If you are worried that the court could deem that owning Semi-automatic riffle is like owning a sawed-off shotgun.... I could then see your point. “ Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose”. Replace Sawed-off shotguns with semi-automatic rifles.... becomes scary no?
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
Hey guys. The street lights just came on and my mom is calling me home for dinner. I think it was Frank that basically said no one’s opinion is going to change and I agree. I personally think we need back ground checks and a registry. In my opinion, VHO, if you’re law abiding citizen of the US you have nothing to worry about. You’re all good people. But before discussion turns to argument turns to hate I’m going to bow out. Good night all.
@Vision said:
if you’re law abiding citizen of the US you have nothing to worry about. .
Right.
That's the kind of thing my ancestors were told, right before they were herded onto reservations.
We need you to register, so we can tell how many of you there are.
That's what they were told, right before they removed all weapons and property and driven onto reservations.
So yeah, I wouldn't trust the govt for any kind of registration.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
@Vision said:
if you’re law abiding citizen of the US you have nothing to worry about. .
Right.
That's the kind of thing my ancestors were told, right before they were herded onto reservations.
We need you to register, so we can tell how many of you there are.
That's what they were told, right before they removed all weapons and property and driven onto reservations.
So yeah, I wouldn't trust the govt for any kind of registration.
Please keep reminding people of what has already been done. Remind these people they are elected officials and we know what their end game is.
Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
Very interesting discussion. Good that the Governments history of lying, changing the story, moving the goal-posts etc. was brought into it. I do have sympathy for Pete's position on fully automatic weapons. Fun though they may be, there's not much practical purpose outside military applications.
That point, plus the daily news, brings me to another issue that seems to have no viable answers today. Why? Why are lunatics gunning down people?
Some thoughts. We've stopped teaching kids what it means to lose. They've never lost a game because they're all little winners. Everybody gets a trophy. No one faces the realities.
Then
They enter the real world where nobody thinks they're special, no one praises them for lying about doing their job, the way they used to lie about doing / losing their homework. No one is telling them that just showing up is good enough, suddenly they're expected to show up and perform like they know what they're doing.
How many video games teach the reward that is felt by pulling a trigger and watching your enemies go up in smoke? Or get blown to bits? Oooh, I feel better now. Reset. And the little spoiled brat who's never felt the belt as a result of his own actions starts to wonder "what would it be like...?" The concept of "Thrill-kill" starts to infiltrate his egocentric consciousness.
The full impact of ramifications isn't grasped in his special entitled little brain, because he's a winner no matter what. Everyone's always said so. Pain and suffering are distant concepts that happen to other people in other parts of the world, not him.
This is why I say paddling a child at school does not teach him to hit, it teaches him what it feels like to be hit, so he thinks twice before hitting. No child has to be taught to hit. Put 30 two year olds who've never seen hitting in a room with 12 toys, remove all adults, within 10 minutes one of them will hit another.
I know there are many that will disagree with this position. I know because they're raising the people who are out there committing these atrocities. Time to stop rambling and ranting. Thank you for your time and attention to these matters. Get off my lawn.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
We're being taught to be obsessed with isms and ists. Everything's excused by or attributed to these obsessions.
But, I'm not getting into that swamp right now. Many of you understand what I'm talking about already, and the others think that isms and ists are truly important, and will not be changed.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@Vision said:
Hey guys. The street lights just came on and my mom is calling me home for dinner. I think it was Frank that basically said no one’s opinion is going to change and I agree. I personally think we need back ground checks and a registry. In my opinion, VHO, if you’re law abiding citizen of the US you have nothing to worry about. You’re all good people. But before discussion turns to argument turns to hate I’m going to bow out. Good night all.
In a perfect world, background checks etc won't be a problem for the law abiding citizen. However we all know that the world is ruled by politicians with an agenda. One other point, if every other right, is individual, why would the 2nd apply to the state?
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
On the point that @Vision made about the second amendment not applying to some sort of handheld mass killing weapon, It's a valid point even if the gun people don't want to admit it. The founding fathers never did actually imagine that one guy could shoot 400 people in 10 minutes. Okay conspiracy guys I'll even give you the second mystery non-existent shooter. Two guys shot 400 people in 10 minutes.
The supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled dozens of times in dozens of instances all dealing with the Bill of Rights that the greater public good and safety trumps and individual right. That's why you cannot yell fire in a crowded hall. That's why the TSA exists. That's why it was legal for social media to ban a sitting president.
Once again I'll say it in a different way. Gun people have arguments that directly contradict with other arguments that they are making. You say you don't want to register because it's somehow a scarlet letter, pointing out where you are so the government can come and get you. Then In the next breath you say that the government gives you the right to have them and so therefore they cannot be taken away.
The problem isn't even with the contradiction and argument. The problem for me is that you know your contradicting yourself and in knowing that and still making the argument, you assume that everyone against you is too stupid to see through it.
