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.
It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If you tighten up regulation and licensing on AR-15's and that class of weapon, then that does not infringe on the right of the people to bear arms, as there are plenty of other types of arms available, other than that one. An arm means, a weapon.
And the AR is a weapon. If you allow any infringement, they won't quit with those. Many powerful Democrats have called for the confiscation of all guns.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does. “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993. “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995. …“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”
Senator Frank Launtenberg (D – NJ) did. “We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”
“I will get the NRA shut down for good if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.”-Hillary Clinton interview with Des Moines Register Aug. 8th, 2015
Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D – OH) did. “No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Constitution Subcommittee, 2 February, 1989
Vice President Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE) does. “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993 Representative Jan Schakowski (D – IL) does. “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” – Recorded 25 June, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp
Fmr. Representative Major Owens (D – NY) did. “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”
Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL) does. “My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”
Vermont State Mary Ann Carlson (D) does. “We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”
New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) does. ” …confiscation could be an option…” Sarah Brady, fmr. Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign) does. “…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997 “The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988…
“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” – The National Educator, January 1994, pg. 3, to Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum
Fmr. Chancellor of Boston University John Silber did. “I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”
Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno does. “The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.”-- Written affidavit by Fred Diamond, 1984 B’nai B’rith meeting in Coral Gables, Florida
Deborah Prothrow-Stith, of the Office of Government and Community Programs and the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health, does. “My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.” The ACLU does. “We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” ACLU #47.
“I now think the only way to control handgun use is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution. — M. Gartner, then President of NBC News, USA Today, January 16, 1992, pg. A9.
It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If you tighten up regulation and licensing on AR-15's and that class of weapon, then that does not infringe on the right of the people to bear arms, as there are plenty of other types of arms available, other than that one. An arm means, a weapon.
Maryland did that, tightened the regulations on "the most dangerous firearm in existence". After that was done legislation was introduced to tighten regulations on "the (next) most dangerous firearms in existence", pump action and semi-automatic shotguns.
That legislation hasn't gotten out of Committe yet, likely will in the session beginning in January, but will be passed when it does.
An old west six-shot revolver is a semi-automatic weapon
See, that's what my understanding was; One trigger-pull, one shot fired, one cartridge eject, then done.
To shoot another round, you just have to squeeze the trigger again, not having to reload another shell/bullet.
Is that true of a "semi-auto" or not?
If so, the six-shot revolver would indeed be a semi-auto, thusly, overstated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
Meh, I think they should be banning all guns. I'm fed up with the on-going carnage especially where children are concerned. It's just an advertising slogan for the gun lobby that somehow a well armed citizens' militia could overcome a tyrant in the White House. Did a citizen's militia kick Trump out? Nope. All citizens' militias manage to do is to create occasions for blood shed like Ruby Hill or Waco or the Oklahoma City bombing where Timothy McVeigh managed to off 168 people, including a bunch of little kids in the daycare center of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
Let's hear it for well armed militias! No, let's not.
I disagree.
This is why our votes cancel each other.
I'm not a militaologist myself. But I know enough to know this, you better not go causing trouble up in the northern nor western borders of Colorado. By the same token, I don't hear a lot about Hatfield and McCoy activity out there either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
The 2A says you can have an arm. That doesn't therefore mean that anyone can have any weapon at any time. Do you people want the craziest nut-job loonies out there to have anthrax and hydrogen bombs in their garage, and live next door to you? If not, then don't say you're not for regulation.
I don't recall the Constitution including Anthrax nor nuclear fusion.
Many powerful Democrats have called for the confiscation of all guns.
Dude, everyone knows there's no chance of anything like that ever happening, with the deep-rooted culture of the US. And I am one liberal who is not in favor of anything drastic like that at all. I think smaller changes would make a positive difference with the violence and the ridiculous mass shootings that we seem to be having in the news almost every single day, now.
I mean, we can't even hardly get any type of very narrow regulation through about one specific type of weapon. So, I mean, anyone can "call for" whatever, but that doesn't make it politically realistic whatsoever. You've also got quotes there, from decades ago.
