Was Pro-Gun Control ,but now Im Pro-Gun

[SBu]

well its easy, I believe the founders were discussing individual infantryman's weapons

Oh come on. That's it? So all this arguing only to find out that your beliefs are similarly grounded in your own personal interpretation as mine are and no rock solid lawyer constitutional mumbo jumbo? If you believe that, then "arms" should only refer to muskets, which I'm sure we both agree is an archaic interpretation. Militia could own their own cannons as well...probably the most technologically advanced weapon of that day. If they could own cannons, I want a combat ready F-16. If I'm not allowed to own an F-16, you're not allowed to own an assault rifle ...how 'bout that? ...or we could just agree that gov't has the right to place restrictions on gun ownership in keeping with the 2nd amendment if that suits you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh come on. That's it? So all this arguing only to find out that your beliefs are similarly grounded in your own personal interpretation as mine are and no rock solid lawyer constitutional mumbo jumbo? If you believe that, then "arms" should only refer to muskets, which I'm sure we both agree is an archaic interpretation. Militia could own their own cannons as well...probably the most technologically advanced weapon of that day. If they could own cannons, I want a combat ready F-16. If I'm not allowed to own an F-16, you're not allowed to own an assault rifle ...how 'bout that? ...or we could just agree that gov't has the right to place restrictions on gun ownership in keeping with the 2nd amendment if that suits you.

uh the founders documents pretty well support my view. an assault rifle is clearly protected under any valid interpretation of the second amendment especially since almost every state, local and federal institution has decreed such weapons highly suitable for civilian employees to use for self defense

militia members were not expected to appear at the muster with cannon

 

[Bob N]

So when they say we can now only own black powder muzzle loaders. You will still be OK with that?

It will not happen seeing that this a Republic with a strong Democratic base.

 

[LaMidRighter]

uh the founders documents pretty well support my view. an assault rifle is clearly protected under any valid interpretation of the second amendment especially since almost every state, local and federal institution has decreed such weapons highly suitable for civilian employees to use for self defense

militia members were not expected to appear at the muster with cannon

However, the merchant ships were equipped with cannon for civilian defense throughout much of the early history of the U.S. with no legal issues whatsoever. I think there is a compromise on area effective weaponry and explosives.

 

[TurtleDude]

However, the merchant ships were equipped with cannon for civilian defense throughout much of the early history of the U.S. with no legal issues whatsoever. I think there is a compromise on area effective weaponry and explosives.

That probably was not due to the second amendment but the tenth. prior to the turd FDR's actions the federal government had not tried to regulate any weapons possession

 

[LaMidRighter]

That probably was not due to the second amendment but the tenth. prior to the turd FDR's actions the federal government had not tried to regulate any weapons possession

I think that could have been a combination of both, because a cannon is a large projectile weapon and defensive in nature I'm thinking it was assumed that for area defense such as a merchant ship it was just a natural extension of the right to keep and bear.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think that could have been a combination of both, because a cannon is a large projectile weapon and defensive in nature I'm thinking it was assumed that for area defense such as a merchant ship it was just a natural extension of the right to keep and bear.

maybe so. before the turd FDR soiled his diapers over gangsters and tommy guns no one would have given it a second thought

 

[SBu]

uh the founders documents pretty well support my view. an assault rifle is clearly protected under any valid interpretation of the second amendment especially since almost every state, local and federal institution has decreed such weapons highly suitable for civilian employees to use for self defense

Again, I'm not arguing for an assault weapons ban. I am arguing for regulating general gun ownership, not banning it, and further regulating assault weapons, not banning them. Your argument was that Fed gov't does not have the right to regulate weapons...but you have said that they actually can. They can depending on their severity more or less via commerce clause? So we agree that the Fed gov't does have the ability to regulate weapons. And if they have the ability to regulate some weapons, presumably they have the ability to regulate all weapons so long as that regulation does not infringe on the peoples' right to keep and bear arms. Keep and bear arms to some degree not defined in the constitution. If all "valid" interpretations support your argument, why is it that many constitutional experts disagree about and debate the interpretation of this amendment (assuming that "valid" means overwhelming majority interpretation and not just ones that agree with you or a simple majority). Maybe you have some source to back that up?

militia members were not expected to appear at the muster with cannon

That's not the point I was making. Simply that this was one of the first times Fed gov't inserted itself into private gun ownership to some degree. Nevertheless, the infantry thing is a stronger argument. But again, not defined in the constitution leaving it open to debate.

