A question for the anti-gun people.

Im not anti gun. you want 300 guns ? great

just don't be a moron, get a gun safe

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Well yeah, there are definitely cases where some common sense seems to be missing, and I might even be convinced that some kind of reasonable, thought out laws would be OK in regards to gun safety/storage.

One good ol boy called the local talk radio show and bragged about his 150 guns, and thousands of rounds of ammo in his house (not safely stored). First, I really hope he lives out in the country, miles from anyone. Second, I hope his house is made of concrete, steel and fire retardant EVERYTHING, cause if his place lights up people might think it's the 4th of July.

reply to post by Honor93


You're the ignorant one.

You can hold a belief while something is still in tact.

For example, I think murder should be illegal..even though it already is.

reply to post by tjack

True Story (Analogy Wise).

I want to ask them: since 200,000 americans died last year (and approx every year) of Preventable Medical Errors - should we Ban Medical Procedures? It is a rhetorical question (you dont have to answer).

reply to post by WaterBottle

oooooh, ouch ... was this supposed to hurt ?

You're the ignorant one

You can hold a belief while something is still in tact

yes, you can and you can still hold a belief when all else is failing all around you ... which point of ignorance are you reaching for this time ?

and what does murder have to do with this conversation ??
oh yeah ... the un-ending reach of ignorance ... got it

anti-gun doesn't mean ... less guns ... it means NO guns and i'm all for it ... so long as the perceived 'authorities' drop theirs first.
see, compromise is easy

reply to post by narwahl


"well regulated" means well equipted. The signers of the Constitution believed that a permanent standing army would lead to tyranny-- everytime. The militia needs to have state of the art arms, never the government exclusively.

reply to post by Taliesien333

Then why are you pursuing an end-around of the the constitution. Why aren't you doing it by the method that would make it legally justified. Why is there no proposal for a 28th amendment to the constitution abolishing the 2nd? Get it ratified by 38 states and then there is no right to keep arms, they become a privilege and can be as regulated as you desire.

They won’t do that because it can’t be done...plain and simple.

Repeal of the second would not abolish any right.

Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by narwahl

 

"well regulated" means well equipted. The signers of the Constitution believed that a permanent standing army would lead to tyranny-- everytime. The militia needs to have state of the art arms, never the government exclusively.

Oh boy....
I will grant you that if you *really* start twisting you can read "well-regulated" that way.

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

But that still leaves you with "militia" and "state"

reply to post by narwahl

yeah so ??
are you having trouble with definition or interpretation ?

militia - the people of a free state - sharing the duty of maintaing the Liberty exercised by said, free state.

ps ... that is exactly what well-regulated means ... equipped and supported by the free state for which they stand. no twisting involved. read some of the paperwork from the day ... it is clearly evident.

when it was written, the state DID provide armament to the people and provided punishment to those who refused to comply ... perhaps we should return to the 'standard' from whence we came ??

reply to post by Honor93


No.
If you look at the use at the time well-regulated is often used as "working as it should" The only way you can twist that into "I should have stuff!" is by the route of "self regulation is regulation too!" but that is something that came around in then 1980s. (And is complete Trickle down doublespeak. Personally I selfregulate all the time, meaning I do whatever I want, when I want it.)

1630s, from Late Latin regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Related: Regulated; regulating.

reply to post by narwahl

well, even if we use your definition of "working as it should", how does limiting the militia accomplish that goal ??

No government has authority, at any level, to infringe upon the ppl's right to bear arms ... it's simple, which part exactly are you having difficulty with ??

are you confused because We the People, previously granted a form of regulation ?
and since we gave an inch, then that means we are subject to whatever regulations are proposed ?? if so, you'd be sadly mistaken.

when it was written, the state DID provide armament to the people and provided punishment to those who refused to comply

There ya go! Maybe we should get a law passed that all people must have weapons and be trained in there use. It is their right, it is their DUTY!

reply to post by Taliesien333


They can already be Constitutionally regulated...says so right in the 2nd amendment.

So no need for a brand new amendment, the Constitution already grants the government authority to regulate guns.

reply to post by xedocodex

"Therein lies the rub (debate)"...."well regulated" vs "shall not be infringed". ''Shall not be Infringed'' actually is rather clear in its meaning while ''well regulated'' is more subjective. Most think that "well regulated" means regulations and laws while the term as originally coined and used referred to timing and consistency like a clock or watch (see Regulator Clock). That is not to say tho that the Federal Government has not established a precedent in some regulation (ie, the National Firearms Act of 1934 to regulate the use of automatic weapons in the hands of organized crime gangs; ie, the gangster ''tommy gun'' or thompson submachine gun and sawed off shotguns).

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

IT should be noted; however, that the original intent of gun regulation in the National Firearms Act was to counter organized crime not to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Yes, precedent has already been set, regulating fire arms is perfectly legal.

Since there has already been a precendent set, further regulation is also legal.

reply to post by xedocodex

It is also possible, in a reaction to the overreaching proposed legislation by Diane Feinstein and others, then, to seek REPEAL of the National Firearms Act (1934) and the Gun Control Act (1968) and subsequent Executive Orders (ie, Destructive Devices and the importation of "non-sporting rifles") to allow the ownership of fully automatic weapons (not just the grandfathered ones) and Short Barrel Rifles and Shotguns and so called Destructive Devices and imported non-sporting rifles as long as they are "registered" with local law enforcement and without a transfer tax paid to the federal government. Afterall our President said that laws are living documents and can be changed.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Perfectly fine with me.

If people vote in politicians who support such measures and elect a President that supports it, more power to them.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Im not anti gun. you want 300 guns ? great

just don't be a moron, get a gun safe

This is about the most important part to all this and is totally not addressed.