Please don't call me stupid. You can call me fat or ugly or jerk or a jerk off, all of which are probably true. But I'm not stupid.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
The Founders did not give us these rights. They merely recognized these preexisting rights and protected them with a Bill of Rights. These rights are preexisting, as in they existed before government. The Bill of Rights reserves and protects these rights for the people, from the government.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
@ShawnOL said:
The Founders did not give us these rights. They merely recognized these preexisting rights and protected them with a Bill of Rights. These rights are preexisting, as in they existed before government. The Bill of Rights reserves and protects these rights for the people, from the government.
True but this is just semantics, Shawn. If those rights pre-existed for everybody, then they would apply to everybody in the entire world. They don't. They apply to us because our founders codified it in writing, and our governmental representatives voted it in.
In that regard, the government provides the right to bear arms. You can argue it's God instead of the government, but you fall back on the governmental document when referencing that right. Therefore, you also believe that the government gives us the right to bear arms.
Then in the other breath, you fear that the government is coming to take your guns away if they are registered. Why wouldn't the government just remove the right? Then you wouldn't have a right to have them in the recognized sovereign boundaries of the United States!
That's why the registration for confiscation argument doesn't make sense.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Yes I admit that Edward. But there's still a contradiction in argument going on here. Gun people want to ensure that law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, as granted to them in the Constitution and by God or some other preexisting condition.
If the law were to change, would the people with AR-15s or other similarly theoretically banned weapons still choose to be law-abiding citizens? Never mind the impossible logistics of confiscating them or anything else.
I say they wouldn't. I say they only claim to be law abiding citizens because the law is on their side. If that were to change, their tune would change to.
That's why the gun argument is a self-licking ice cream cone to me. We contradict our first argument with the second argument, and then we contradict the second argument with the third argument, which agrees with the first argument, but does not agree with the fourth argument.
It's a self-licking ice cream cone in my opinion.
Depending on which play the anti-gun people run, the gun lobby sets up its defense accordingly.
True that's been very effective over the years, but every time they haul out bloody kindergartners, you get closer and closer to a ban or a restriction or a limitation or a tracking mechanism.
What I propose that the gun lobby does, to be followed by all of the gun toting Patriots in America, is to fix the problem of 25 dead kindergarteners and 411 people shot at Mandalay Bay in 10 minutes. Propose the solution and implement it.
God-given pre-existing second amendment rights notwithstanding.
The proof that your solution works is the elimination of 25 dead kindergarteners and 411 people being rushed to the hospital in the back of a van or pickup truck after attending a Las Vegas concert. You do that, then you get to keep your guns and nobody gets to say a word to you.
And if they do, I will speak out against them!
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
So tell me Frank,
Were the indians "not law abiding citizens" when their land was taken?
Or did they become "not law abiding citizens" when the govt made it so?
I know, apples to oranges, right?
Well, not really. Guns are only the item. The premise is civil liberties.
Say what you want, but when the govt goes after a civil liberty, especially one of the biggest ones, be concerned. Everyone should be concerned.
Do I think that people need an AR-15? That is not up for you and I to decide.
Do I need one? No.
Do I want one? No.
Do I have guns? Yes.
Why? Because I hunt and dear, elk and bear are all meat that are in my freezer.
You are stuck on one instance. And I get that instance had a great impact on you and don't intend to downplay it at all.
But, you want to change the laws across the land, because one lunatic.
If you are driving down the road, minding your own business and following the laws of the road, should you be pulled over?
The supreme court says no, in quite a few states.
Probably cause is needed. That is open to interpretation, of course.
So, if the "law abiding citizen" shouldn't be concerned about getting pulled over for doing nothing wrong, why should the "law abiding citizen" worry about having to document and register their legally purchased property?
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
All my guns went through a FFL Dealer and I also passed the mandatory FBI background check for the FFL to legally be able to transfer them to me.
This registration stuff everyone is talking about makes zero sense to me. Register what? Mine and anyone else in the United States of American are already registered with their State and FBI when you go pick them up through an FFL Dealer. The FFL Dealer CAN NOT transfer the rifle or pistol or whatever it's classified as if you don't pass the FBI back ground check.
Trump banned the "Bump Stocks" that turned the AR/AK platforms into high rate of fire, still technically semi-automatic rifles/pistols for anyone who was not aware.
If you quote me do the @TX98Z28 in your text or I won't be notified of your quote, Thanks.
As I understand it, part of the push for registration is because background checks aren't always done at gun shows or person to person transfers. Traceable guns are a good thing when some innocent soul gets shot in my opinion.
@TX98Z28 said:
All my guns went through a FFL Dealer and I also passed the mandatory FBI background check for the FFL to legally be able to transfer them to me.
This registration stuff everyone is talking about makes zero sense to me. Register what? Mine and anyone else in the United States of American are already registered with their State and FBI when you go pick them up through an FFL Dealer. The FFL Dealer CAN NOT transfer the rifle or pistol or whatever it's classified as if you don't pass the FBI back ground check.
Trump banned the "Bump Stocks" that turned the AR/AK platforms into high rate of fire, still technically semi-automatic rifles/pistols for anyone who was not aware.
There is no Federal registration requirement for most conventional sporting firearms. Only those firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) (e.g., machineguns, short-barrel firearms, silencers, destructive devices, any other weapons) must be registered with ATF.