Either way, not going to happen. Kinda feel like buying a gun now, ahhhh Freedom.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, I'm not arguing for an assault weapons ban. I am arguing for regulating general gun ownership, not banning it, and further regulating assault weapons, not banning them. Your argument was that Fed gov't does not have the right to regulate weapons...but you have said that they actually can. They can depending on their severity more or less via commerce clause? So we agree that the Fed gov't does have the ability to regulate weapons. And if they have the ability to regulate some weapons, presumably they have the ability to regulate all weapons so long as that regulation does not infringe on the peoples' right to keep and bear arms. Keep and bear arms to some degree not defined in the constitution. If all "valid" interpretations support your argument, why is it that many constitutional experts disagree about and debate the interpretation of this amendment (assuming that "valid" means overwhelming majority interpretation and not just ones that agree with you or a simple majority). Maybe you have some source to back that up?

That's not the point I was making. Simply that this was one of the first times Fed gov't inserted itself into private gun ownership to some degree. Nevertheless, the infantry thing is a stronger argument. But again, not defined in the constitution leaving it open to debate.

Either way, not going to happen. Kinda feel like buying a gun now, ahhhh Freedom.

in a free society a most heavy burden should be imposed upon those who wish to infringe on our freedom. specifically, those wishing to infringe on our rights should prove that

1) their proposed infringement has an almost guaranteed chance of promoting a public good

2) the proposed infringement is the most narrow way of achieving the good

3) the proposed infringement only inconveniences law abiding individuals in a minimal amount.

none of the current proposals meet any of those tests and most of the federal gun control laws completely fail that

for example, the Hughes amendment was designed to block passage of a pro gun bill rather than stop crime with weapons that had been used in crimes TWICE in 50 years.

almost every constitutional expert supports the individual rights interpretation and I have yet to learn of any that claims the FDR expansion of the commerce clause was based on either the original intent of the founders or existing precedent. many support it because they are socialists and liked the results and more than a few "conservatives" (Scalia being one) have stated that overturning this bad precedent would be too disruptive of society

 

[TiredOfLife]

So you either dont care if the G starts kicking in doors to take guns, or you will help from a safe distance. Congratulations.

Whatever works in that case.

 

[CRUE CAB]

in a free society a most heavy burden should be imposed upon those who wish to infringe on our freedom. specifically, those wishing to infringe on our rights should prove that

1) their proposed infringement has an almost guaranteed chance of promoting a public good

2) the proposed infringement is the most narrow way of achieving the good

3) the proposed infringement only inconveniences law abiding individuals in a minimal amount.

none of the current proposals meet any of those tests and most of the federal gun control laws completely fail that

for example, the Hughes amendment was designed to block passage of a pro gun bill rather than stop crime with weapons that had been used in crimes TWICE in 50 years.

almost every constitutional expert supports the individual rights interpretation and I have yet to learn of any that claims the FDR expansion of the commerce clause was based on either the original intent of the founders or existing precedent. many support it because they are socialists and liked the results and more than a few "conservatives" (Scalia being one) have stated that overturning this bad precedent would be too disruptive of society

Waste of breath.
Clearly the antis cant not be convinced that individual rights have merit.
It isn't about murders, crime, safety. Its about they don't want you to have a gun. Period. No if ands or buts.

 

[rhinefire]

Why you need a gun: In Arkansas the police SWAT team storms the home of a 107 year old and and blows him to hell. The Storm Troopers claimed the 107 year old pointed his weapon at them. What if it was a 7 year old boy pointing that weapon? 107 years old, is there anyone that would have maybe handled this differently? If the Nazi Pigs will gun this old man down imagine what they will do to you?

P.S. On the mention of a 7 year old, at Waco, TX the Nazi Pigs killed many children even younger mostly by setting them on fire.