could decide on a case by case basis ONLY whether the 2nd amendment should be applied to a certain person under the certain circumstances of the crime under consideration. Juries, though convened by government, are not government themselves. They are you and me, with complete power to interpret (and even reject) a law solely by their own judgment. And their verdict is final.
It was the best the Framers could do. And though not perfect, it is better than anything anybody else has been able to come up with since.
However, you do realize that the 2nd Amendment, like the Constitution is to limit the government. No individuals.
And ALL the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's why the Framers called it that.
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.