The atrocities that the government subjected native Americans to are awful. Should they then have risen up, taken a stand, and continued to fight for their land? Maybe, but I think they would have lost. Parking Indians on reservations was the US government's compromise with those people to end armed conflict.
It ain't right. Fair enough.
Does that mean that if some sort of confiscation takes place, you should rise up against that confiscation and wage war? That's up to you to decide. But you'll be fighting your brothers and your sons. Tough call I guess.
Do I think you need an AR-15? I don't care if you have an AR-15. I care that Steven paddock had 26 of them And use them to shoot 400 people in 10 minutes. The care that I certifiably insane person took one single gun and ruined the lives of 25 families forever in less than 2 minutes. I think registration may have prevented the first case, And maybe not the second case.
Either way, registration was simply was my suggestion.
You guys don't like registration. Fine.
I will go back to the thesis of the 2,685 words that I have written on this subject over the last few days.
Find your solution. Make it work.
From the last five comments, I gather that either some of you think that the problem isn't big enough or that it's not up to you to find a solution. Both of those may be true, but you can head off any potential overreach by the government by finding and implementing a solution today.
The Patriot Act was passed and signed into law after one single day of terrorism. The Patriot Act infringes on at least three of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. Maybe more. You don't think that a bunch of crazed political nut jobs would pass a law restricting your holy amendment? From where I sit, I sure do. In fact, I think that had Obama owned the legislature during Sandy Hook, every "assault rifle" owner would have fingerprints in the national system with AR-15 stamped on his photo.
So once again for the 20th time, there is a national problem. Even if you don't think there's a problem, there's a perception of a problem and perception is reality brother. Own the solution to it, before someone else passes one that you don't want.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@TX98Z28 said:
All my guns went through a FFL Dealer and I also passed the mandatory FBI background check for the FFL to legally be able to transfer them to me.
This registration stuff everyone is talking about makes zero sense to me. Register what? Mine and anyone else in the United States of American are already registered with their State and FBI when you go pick them up through an FFL Dealer. The FFL Dealer CAN NOT transfer the rifle or pistol or whatever it's classified as if you don't pass the FBI back ground check.
Trump banned the "Bump Stocks" that turned the AR/AK platforms into high rate of fire, still technically semi-automatic rifles/pistols for anyone who was not aware.
There is no Federal registration requirement for most conventional sporting firearms. Only those firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) (e.g., machineguns, short-barrel firearms, silencers, destructive devices, any other weapons) must be registered with ATF.
So you expect me to believe the FBI who has my serial numbers for the back ground checks and to complete the transfers didn't keep or share my information? I don't think so and I without a doubt don't trust are Federal Government no matter who's in office. If the FBI has my serial numbers they are in the "system" and I'm sure every branch/agency of are corrupt Federal Government has them too. If that doesn't qualify as registered then I don't know what does.
If you quote me do the @TX98Z28 in your text or I won't be notified of your quote, Thanks.
Ok, I get what you are saying.
But let me ask you this.
Do you think registration would have stopped Vegas?
After all, he purchased all those guns and ammo legally.
Went through the background checks and all that.
Or should any person who has had any mental evaluation done, lose their rights to be able to purchase guns? If so, Biden and Trump both fit that criteria, along with at least 50% of vets.
In fact, quite a few of the shootings that have taken place, more stringent regulations would have stopped nothing.
I do not have the answers. But more restrictions usually only creates headaches those people doing nothing wrong.
It isn't that I don't think the problem isn't big enough, I just don't see how to produce a solution that will be legally acceptable, contain the issue and protect the rights of the citizens. Which all 3 of those criteria must be met, in order to produce a solution that will be acceptable and not be challenged or over-thrown.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
@TX98Z28 said:
All my guns went through a FFL Dealer and I also passed the mandatory FBI background check for the FFL to legally be able to transfer them to me.
This registration stuff everyone is talking about makes zero sense to me. Register what? Mine and anyone else in the United States of American are already registered with their State and FBI when you go pick them up through an FFL Dealer. The FFL Dealer CAN NOT transfer the rifle or pistol or whatever it's classified as if you don't pass the FBI back ground check.
Trump banned the "Bump Stocks" that turned the AR/AK platforms into high rate of fire, still technically semi-automatic rifles/pistols for anyone who was not aware.
There is no Federal registration requirement for most conventional sporting firearms. Only those firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) (e.g., machineguns, short-barrel firearms, silencers, destructive devices, any other weapons) must be registered with ATF.
So you expect me to believe the FBI who has my serial numbers for the back ground checks and to complete the transfers didn't keep or share my information? I don't think so and I without a doubt don't trust are Federal Government no matter who's in office. If the FBI has my serial numbers they are in the "system" and I'm sure every branch/agency of are corrupt Federal Government has them too. If that doesn't qualify as registered then I don't know what does.
Don't expect anyone to believe anything.
That is what the ATF states.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
@TX98Z28 said:
All my guns went through a FFL Dealer and I also passed the mandatory FBI background check for the FFL to legally be able to transfer them to me.
