Wrong. The militia were all able bodied males(at that time 17-45) capable of military service, thus, able to be called to muster should a need arise. The "people" in the second clause means the citizens, the "Militia" is a very specific segment.
Think what you want LA, but they're (guns) being regulated right now at this very moment. (People get permits to carry them; etc; ) :shrug:
1) Any officer who would stop at the gun owner to "solve" a murder is a lazy idiot, it's not a solve all tool, it's a starting point. I would ask that any officer thinking registration is an effective tool be fired for incompetence. 2) The people who claim registration isn't a lead to confiscation are welcome to find one country where there wasn't some form of involuntary confiscation to make their case, in my years of studying this subject I haven't found one.
Yeah, so it's okay to break the law as long as it's something you agree with. Noted.
What these folks have to say and a dollar-two-eighty-three can buy you a cup of coffee.Mission & Vision
Welcome to the Bill of Rights Institute. Established in 1999, the Institute is a 501(c)(3) not for profit charity focused on providing educational resources on America’s Founding documents and principles for teachers and students of American History and Civics. Mission
The missionof the Bill of Rights Institute is to educate young people about the words and ideas of America’s Founders, the liberties guaranteed in our Founding documents, and how our Founding principles continue to affect and shape a free society. It is the goal of the Institute to help the next generation understand the freedom and opportunity the Constitution offers.
Vision
The visionof the Institute is to create a citizenry that has the knowledge, values, dispositions, and skills to exercise the rights and responsibilities needed to maintain a free society.
Yeah, but not everyone is as conscientious as you are. :shrug:
I don't know. I disagree. :shrug:
What these folks have to say and a dollar-two-eighty-three can buy you a cup of coffee.
It's not being broke because no one has challenged it as being broke and taken it to SCOTUS - at least not yet. :shrug:
It's kind of funny to watch people give SCOTUS opinions weight when they get their way, rather than admitting that at least the court opened up an avenue to what they wanted. SCOTUS has about as flawed a history as the other two branches, and with idiots like Ginsberg, Kagen, Sotomayor, and Roberts their opinions are about as useful as a beer fart in an elevator. People forget about "Separate but equal" the "commerce clause" decision, and even the "Penalty is actually a tax even though it's not a tax because they called it a tax after writing that it's a penalty" decisions. And it's equally funny that the same people who hated and disagreed with "Citizen's United" have no problems with faulty second amendment decisions. Got to love the twisting those people engage in.We had separate but equal schools too, but that got changed as well.
In the end you could say that about me and anyone else in the forum too. :shrug:
Well, you can be wrong all you like. The founders specifically wrote about where they were coming from, and under the constitution the militia was the EXACT definition I gave you.
Bull****, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, the congress broke it with the NFA and GCA, and the court upheld the lawbreaking. It's no different from an officer enabling a bank robbery by putting his gun away, his hand out, and whistling "Ole' Susanna" while the robbers bolt for safety.
What is your point? It is OK if you are killed by someone you know?
If you prevent criminals from getting guns, then their crimes would be less lethal.
Is selling you "private cigarettes" to minors a right? In the same fashion, you do not have a right to sell guns to felons.
But where does the black market get their guns from? The laws that I propose would reduce the size of the black market, and less criminals would get their hands on guns.
Some..., yes. Only 10 to 15% of all illegal guns are stolen. At the moment there is no incentive to smuggle guns into the USA, because guns are so easily available. So that is not even an issue.
I am not assuming that criminals follow laws. If no law abiding citizen would sell a gun to a criminal, criminals would have no guns. Well, they would have to steal them, or smuggle them. It would be not impossible, but harder for them
My point is that the relevance of your number is meaningless without context. Criminals kill criminals in the highest numbers, and they also don't follow other laws so adding more won't help.
Guess you should tell the woman bludgeoned to death and set on fire a few years back in my state that she would be alive today if the two teens who raped and robbed her that if they didn't have a gun she would be alive. Oh wait, they didn't have a gun and you can't tell her anything because she's dead, oh, and I promise you she suffered based on the stuff that was leaked to the press.
My god this is ****ing stupid. I have a right to sell my property, I cannot knowingly sell to prohibited persons. I am not willing to lose value on my property to make you feel better.
Already answered that, any avenue available which includes national borders, ports, and even unguarded beaches.
You don't have a clue here. It doesn't matter what you try to do, if there is a profit in getting weapons to criminals, other criminals will do so. And if you think there aren't guns being smuggled in you are kidding yourself.
Yes, in a way you are assuming criminals will follow laws because your reasoning is that a bunch of ineffective current laws can be strengthened against those who aren't following them. The whole point is that criminals will still get whatever they want and all you are advocating for is stupid assed legal schemes that only apply to the law abiding.
Every newly sold gun will be registered, and all sales will be registered. It would be difficult to register all the guns that are already lying around, though. So it might
One possibility is that private sales would have to be done through a middle man, perhaps a licensed gun dealer. One could perhaps think
If a crime was committed with a gun that could be tracked to some person and the person did not report the gun as stolen, that person would be in trouble. This means, at least a fine, and if the person
