To what end other than to impact it's applicability? I agree that mental health issues should be a bar to firearm possesion, however I worry at the potential abuse of such a measure.
I agree with both of these. In fact, in regards to #2, like you...I brought this up several days before La Pierre did.
Right, and it's mainly number one that we disagree on.
We need a national discussion to help determine what it is the American people believe about the Second Amendment and its role in our society. For far too long now we have not had any such national discussion. Instead, the agenda and everything about it including the definition of terms has been determined by the gun lobby and the gun culture around it.
For example: should technology be the determining factor in what weapons are going to be in America?
Is Justice Scalia correct in his off bench comments that some weapons may indeed be removed and not allowed?
Are guns an the proliferation of them part of the problem or are they being scapegoated?
Do we want people to be armed on a level with the police and military in case we need another revolution and need to fight them in the streets of our cities and towns?
Are present laws on things like gun shows working or do they need to be revisited?
All that needs to be part of a national conversation. And I believe Wayne La Pierre just helped start it on Friday.
The faulty thinking is that a weapon is only suited for one purpose. :shrug:
I agree, and it should be an indication that the NRA supports the LEGAL use of firearms.
I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.
The faulty thinking is that a weapon is only suited for one purpose. :shrug:
I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.
Yes, some people scapegoat weapons. Some people hate guns and are anti-gun. Both ends of the spectrum has adherents. We need to involve the greater majority of people in the middle who I think believe that guns are part of America and people need them for a variety of reasons including
self defense
home protection
sports
hunting
recreation
But at the same time they are concerned about a nation where there now may be as many guns as people and there seems to be much negative side effects from their use - or abuse if your prefer.
And I do think the issue of fighting the government so you need an armory is a legit issue that should be debated. Yes, I understand how we got here as a country. Yes, I understand that people had guns as a last resort against a tyrannical government. I also want it discussed and asked that with that in mind, do the American people believe that we should use that as the rationalization/reason/excuse to allow people to have high powered weaponry in our society or can we make some accommodation and compromise where we stand firmly behind ownership of some weapons and do not allow others as having no real purpose in our society?
I think this needs a thorough and public discussion.
And it needs to include what firearms should indeed be LEGAL.
Like the implications or not - guns are different. I abuse liquor and I make an ass of myself and have to get my suit dry cleaned from vomit. I watch too much porn and I get horny and maybe a bit obnoxious. I abuse guns and people can and do die.
How about all the 2nd Amendment advocates join a well regulated militia which controlled the weaponry?
Have you forgotten well regulated militia?
Why do advocates conclude that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right?
How do they justify that this amendment was written in a completely different time and is likely outdated? Can this be interpreted to mean that the well regulated militia can own tanks, and fighter jets etc?
I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.
Yes, some people scapegoat weapons. Some people hate guns and are anti-gun. Both ends of the spectrum has adherents. We need to involve the greater majority of people in the middle who I think believe that guns are part of America and people need them for a variety of reasons including
self defense
home protection
sports
hunting
recreation
But at the same time they are concerned about a nation where there now may be as many guns as people and there seems to be much negative side effects from their use - or abuse if your prefer.
And I do think the issue of fighting the government so you need an armory is a legit issue that should be debated. Yes, I understand how we got here as a country. Yes, I understand that people had guns as a last resort against a tyrannical government. I also want it discussed and asked that with that in mind, do the American people believe that we should use that as the rationalization/reason/excuse to allow people to have high powered weaponry in our society or can we make some accommodation and compromise where we stand firmly behind ownership of some weapons and do not allow others as having no real purpose in our society?
I think this needs a thorough and public discussion.
And it needs to include what firearms should indeed be LEGAL.
Like the implications or not - guns are different. I abuse liquor and I make an ass of myself and have to get my suit dry cleaned from vomit. I watch too much porn and I get horny and maybe a bit obnoxious. I abuse guns and people can and do die.
While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.
What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?
While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.
What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?
Why is it that one tactic used by the gun culture on these sites is to almost always try to get the conversation steered to technical matters?
Cars are indeed limited by law and not by technology.
There is much wisdom in the collective intelligence of average Americans. I have long suspected that the American people want two things on this issue
1- they want guns as part of individual protection and sporting activity and want them to be protected as a Constitutional right
2- they want limits placed on weaponry that are based on common sense and what belongs or does not belong in a safe civilized society
My local paper - the Detroit Free Press - has a large letters to the editor section today expressing just this feeling
Letters: Find a safer balance on gun laws | Letters to the Editor | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
I think it is a good snapshot of what average Americans believe and think about this issue.
"Machine guns have been banned in this country for decades. Even as it found an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" and noted "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' " That opinion wasn't written by some wild-eyed liberal - it was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia."
Read more: Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
It's not my personal opinion man, it is a fact. You just want to remain ignorant on the subject and talk out of your ass. That's cool with me man.
Like I said 12 years in the military and a cop, but what the hell do I know about guns.
Your credibility can't really get any lower anyway, so it's not like it's a big deal.
A fact can be documented. You have provided only your opinion.
How about all the 2nd Amendment advocates join a well regulated militia which controlled the weaponry?
Have you forgotten well regulated militia?
Why do advocates conclude that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right?
How do they justify that this amendment was written in a completely different time and is likely outdated? Can this be interpreted to mean that the well regulated militia can own tanks, and fighter jets etc?
The weapons the police use are selected for the very same reason that they are perfectly applicable to home/self defense. So, we disagree.
Or that the purpose of bearing arms differs for law enforcement officers and law abiding civilians; as they are exactly the same - detering crime by the use of deadly force in appropriate situations. One may, rightly, argue that the legal use of dealy force for civilians is more limitted than for that of LEOs, in that LEOs may act on legal warrants, rather than only in the immediate response to current threats, but that is a minor distinction at best.
Its a "loose cannon thing"..While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.
What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Caliber? Range?
Its a "loose cannon thing"..
I fully know what this is like...no loose cannon should be allowed to own lethal weapons.....period....Automobiles are far safer.
Its ludicrous to allow gun ownership without a 100% background check, as we do not know where all the loose cannons are.....and who they are...
Automobile-wise, we have made huge strides - no more Pontiac Tempest GTO with 6 cylinder brakes and handling (one example)..
However, I thinks that it is impossible to sell "gun safety/regulation" to the NRA and its lackeys, the tea bagging conservatives...
Not any more than lead can be talked into being gold..
i just think the government is overstepping here, relieved that Obama is in Hawai, at least he cant do too much damage to our country from there
Stop, take a deep breath, and consider for a moment what the use of an "assault weapon" really permitted in the few instances that they have been used to commit "mass murder". They allowed more unarmed, unprotected victim's lives to be taken in a shorter amount of time (due mainly to the total number of rounds available, magazine size x number of magazines). So in these few cases, in which the victim count exceeded 4, it was possible to use a firearm instead of a bomb, fire or other WMD to achieve a higher victim count (including the perp). Limitting the choice/availability of these legal "assault weapons" does not make them disappear nor change the motives/opportunities to commit mass murder (and suicide) significantly.
My position is NOT based on SCOTUS. It is based on the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was written.
btw - you mentioned HINDERED as part of the definition.... here is that definition from the same 1828 source
That goes hand in hand with my position that the right must be stopped or defeated to be INFRINGED.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?