This registration stuff everyone is talking about makes zero sense to me. Register what? Mine and anyone else in the United States of American are already registered with their State and FBI when you go pick them up through an FFL Dealer. The FFL Dealer CAN NOT transfer the rifle or pistol or whatever it's classified as if you don't pass the FBI back ground check.
Trump banned the "Bump Stocks" that turned the AR/AK platforms into high rate of fire, still technically semi-automatic rifles/pistols for anyone who was not aware.
There is no Federal registration requirement for most conventional sporting firearms. Only those firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) (e.g., machineguns, short-barrel firearms, silencers, destructive devices, any other weapons) must be registered with ATF.
So you expect me to believe the FBI who has my serial numbers for the back ground checks and to complete the transfers didn't keep or share my information? I don't think so and I without a doubt don't trust are Federal Government no matter who's in office. If the FBI has my serial numbers they are in the "system" and I'm sure every branch/agency of are corrupt Federal Government has them too. If that doesn't qualify as registered then I don't know what does.
Don't expect anyone to believe anything.
That is what the ATF states.
Fair enough, well said.
If you quote me do the @TX98Z28 in your text or I won't be notified of your quote, Thanks.
@Amos_Umwhat said:
Very interesting discussion. Good that the Governments history of lying, changing the story, moving the goal-posts etc. was brought into it. I do have sympathy for Pete's position on fully automatic weapons. Fun though they may be, there's not much practical purpose outside military applications.
Let's keep in mind that when the 2nd Amendment was penned citizens had the same firepower (think rifles) as militaries.
From what I understand, the 2nd Amendment is (partly) intended so We the ''people'' (becoming a well related militia) could, if necessary, overthrow an oppressive government.
The government disarming or diminishing our capabilities to do so favors the oppressive government. Would it not?
We the people should be able to form a well related militia with the same firepower as our government.
In my opinion we the people are fragmented (not currently having a well regulated militia). Therein lies a problem.
A few years ago I wanted to form such a nationwide organization. My efforts didn't gain much traction. Maybe I was approaching it from the wrong angle. Resources were also a major factor. I'd like to revisit this idea with folks smarter than I as well as having the resources necessary to bring this concept to fruition. Else we're selling the 2nd Amendment short by not embracing its full potential nor will we have the wherewithal to overthrow a repressive government if that time ever comes. Times are looking pretty scary these days indeed!
Background checks? Sure. I'd also like to see similar requirements for voting; ensuring one is competent (not to mention having legal standing) to vote. But I digress
Registries? Never! Conceal permits? Not a big fan. I'm also not a big fan of open carry either. The argument against permits is usually that if we're legal to own firearms we shouldn't need the government granting us permission to carry concealed. I'll conced to this...
However I see much ignorance surrounding carrying for personal protection not to mention the lack of skills necessary to competently execute in such a situation.
That should be the only argument FOR permits (showing one has been educated and understands the governing laws around use of force as well as being compotently trained by a certified firearms instructor; such as myself, also a former law enforcement officer). Currently, in Colorado, there are very basic requirements. The law is worded very specifically ensuring the government (sheriff's departments) SHALL ISSUE and that the necessary requirements are not constricting.
However most CCW courses (like the NRA course) never even touches on state laws around Use of Force. They're the same laws to govern police officers actually! I teach this first in my CCW course! We have to show understanding basic traffic laws (and are tested on it) before being granted a driver's license. Why would one even consider carrying for personal protection if they don't know the basic laws? Ignorance (IMO). They don't know what they don't know...
Lastly, I agree with others, that we're not about to change the minds of those against the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd protects and ensures the 1st to say the least!
Gotta go. I think there's someone on my lawn! Haha
@0patience said:
Ok, I get what you are saying.
But let me ask you this.
Do you think registration would have stopped Vegas?
After all, he purchased all those guns and ammo legally.
Went through the background checks and all that.
Maybe? Maybe not, too. Buuuut, if a guy who has 3 to 5 dozen of these things all bought in different states, all with bumps, thousands of tracers and tens of thousands of rounds, he may have been on a watch list. I'd have to imagine that he's in the top 2 percent of owners in volume and capability. Worth a look-see.
Or should any person who has had any mental evaluation done, lose their rights to be able to purchase guns? If so, Biden and Trump both fit that criteria, along with at least 50% of vets.
Yes. And yes, there are consequences. And no, I don't want Biden OR Trump having one, if I had my way. Oh, and Trump may lose his ability to buy one anyhow if he's convicted for a felony.
In fact, quite a few of the shootings that have taken place, more stringent regulations would have stopped nothing.
True enough. What's the solution? I know what Beto's solution is. What's yours? (Back on subject like a pro!)
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@Amos_Umwhat said:
Very interesting discussion. Good that the Governments history of lying, changing the story, moving the goal-posts etc. was brought into it. I do have sympathy for Pete's position on fully automatic weapons. Fun though they may be, there's not much practical purpose outside military applications.
Let's keep in mind that when the 2nd Amendment was penned citizens had the same firepower (think rifles) as militaries.
