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.
Maybe. But at least they promised to not be around firearms.
This happens regularly in that particular County (Charles) and while other cases for different crimes name the Judge involved about 90% of the time, the stories that feature illegal gun possession with O.R. never have the Judge's name.
When Obama was president, he had the CDC do a study on guns. They estimated there are between 500,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses yearly. It was not widely publicized because it was the opposite of what he wanted.
The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say the right to bear muskets shall not be infringed.
And if the Founders intended the citizenry to only be allowed the most basic of firearms, then why didn't they word it that way?
Why are there no historical accounts of them enforcing that interpretation?
Are you seriously asking me why people in the 1700's didn't specifically call out tanks, Uzi's and AK47's? All arms in existence were pretty basic. They could fire a few rounds in a minute, or something like that.
They wrote the constitution to be amendable, and that was sort of the main future-proofing effort of it.
We live in a completely different world than when that amendment was written, in every kind of way. That's not to say it wasn't or isn't wise, or worth keeping, but it clearly is outdated, just like the third amendment.
No but their limited ability to anticipate technology changes would have assumed we would have access to muskets.
But I get your point.
You know, we go thru this over and over again, of how the musket was not the only shoulder gun back then. The Puckle gun, for example, predated the Constitution by decades and had an external insertable magazine, like the -15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
No but their limited ability to anticipate technology changes would have assumed we would have access to muskets.
But I get your point.
It's a myth that they couldn't anticipate changes in weapons technology.
They had seen advances before and during their lifetimes. The muskets commonly used at the time were more reliable, deadly, accurate and faster to reload than weapons from just a few decades prior.
And the first semiautomatic prototypes predated the singing of the Constitution by 58 years.
But the technology didn't exist yet to mass produce them.
No one likes negligent firearms owners, or thugs. That we can agree on.
It makes me so angry. I get convinced it should be okay for people to have their guns, to have them in their cars, etc...and then they go and let someone steal it. I know it isn't most.....
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'm all for criminals losoing guns and would love my neighbors to stop leaving their guns in unlocked cars.
So left, right or independent --- not eveyrone wants to take your gun...but can we all agree responsible gun ownrs are sometimes not so reponsible.
Problem is... criminals would not be losing their guns. Because they are criminals, by definition, they do not follow laws. If they don't mind breaking a law against murder, I'm pretty sure they won't mind breaking a law against having a firearm.
And don't tell me that guns would not be available if they were against the law. LSD is against the law, and I could (if I wanted to, but don't) drive down on main street right now and score a hit. Or cocaine. Or mushrooms. Or pot. Etc. All of that is against the law and easily available. You are not going to stop a criminal from getting a gun by telling him they are against the law.
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.