But, I will say, if hypothetically they're ever going to do that, then they should get the bipartisan support and repeal the 2A. Then, it would be perfectly legal and constitutionally to restrict weapons. Hypothetically speaking. I mean, we repealed the 18A. There is a legal process for doing so. The constitution is not etched in stone. We can change it, if we found something that, you know, was written in the context of the 1700's, to no longer be relevant and serving our needs well, in the 2000's. (Cough, looking at you, electoral college.)
We do a lot of things right in this country, but to me our very loose gun policies in general are pretty nuts. Other countries are striking a much better balance, with this stuff. Americans are not well in the head, first of all, and the last thing most of them need, is a tool that allows them to twitch their damn finger and take a bunch of people's entire life away, in a matter of seconds.
You know, that's my take. And I'm not seeing a lot of nuanced or balanced or intellectual or good-faith takes or counter-arguments here from conservatives. Hmm, I wonder if that's a trend with this POC forum.
"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."
That, to me, doesn't say that any type of conceivable weapon, in all of the future (which the founders had no idea about, like nuclear rockets and crap, and whatever's still coming in the future), should be allowed to be kept by private citizens. It just does not say that. It says that there is a general right to have some kind of weapon.
Also, it specifically mentions a well-regulated militia, as being the whole point of the right. (Doesn't mention any other reason.) That, to me, in modern times is clearly the National Guard.
The militia is the People.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, as ALL of the items in the Bill of Rights do. It's a limitation on government, as ALL of the items in the Bill of Rights are.
One has to do some serious mental gymnastics to believe that there's this one little exception in there, where the Founders give ALL of the political power of the nation they were creating to be "of the People, by the People and for the People" to the government they were defining by using the language "the right of the People to keep and bear arms". They believed that all governments, if left unchecked, would eventually turn tyrannical and they'd just fought one off personally, but they gave this new government a monopoly on force, anyway, in a list of laws known as the "Bill of Rights"? Give me a break.
Anyway, DC v Heller has already settled the question. It's not a right reserved for any organized militia. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
Anyone involved in the military, public safety, highly trained private security, etc. Fine, they can have something more powerful. And maybe more consideration depending on how rural you are, etc. But the mentally unstable, angsty 18 year old kids, in suburban areas? Do we really need to be selling them these AR-15's and such?
Instead of challenging your proposal for a tiered rights system, an anecdote.
When I was growing up, there were mischievous things we opted not to do in part because we understood that if caught, our parents would face any legal liability for our pranks. Where did that go?
Once society stopped blaming parents for the actions of their children, many parents stopped caring about their children's actions. Not saying parenting is *the* problem, but the change in the "style" of parenting in the last few decades and the apparent shift in legal responsibility for the crimes of the kids certainly couldn't have helped any.
The problem of young men causing mass death has nothing to do with guns. They're just convenient (and yes, efficient) tools which are glorified in the worlds of these kids, so they use them. Take them away and they'll find other options, many of which could be worse by orders of magnitude. People don't want to ask why these things truly happen. Deep down, they know it's not the guns, but they want to point to the weapons and say they're the problem, anyway, and ignore or pretend it's unrelated when some kid plows his car through a parade.
The problem is the desire to do harm, not how it's being done. We need to address the problem. The weapons aren't it.
If I were set on doing harm to a large number of people, I wouldn't use a gun. Be thankful that these people who WILL continue harming large numbers of people until the real issues are addressed think that's the way to do it. You really don't want them getting creative. Trust me.
Dude, everyone knows there's no chance of anything like that ever happening, with the deep-rooted culture of the US. And I am one liberal who is not in favor of anything drastic like that at all. I think smaller changes would make a positive difference with the violence and the ridiculous mass shootings that we seem to be having in the news almost every single day, now.
I mean, we can't even hardly get any type of very narrow regulation through about one specific type of weapon. So, I mean, anyone can "call for" whatever, but that doesn't make it politically realistic whatsoever. You've also got quotes there, from decades ago.