From what I understand, the 2nd Amendment is (partly) intended so We the ''people'' (becoming a well related militia) could, if necessary, overthrow an oppressive government.
The government disarming or diminishing our capabilities to do so favors the oppressive government. Would it not?
We the people should be able to form a well related militia with the same firepower as our government.
In my opinion we the people are fragmented (not currently having a well regulated militia). Therein lies a problem.
A few years ago I wanted to form such a nationwide organization. My efforts didn't gain much traction. Maybe I was approaching it from the wrong angle. Resources were also a major factor. I'd like to revisit this idea with folks smarter than I as well as having the resources necessary to bring this concept to fruition. Else we're selling the 2nd Amendment short by not embracing its full potential nor will we have the wherewithal to overthrow a repressive government if that time ever comes. Times are looking pretty scary these days indeed!
Background checks? Sure. I'd also like to see similar requirements for voting; ensuring one is competent (not to mention having legal standing) to vote. But I digress
Registries? Never! Conceal permits? Not a big fan. I'm also not a big fan of open carry either. The argument against permits is usually that if we're legal to own firearms we shouldn't need the government granting us permission to carry concealed. I'll conced to this...
However I see much ignorance surrounding carrying for personal protection not to mention the lack of skills necessary to competently execute in such a situation.
That should be the only argument FOR permits (showing one has been educated and understands the governing laws around use of force as well as being compotently trained by a certified firearms instructor; such as myself, also a former law enforcement officer). Currently, in Colorado, there are very basic requirements. The law is worded very specifically ensuring the government (sheriff's departments) SHALL ISSUE and that the necessary requirements are not constricting.
However most CCW courses (like the NRA course) never even touches on state laws around Use of Force. They're the same laws to govern police officers actually! I teach this first in my CCW course! We have to show understanding basic traffic laws (and are tested on it) before being granted a driver's license. Why would one even consider carrying for personal protection if they don't know the basic laws? Ignorance (IMO). They don't know what they don't know...
Lastly, I agree with others, that we're not about to change the minds of those against the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd protects and ensures the 1st to say the least!
Gotta go. I think there's someone on my lawn! Haha
Interesting concept. I wonder if today's government would allow for a well regulated militia. My guess is no, or if they did, they would legislate it so hard that the militia would have no teeth left in it.
But I do like the concept as a constitutional test. What would that have meant on January 6th?
Never thought of it in the terms you stated. So if that's true, then you should be able to own not only AR 15s, but M16s, full auto weapons, tanks, maybe an F16 and maybe a nuke or some mustard gas?
Yes that was a little facetious, so my legitimate question is, since we clearly know there's a line, where is it? Why is it there? Why do we accept that line?
Very very interesting ...
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@0patience said:
Ok, I get what you are saying.
But let me ask you this.
Do you think registration would have stopped Vegas?
After all, he purchased all those guns and ammo legally.
Went through the background checks and all that.
Maybe? Maybe not, too. Buuuut, if a guy who has 3 to 5 dozen of these things all bought in different states, all with bumps, thousands of tracers and tens of thousands of rounds, he may have been on a watch list. I'd have to imagine that he's in the top 2 percent of owners in volume and capability. Worth a look-see.
Or should any person who has had any mental evaluation done, lose their rights to be able to purchase guns? If so, Biden and Trump both fit that criteria, along with at least 50% of vets.
Yes. And yes, there are consequences. And no, I don't want Biden OR Trump having one, if I had my way. Oh, and Trump may lose his ability to buy one anyhow if he's convicted for a felony.
In fact, quite a few of the shootings that have taken place, more stringent regulations would have stopped nothing.
True enough. What's the solution? I know what Beto's solution is. What's yours? (Back on subject like a pro!)
I do not have an answer, but then again, I am neither a politician, nor do I profess to be an expert.
Some quotes that still hold true and have basis, even in today's world.
"Ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy."
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater the need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance and enable him to plunder at pleasure."
"All the property that is necessary to a man for the conservation of the individual… is his natural right which none can justly deprive him of."
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Clearly something is not working. Laws? Law enforcement? Is there a better approach? What?
NYT: The 19-year-old gunman, a former employee at the site, had previously been reported to the law enforcement authorities by his mother, who warned them last year that her son might attempt “suicide by cop.” He also bought two semiautomatic rifles months after a gun was seized from him over his mental state, officials said.
Comments
If you are worried that the court could deem that owning Semi-automatic riffle is like owning a sawed-off shotgun.... I could then see your point. “ Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose”. Replace Sawed-off shotguns with semi-automatic rifles.... becomes scary no?
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
Also from Cornell Law
Actually @VegasFrank you have it wrong. It’s illegal for people from Massachusetts to go to Newport RI.
Hey guys. The street lights just came on and my mom is calling me home for dinner. I think it was Frank that basically said no one’s opinion is going to change and I agree. I personally think we need back ground checks and a registry. In my opinion, VHO, if you’re law abiding citizen of the US you have nothing to worry about. You’re all good people. But before discussion turns to argument turns to hate I’m going to bow out. Good night all.
Brother we are going to have to agree to disagree
Right.
