[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

a reply to: neo96

The SECOND amendment Constitutional RIGHT.

People that IGNORE this word: INFRINGE.

So, is there a limit (strictly by the words in the 2A, nothing else), then, on the types of arms one has a right to bear as afforded in 2nd amendment?

I'll be honest with you - I don't generally watch linked videos. I only have a few minutes before and after work most days, and I can read posts thousands of times faster than watching videos.

a reply to: Bedlam

It's worth your time. It doesn't take long.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, the 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Note the part, "nor prohibited by the States." Infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is specifically prohibited. Therefore, the 10th Amendment is not applicable to the rights enumerated in the 2nd... or any of the other... amendment(s).

TheRedneck

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

Then you are OK with my right being infringed upon (at least that is the implied message your post conveys) and it's not only State laws that prevent me from owning certain firearms.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

Oops missed this gem:

You don't have a right to buy any weapon you want at any time. You have the right to own weapons.

How can I own something if I can't buy it???

Has your State government made it illegal for you to own weapons?

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: neo96

The SECOND amendment Constitutional RIGHT.

People that IGNORE this word: INFRINGE.

So, is there a limit (strictly by the words in the 2A, nothing else), then, on the types of arms one has a right to bear as afforded in 2nd amendment?

No limit implied, or authorized.

As per the phrase shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers forbid the federal state to limit the peoples access to arms.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Some weapons... yes. Do I need to put up the definition of infringed???

a reply to: TheRedneck

So, in your interpretation, the individual State is the primary sovereignty? The US only has those powers which the States agreed to in the Constitution? Therefore the State's power can limit the right established by the United States?

I don't disagree with that at all. Indeed, the individual States have reserved unto themselves the right to determine what goods will be for sale in their jurisdiction, and have, as appropriate, determined how those goods can be sold.

Your conclusion doesn't fit your premises.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

Some weapons... yes. Do I need to put up the definition of infringed???

No, you don't because Neo's already done it.

The Second Amendment doesn't restrict a given State from it's power to regulate commerce. Period.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The individual States are free to pass any laws they see fit... as long as it does not violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Hence slavery until it was added to the Bill of rights (the State can still have slave though)

a reply to: Gryphon66

Again I disagree on what the 10th means.

2nd

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

The individual States are free to pass any laws they see fit... as long as it does not violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Hence slavery until it was added to the Bill of rights (the State can still have slave though)

Good. I don't disagree with you.

State laws regarding the sale of firearms do not infringe upon the right to own firearms. Further, if you don't like the State's laws where you live, you can move to a State that meets your needs; many states have very few if any regulations on gun sales.

a reply to: fencesitter85

First of all, you just said that you are a brit, and pro-gun.
You should understand govt. interference. Kudos to you for being able to live in a repressive socialist nation, but points off for saying that you are 'pro gun' yet espousing change to another nations rights.

- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today. Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun?

The militia esists, it's called the US armed forces. And show me where the 2nd admendment differentiates between what is acceptable and what isn't.

Surely the words "Well regulated" support the notion of gun control laws? Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.

Well regulated? In times where soldier can be tried for war crimes, during a war which is designed to defeat any enemy, I'd say we are ''over-regulated'' In any case, the 'well regulated refers to the militia, not individual gun ownership.

- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing? If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go and buy a gun without some checks on their psychiatric health, any criminal records, history of depression etc. Surely this is just good logic? If you have a wife/kids, wouldn't you feel safer knowing that not just anyone can rock up and buy a gun?

I think the background check go a little too far. I took anti-anxiety meds in my 20's, surely a deep check would uncover that? Or, that when I was 40, I quit drinking, had to go on anti-depressants for a year. Would that disqualify me from ownership? I do have a family, and I would rather that a group od decent citizens (the majority of people) are carrying, when they go to the store, and there is a chance of some wacked-out gangbanger (the minority) having the 'ghetto American Express' (Glock 9mm) on him, and a need for instant cash. Look at it this way: Said scumbag has a gun, that's a given. Is he more likely to use it when a populace is well-armed, or when said populace is unarmed? I'll take more guns any day.

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category? I understand there's an argument here on the basis that such records being hacked could make households a target for people who want to steal guns. I'm not quite sure where to stand on this one, but I don't think I'd try to break into a house if I know the home-owner has a gun.

I see your point, however......
One of the parts of the constitution is the right to privacy. Simply put, nobody has any right to know whether or not I have a gun. As far as the registry, your scenario implies public access to said gun owners list. HELL NO Not only is it not the Govts' businees what I possess, it certainly isn't open for the public. Thats a slippery slope. What will be public next? My sex life? My income? My kids' hobbies?

I understand your points, however, esp on the privacy thing, you give those in power an inch, they'll take a mile. We've seen this time and time again. And honestly, there are really no other nations that respect citizens rights as the USA, even as much as they've tried to take.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You still haven't explained how I can own it if I can't buy it.

Ahhh... Kinda like the conservatives telling liberals that if they don't like the USA they can move elsewhere???

interesting attitude...

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

You still haven't explained how I can own it if I can't buy it.

Ahhh... Kinda like the conservatives telling liberals that if they don't like the USA they can move elsewhere???

interesting attitude...

Again, are weapons sales forbidden in your State?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Again, are weapons sales forbidden in your State?

No and why are you deflecting? You are the one who brought up the 10th. You stated that states have the right to prevent ANY types of firearms from coming in their states and to sell.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Again... yes some firearms are illegal to sell in California. So I can't legally buy them, so I can't own them.

Are you purposely being obtuse???

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, in your interpretation, the individual State is the primary sovereignty? The US only has those powers which the States agreed to in the Constitution?

Yes.

Therefore the State's power can limit the right established by the United States?

No, the states have agreed specifically in the 2nd Amendment that arms cannot be limited, and denied the ability to do so to the Federal government. Thus, the 10th Amendment does not apply.

I don't disagree with that at all. Indeed, the individual States have reserved unto themselves the right to determine what goods will be for sale in their jurisdiction, and have, as appropriate, determined how those goods can be sold.

Yes, subject to the provisions in the US Constitution enumerating powers delegated to or prohibited to it.

The Supreme Court seems to agree with me.

The high court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that "the right to keep and bear arms" applies to cities and states, effectively striking down 30-year-old handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again, are weapons sales forbidden in your State?

No and why are you deflecting? You are the one who brought up the 10th. You stated that states have the right to prevent ANY types of firearms from coming in their states and to sell.

Well, number one, that wasn't a response to you, so I'm not "deflecting" anything. Yes, I brought up the Tenth Amendment.

Yes, States do have the right to determine what weapons can be sold in their jurisdiction and how they can be sold.

I didn't make the statement you claim I did; you're rephrasing my comment.

Again (and this is the last time), my argument is that that 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of American Citizens to hold (own, bear, carry, etc.) arms. The States have the power to determine what weapons are for sale in their jurisdiction.

Those are my arguments.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: neo96

The SECOND amendment Constitutional RIGHT.

People that IGNORE this word: INFRINGE.

So, is there a limit (strictly by the words in the 2A, nothing else), then, on the types of arms one has a right to bear as afforded in 2nd amendment?

No limit implied, or authorized.

As per the phrase shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers forbid the federal state to limit the peoples access to arms.

All right, define "arms."