But, I will say, if hypothetically they're ever going to do that, then they should get the bipartisan support and repeal the 2A. Then, it would be perfectly legal and constitutionally to restrict weapons. Hypothetically speaking. I mean, we repealed the 18A. There is a legal process for doing so. The constitution is not etched in stone. We can change it, if we found something that, you know, was written in the context of the 1700's, to no longer be relevant and serving our needs well, in the 2000's. (Cough, looking at you, electoral college.)
We do a lot of things right in this country, but to me our very loose gun policies in general are pretty nuts. Other countries are striking a much better balance, with this stuff. Americans are not well in the head, first of all, and the last thing most of them need, is a tool that allows them to twitch their damn finger and take a bunch of people's entire life away, in a matter of seconds.
You know, that's my take. And I'm not seeing a lot of nuanced or balanced or intellectual or good-faith takes or counter-arguments here from conservatives. Hmm, I wonder if that's a trend with this POC forum.
If they make them illegal, they won't come after them, but if you are caught hunting with one or with one in your car, they would arrest you and charge you with a felony. That would scare some people into giving up their guns.
In Maryland, most semi autos are illegal, now they are coming after shotguns. Probably handguns next.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, as ALL of the items in the Bill of Rights do. It's a limitation on government, as ALL of the items in the Bill of Rights are.
Agreed. I didn't say otherwise. As per the 2A, we do have a right to bear arms, clearly. That's also a general statement though, as that amendment is generally worded. The mental gymnastics is the trying to make it say things that it doesn't.
Should prisoners in a jail have the right to have guns? I mean, the constitution still applies to them, right? If we're going to be treating the 2A the way some would like it. I know the SCOTUS has ruled before that incarcerated people retain their rights.
Should convicted murderers and dangerous felons have their gun rights back, after they serve their time and re-join society, and etc.?
Should people be free to open carry loaded missile launchers into the office? Etc.
Point is, there's always exceptions, to anything. Because, you know, we need to exercise reason.
We can't legally ban all guns while the 2A is in effect, sure. That doesn't therefore mean that we can't have gun control.
Quote:
Anyway, DC v Heller has already settled the question.
Yeah, 5 out of 9 of them determined that conclusion, and 4 of them dissented. So do conservatives think that the SCOTUS has always gotten every decision right?
There are people for example who want to repeal the 2A, but it's not like they're arguing that it's not the law, while it is in effect. Not everyone agrees with, any of this stuff regarding guns. What the text of the 2A says is as "settled" as any other controversial decision by the courts.
Quote:
The problem of young men causing mass death has nothing to do with guns. They're just convenient (and yes, efficient) tools which are glorified in the worlds of these kids, so they use them. Take them away and they'll find other options, many of which could be worse by orders of magnitude. People don't want to ask why these things truly happen. Deep down, they know it's not the guns, but they want to point to the weapons and say they're the problem, anyway, and ignore or pretend it's unrelated when some kid plows his car through a parade.
The problem is the desire to do harm, not how it's being done. We need to address the problem. The weapons aren't it.
We need to address the problem. Agreed there. And any way we can address the problem, is good by me.
Conservatives in this country are looking at this situation of what has become near-daily massacres, the embarrassment that we are on the world stage, and seem to be just accepting of that. We need to do something about it, and that's the only reason I've ever supported gun control. No, it wouldn't do anything about the mental health of the populace, but it would do something about the means to kill lots of people efficiently. That's better than doing nothing.
And before someone says, well what about cars, etc.- yes, any tool can be misused, and abused. But when someone shoots a human with a gun, that's not a mis-use- they're using the thing for exactly what it was designed for. Guns are a special class of tool, with the sole purpose of shooting people. I think that they should be regulated as such, and not anything else.
We'll never prevent all tragedies. Even Denmark recently had one mass shooting. But I like how Lauren Boebert pointed that out on Twitter, like it was an example that gun control failed. It's a massive success, for them. And just because we can't 100% solve the problem, doesn't mean that we should do nothing at all.
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.