That's the kind of thing my ancestors were told, right before they were herded onto reservations.
We need you to register, so we can tell how many of you there are.
That's what they were told, right before they removed all weapons and property and driven onto reservations.
So yeah, I wouldn't trust the govt for any kind of registration.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Please keep reminding people of what has already been done. Remind these people they are elected officials and we know what their end game is.
Very interesting discussion. Good that the Governments history of lying, changing the story, moving the goal-posts etc. was brought into it. I do have sympathy for Pete's position on fully automatic weapons. Fun though they may be, there's not much practical purpose outside military applications.
That point, plus the daily news, brings me to another issue that seems to have no viable answers today. Why? Why are lunatics gunning down people?
Some thoughts. We've stopped teaching kids what it means to lose. They've never lost a game because they're all little winners. Everybody gets a trophy. No one faces the realities.
Then
They enter the real world where nobody thinks they're special, no one praises them for lying about doing their job, the way they used to lie about doing / losing their homework. No one is telling them that just showing up is good enough, suddenly they're expected to show up and perform like they know what they're doing.
How many video games teach the reward that is felt by pulling a trigger and watching your enemies go up in smoke? Or get blown to bits? Oooh, I feel better now. Reset. And the little spoiled brat who's never felt the belt as a result of his own actions starts to wonder "what would it be like...?" The concept of "Thrill-kill" starts to infiltrate his egocentric consciousness.
The full impact of ramifications isn't grasped in his special entitled little brain, because he's a winner no matter what. Everyone's always said so. Pain and suffering are distant concepts that happen to other people in other parts of the world, not him.
This is why I say paddling a child at school does not teach him to hit, it teaches him what it feels like to be hit, so he thinks twice before hitting. No child has to be taught to hit. Put 30 two year olds who've never seen hitting in a room with 12 toys, remove all adults, within 10 minutes one of them will hit another.
I know there are many that will disagree with this position. I know because they're raising the people who are out there committing these atrocities. Time to stop rambling and ranting. Thank you for your time and attention to these matters. Get off my lawn.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
OK, one more thought:
-ism's
We're being taught to be obsessed with isms and ists. Everything's excused by or attributed to these obsessions.
But, I'm not getting into that swamp right now. Many of you understand what I'm talking about already, and the others think that isms and ists are truly important, and will not be changed.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
In a perfect world, background checks etc won't be a problem for the law abiding citizen. However we all know that the world is ruled by politicians with an agenda. One other point, if every other right, is individual, why would the 2nd apply to the state?
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
On the point that @Vision made about the second amendment not applying to some sort of handheld mass killing weapon, It's a valid point even if the gun people don't want to admit it. The founding fathers never did actually imagine that one guy could shoot 400 people in 10 minutes. Okay conspiracy guys I'll even give you the second mystery non-existent shooter. Two guys shot 400 people in 10 minutes.
The supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled dozens of times in dozens of instances all dealing with the Bill of Rights that the greater public good and safety trumps and individual right. That's why you cannot yell fire in a crowded hall. That's why the TSA exists. That's why it was legal for social media to ban a sitting president.
Once again I'll say it in a different way. Gun people have arguments that directly contradict with other arguments that they are making. You say you don't want to register because it's somehow a scarlet letter, pointing out where you are so the government can come and get you. Then In the next breath you say that the government gives you the right to have them and so therefore they cannot be taken away.
The problem isn't even with the contradiction and argument. The problem for me is that you know your contradicting yourself and in knowing that and still making the argument, you assume that everyone against you is too stupid to see through it.
Please don't call me stupid. You can call me fat or ugly or jerk or a jerk off, all of which are probably true. But I'm not stupid.
The Founders did not give us these rights. They merely recognized these preexisting rights and protected them with a Bill of Rights. These rights are preexisting, as in they existed before government. The Bill of Rights reserves and protects these rights for the people, from the government.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
True but this is just semantics, Shawn. If those rights pre-existed for everybody, then they would apply to everybody in the entire world. They don't. They apply to us because our founders codified it in writing, and our governmental representatives voted it in.
In that regard, the government provides the right to bear arms. You can argue it's God instead of the government, but you fall back on the governmental document when referencing that right. Therefore, you also believe that the government gives us the right to bear arms.
Then in the other breath, you fear that the government is coming to take your guns away if they are registered. Why wouldn't the government just remove the right? Then you wouldn't have a right to have them in the recognized sovereign boundaries of the United States!
That's why the registration for confiscation argument doesn't make sense.
Frank, you have to admit that registration makes them easier to find should the gov't elect to go the confiscation route.
Yes I admit that Edward. But there's still a contradiction in argument going on here. Gun people want to ensure that law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, as granted to them in the Constitution and by God or some other preexisting condition.
If the law were to change, would the people with AR-15s or other similarly theoretically banned weapons still choose to be law-abiding citizens? Never mind the impossible logistics of confiscating them or anything else.
I say they wouldn't. I say they only claim to be law abiding citizens because the law is on their side. If that were to change, their tune would change to.
