Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I knew y'all wouldn't like it

It's not a matter of not liking it. What your proposing is simply not legally possible, proper or viable under the U.S. system and laws of the land. Liking it or considering it a good or bad idea is irrelevant. It's like debating open gun access and shooting sports being allowed in England with gun stores as common as they are here. It's not a possible outcome by any definition.

don't forget the founding fathers intended the constitution to change with the times, they were smart enough to realize that what worked for them would not necessarily work in 300 years

Yes, they absolutely did. It is part of why the Supreme Court was established as the 3rd and fully equal branch of government to the other 2. They are charged with interpreting and then defining what is and what is not Constitutional in line with the intent of the document and the founders themselves. In this case, the 2009 DC V. Heller case virtually ended the whole premise of this thread in it's infancy and until another Super Court takes up the matter again some day. Historically speaking? That could be a long long time unless others try and openly violate the findings of the 2009 decision. Then they'll take cases long enough to overturn them one after another. That is established as something the Supers do often enough on many matters.

last time I checked, you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy by the color of their 10 gallon hat, and there is no reasonable reason to have military style assualt rifles, so the less of them out there the better

Perhaps some Americans can see absolutely no reason to own an AR-15 or an AK-47. Personally I consider those weapons more enjoyable to target shoot than a bolt action or lever action rifle. They don't require reloading every couple minutes (Which no shooter enjoys) and they give more options for challenging ways to use them on the range OR..things like Hog hunting than other rifles do. The law says others, on the federal level, do not get to make that choice for me. Thank goodness.

you are living in a doom porn fantasy world if you feel you need assualt rifles and 3,000 rounds to sleep at night because obama is coming for you

(I know that's not to me directly, still, a little bit of a hard edge isn't it?)

You know, I'll actually agree that the people with 30 rifles and damn near the same type and function really need counseling about obsessive disorders. They chose guns...others hoard a variety of other things in life and none of it shows a real stable or sane mind. Outside of the extremes? Who is anyone to say WHAT I can or cannot own? I still have over 5,000 rounds of .308 reload in several big green military ammo boxes. I don't even own a .308 anymore. It's a problem for me to work out and I may buy another some day but under your idea, I could be an actual criminal or suspected just for owning those boxes of reloaded cartridges.

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by happykat39


With that said, I do believe that if we are going to require driver education and passing a test to drive a car we should also require gun safety training to buy a gun. But I also believe that once you have that training, and a certificate to prove it, that is the end of it. All you should have to do is show it to your gun dealer and he sells you the gun with no other registration of your certificate of training or the purchase of the gun.

This prerequisite to gun ownership is simply another intrusion on the right as it is writen.

Then maybe we could just have everybody take gun safety classes in school just like taking driver ed. It wouldn't even have to use real guns as there would be no need to teach marksmanship, just how to safely handle, carry and store a weapon. The rationale behind doing that would be that even if you or your family will never be gun owners you never know when someone will come across one in a friends or relatives house.

Then when you buy a weapon at least you would have had some kind of training to keep you from being a complete idiot - oops, correct that; some people will be complete idiots no matter how they have been trained. But at least responsible people would know how to safely handle a weapon.

edit on 16-11-2012 by happykat39 because: clarified a point

The points are taken but have nothing to do with the amendment itself. Maybe you should open a thread on gun safety.

NOTED:
I did overplay the point somewhat but most of it was in response to others remarks too. However, I don't think a gun safety thread would go anywhere unless we run into a spate of idiots shooting their couches, with their 5 year old kid sitting on it, or blowing off their toes etc, etc, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum. Then there might be enough interest in gun safety to carry a thread past the first page.

Well I could add several posts. It may fly if posters see it as a thread to tell of thier own run in with bad weapon safety. Most tragic gun safety stories are told by those that used guns for years without a hitch.

By the way what sort of folks do you hang out with? Drinking and guns dont mix.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I knew y'all wouldn't like it

don't forget the founding fathers intended the constitution to change with the times, they were smart enough to realize that what worked for them would not necessarily work in 300 years

last time I checked, you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy by the color of their 10 gallon hat, and there is no reasonable reason to have military style assualt rifles, so the less of them out there the better

I've heard it ruins the venison anyway

you are living in a doom porn fantasy world if you feel you need assualt rifles and 3,000 rounds to sleep at night because obama is coming for you

Whats wrong man? Did you stay awake all nite in the 3rd grade waiting for Santa to show up?

When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, firearms were very primitive and most of the time did not work. If the AK47 assault rifle was around at that time, I doubt that they would been so generous with that amendment. I would think that their biggest fear is that the Indians would get them and such a nightmare would have made an amendment where getting and holding arms would be more difficult.

Originally posted by Mike215
When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, firearms were very primitive and most of the time did not work. If the AK47 assault rifle was around at that time, I doubt that they would been so generous with that amendment. I would think that their biggest fear is that the Indians would get them and such a nightmare would have made an amendment where getting and holding arms would be more difficult.

Considering how they treated the American Aboriginals (the right term for what most call Indians) back in those days if they had AK47's there wouldn't have been any of the natives left to worry about.

Originally posted by Mike215
When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, firearms were very primitive and most of the time did not work. If the AK47 assault rifle was around at that time, I doubt that they would been so generous with that amendment. I would think that their biggest fear is that the Indians would get them and such a nightmare would have made an amendment where getting and holding arms would be more difficult.

Two things to remember here. First the 2nd wasnt looking at the weapon but the right of groups of men to bear them under certain conditions and thus "to keep" unto thier own persons was then concomitant.

Also apparent is the reality, as far as the tactical value of the weapons called "arms",that they were certainly talking about current firearm technology. Demanding that the people cannot keep assult arms is the same as demanding they fight with weapons made for hunting game, much of which show little advance since 1776. Taking away a tactical equivalency in personal arms from the people is a clear degree of subjugation considering what it would mean if the people in the modern era had to present themselves on the field with shotguns and modern muzzel loaders. A court that was "jealous for the right of the people" would never allow an assult weapons ban. But a court seeking to define the state position as paramount would.