That's why the gun argument is a self-licking ice cream cone to me. We contradict our first argument with the second argument, and then we contradict the second argument with the third argument, which agrees with the first argument, but does not agree with the fourth argument.
It's a self-licking ice cream cone in my opinion.
Depending on which play the anti-gun people run, the gun lobby sets up its defense accordingly.
True that's been very effective over the years, but every time they haul out bloody kindergartners, you get closer and closer to a ban or a restriction or a limitation or a tracking mechanism.
What I propose that the gun lobby does, to be followed by all of the gun toting Patriots in America, is to fix the problem of 25 dead kindergarteners and 411 people shot at Mandalay Bay in 10 minutes. Propose the solution and implement it.
God-given pre-existing second amendment rights notwithstanding.
The proof that your solution works is the elimination of 25 dead kindergarteners and 411 people being rushed to the hospital in the back of a van or pickup truck after attending a Las Vegas concert. You do that, then you get to keep your guns and nobody gets to say a word to you.
And if they do, I will speak out against them!
So tell me Frank,
Were the indians "not law abiding citizens" when their land was taken?
Or did they become "not law abiding citizens" when the govt made it so?
I know, apples to oranges, right?
Well, not really. Guns are only the item. The premise is civil liberties.
Say what you want, but when the govt goes after a civil liberty, especially one of the biggest ones, be concerned. Everyone should be concerned.
Do I think that people need an AR-15? That is not up for you and I to decide.
Do I need one? No.
Do I want one? No.
Do I have guns? Yes.
Why? Because I hunt and dear, elk and bear are all meat that are in my freezer.
You are stuck on one instance. And I get that instance had a great impact on you and don't intend to downplay it at all.
But, you want to change the laws across the land, because one lunatic.
If you are driving down the road, minding your own business and following the laws of the road, should you be pulled over?
The supreme court says no, in quite a few states.
Probably cause is needed. That is open to interpretation, of course.
So, if the "law abiding citizen" shouldn't be concerned about getting pulled over for doing nothing wrong, why should the "law abiding citizen" worry about having to document and register their legally purchased property?
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
All my guns went through a FFL Dealer and I also passed the mandatory FBI background check for the FFL to legally be able to transfer them to me.
This registration stuff everyone is talking about makes zero sense to me. Register what? Mine and anyone else in the United States of American are already registered with their State and FBI when you go pick them up through an FFL Dealer. The FFL Dealer CAN NOT transfer the rifle or pistol or whatever it's classified as if you don't pass the FBI back ground check.
Trump banned the "Bump Stocks" that turned the AR/AK platforms into high rate of fire, still technically semi-automatic rifles/pistols for anyone who was not aware.
Maybe if the government actually enforced the laws they have already passed, they wouldn't need to pass more.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
As I understand it, part of the push for registration is because background checks aren't always done at gun shows or person to person transfers. Traceable guns are a good thing when some innocent soul gets shot in my opinion.
There is no Federal registration requirement for most conventional sporting firearms. Only those firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) (e.g., machineguns, short-barrel firearms, silencers, destructive devices, any other weapons) must be registered with ATF.
In fact, federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/0813-firearms-top-12-qaspdf
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
@0patience
The atrocities that the government subjected native Americans to are awful. Should they then have risen up, taken a stand, and continued to fight for their land? Maybe, but I think they would have lost. Parking Indians on reservations was the US government's compromise with those people to end armed conflict.
It ain't right. Fair enough.
Does that mean that if some sort of confiscation takes place, you should rise up against that confiscation and wage war? That's up to you to decide. But you'll be fighting your brothers and your sons. Tough call I guess.
Do I think you need an AR-15? I don't care if you have an AR-15. I care that Steven paddock had 26 of them And use them to shoot 400 people in 10 minutes. The care that I certifiably insane person took one single gun and ruined the lives of 25 families forever in less than 2 minutes. I think registration may have prevented the first case, And maybe not the second case.
Either way, registration was simply was my suggestion.
You guys don't like registration. Fine.
I will go back to the thesis of the 2,685 words that I have written on this subject over the last few days.
Find your solution. Make it work.
From the last five comments, I gather that either some of you think that the problem isn't big enough or that it's not up to you to find a solution. Both of those may be true, but you can head off any potential overreach by the government by finding and implementing a solution today.
The Patriot Act was passed and signed into law after one single day of terrorism. The Patriot Act infringes on at least three of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. Maybe more. You don't think that a bunch of crazed political nut jobs would pass a law restricting your holy amendment? From where I sit, I sure do. In fact, I think that had Obama owned the legislature during Sandy Hook, every "assault rifle" owner would have fingerprints in the national system with AR-15 stamped on his photo.
So once again for the 20th time, there is a national problem. Even if you don't think there's a problem, there's a perception of a problem and perception is reality brother. Own the solution to it, before someone else passes one that you don't want.
So you expect me to believe the FBI who has my serial numbers for the back ground checks and to complete the transfers didn't keep or share my information? I don't think so and I without a doubt don't trust are Federal Government no matter who's in office. If the FBI has my serial numbers they are in the "system" and I'm sure every branch/agency of are corrupt Federal Government has them too. If that doesn't qualify as registered then I don't know what does.
Ok, I get what you are saying.
But let me ask you this.
Do you think registration would have stopped Vegas?
After all, he purchased all those guns and ammo legally.
Went through the background checks and all that.
Or should any person who has had any mental evaluation done, lose their rights to be able to purchase guns? If so, Biden and Trump both fit that criteria, along with at least 50% of vets.
In fact, quite a few of the shootings that have taken place, more stringent regulations would have stopped nothing.
I do not have the answers. But more restrictions usually only creates headaches those people doing nothing wrong.
It isn't that I don't think the problem isn't big enough, I just don't see how to produce a solution that will be legally acceptable, contain the issue and protect the rights of the citizens. Which all 3 of those criteria must be met, in order to produce a solution that will be acceptable and not be challenged or over-thrown.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Don't expect anyone to believe anything.
That is what the ATF states.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Fair enough, well said.
Background checks and registration and waiting periods couldn't have stopped Newtown, either. The guy murdered his own mother to get her rifle.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
Let's keep in mind that when the 2nd Amendment was penned citizens had the same firepower (think rifles) as militaries.
From what I understand, the 2nd Amendment is (partly) intended so We the ''people'' (becoming a well related militia) could, if necessary, overthrow an oppressive government.
The government disarming or diminishing our capabilities to do so favors the oppressive government. Would it not?
We the people should be able to form a well related militia with the same firepower as our government.
In my opinion we the people are fragmented (not currently having a well regulated militia). Therein lies a problem.
A few years ago I wanted to form such a nationwide organization. My efforts didn't gain much traction. Maybe I was approaching it from the wrong angle. Resources were also a major factor. I'd like to revisit this idea with folks smarter than I as well as having the resources necessary to bring this concept to fruition. Else we're selling the 2nd Amendment short by not embracing its full potential nor will we have the wherewithal to overthrow a repressive government if that time ever comes. Times are looking pretty scary these days indeed!
Background checks? Sure. I'd also like to see similar requirements for voting; ensuring one is competent (not to mention having legal standing) to vote. But I digress
Registries? Never! Conceal permits? Not a big fan. I'm also not a big fan of open carry either. The argument against permits is usually that if we're legal to own firearms we shouldn't need the government granting us permission to carry concealed. I'll conced to this...
However I see much ignorance surrounding carrying for personal protection not to mention the lack of skills necessary to competently execute in such a situation.
That should be the only argument FOR permits (showing one has been educated and understands the governing laws around use of force as well as being compotently trained by a certified firearms instructor; such as myself, also a former law enforcement officer). Currently, in Colorado, there are very basic requirements. The law is worded very specifically ensuring the government (sheriff's departments) SHALL ISSUE and that the necessary requirements are not constricting.
However most CCW courses (like the NRA course) never even touches on state laws around Use of Force. They're the same laws to govern police officers actually! I teach this first in my CCW course! We have to show understanding basic traffic laws (and are tested on it) before being granted a driver's license. Why would one even consider carrying for personal protection if they don't know the basic laws? Ignorance (IMO). They don't know what they don't know...
Lastly, I agree with others, that we're not about to change the minds of those against the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd protects and ensures the 1st to say the least!
Gotta go. I think there's someone on my lawn! Haha
Things are about to get interesting...
Maybe? Maybe not, too. Buuuut, if a guy who has 3 to 5 dozen of these things all bought in different states, all with bumps, thousands of tracers and tens of thousands of rounds, he may have been on a watch list. I'd have to imagine that he's in the top 2 percent of owners in volume and capability. Worth a look-see.
Yes. And yes, there are consequences. And no, I don't want Biden OR Trump having one, if I had my way. Oh, and Trump may lose his ability to buy one anyhow if he's convicted for a felony.
True enough. What's the solution? I know what Beto's solution is. What's yours? (Back on subject like a pro!)
Interesting concept. I wonder if today's government would allow for a well regulated militia. My guess is no, or if they did, they would legislate it so hard that the militia would have no teeth left in it.
But I do like the concept as a constitutional test. What would that have meant on January 6th?
Never thought of it in the terms you stated. So if that's true, then you should be able to own not only AR 15s, but M16s, full auto weapons, tanks, maybe an F16 and maybe a nuke or some mustard gas?
Yes that was a little facetious, so my legitimate question is, since we clearly know there's a line, where is it? Why is it there? Why do we accept that line?
Very very interesting ...
I do not have an answer, but then again, I am neither a politician, nor do I profess to be an expert.
Some quotes that still hold true and have basis, even in today's world.
"Ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy."
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater the need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance and enable him to plunder at pleasure."
"All the property that is necessary to a man for the conservation of the individual… is his natural right which none can justly deprive him of."
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Clearly something is not working. Laws? Law enforcement? Is there a better approach? What?
NYT: The 19-year-old gunman, a former employee at the site, had previously been reported to the law enforcement authorities by his mother, who warned them last year that her son might attempt “suicide by cop.” He also bought two semiautomatic rifles months after a gun was seized from him over his mental state, officials said.