The NRA extremists oppose all existing gun laws and any new ones. They oppose background checks. They oppose handgun permits and CCW permits. They oppose any assault-weapon bans. They oppose banning felons from being able to possess guns. They oppose handgun purchase limits. Basically they oppose any and all laws that might make our society safer. why is this? is this all to keep the gun industry profitable? maybe to keep the inner city full of guns so blacks and Hispanics kill each other?
I'll play, even though you know the answer. I'll make it real simple. No hidden meanings, so don't twist my response. If you give them and inch, they will take a mile. None of these things will stop gun crime. When they fail, the anti gunners will want more. Period. Btw, I don't think there are many that fight violent felons from owning firearms.
2nd amendment gives all Americans right to arms. Any obstruction, restriction is unconstitutional. Now that does not prevent private business from creating safe guards against abuse, it also does not prevent the government and private entities to sue shops and manufacturers for gross negligence. You sell a drunk guy an extra beer, he gets into a car accident guess what buddy your liquor licence is in jeopardy, and you will get a fine, and potentially jail time. Same thing should be done for guns.
the 2nd Amendment explicility makes it illegal to ban gun ownership, within the context of a well-regulated militia. this doesn't prevent common sense gun rules for private ownership outside of the context of The Militia.
If I sell a drunk guy too many, I can see that he should be cut off. So possibly I could be held civilly liable. As a gun shop owner, how exactly am I liable for what someone that legally purchases a firearm, does with it after he leaves my store? Should Chevrolet be held liable for the drunk that kills someone when driving? Should the manufacture of any product be held liable if someone commits an illegal act with it?
That's because they do nothing to prevent crime, and infringe on our rights. No we don't. Why do we need permits to exercise our rights? Do you need a permit to talk or write a book? Assault-weapon is a term invented by gun banners. It's not a factual term. We don't oppose it for VIOLENT felons, particularly repeat offenders. We also oppose ski mask purchase limits, gasoline purchase limits, and baseball bat purchase limits. Name a law that has been proposed or enacted which regulates possession of guns or gun features that has made our society safer. The rest of your questions belong in the conspiracy theory forum.
Because you don't have a right to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) would I let you do that?
It's the opinion of anyone who has studied them. Nothing from the Brady Campaign or the Clinton "assault" weapon ban did anything positive, and that was over 10 years. Your grand plan is to squeeze the law abiding in the hopes of stopping criminals. The premise is laughable.
Not if the regulation has the effect of infringing upon the right to keep or bear, which most of your suggestions do prima facie and the rest do by implication.
Let me get this straight.... So you are saying that the word "infringe" has a different meaning in the first clause than it has in the 2nd clause? Correct?
Because they do (*)(*)(*)(*) like they are doing in california. Gun laws arent the problem, its the liberal left that will abuse the law. Californians should be outraged, they have officially been stripped of their rights without due process. Tyranny is now here!
The only thing gun laws do is make it harder for non-criminals to get guns. It's not as though criminals are going to obey the laws (I mean the very definition of a criminal is that they break laws...). And generally, increasing the number of laws also increases the number of loopholes, as demonstrated by tax codes.
The problem lies with what our society has become, not with guns. Did you know when there weren't any gun laws at all on the book except the one where one couldn't own a machine gun without a federal permit, there were only one mass shooting that entire decade? That decade was the 1950's. Did you know in the 1920's, the roaring twenties when it was perfectly legal for anyone to own even a machine gun, there were only 2 mass shootings in the era of Al Capone. Now that increased in the 1930's to 9 which the Valentines Massacre was one. So what has happened to our society where mass shootings have become almost common place? From 1 to 30 or perhaps maybe even 40 per decade. Does anyone care? Or is it just too easy to ignore the problems that have brought our society from one to 40 mass shootings by blaming guns? Now cars seem to be added to that equation, driving them up onto sidewalks or into crowds. Knife stabbings now have hit the news. All the gun laws in the world won't stop them or the ones who obtain their guns illegally. My suggestion is to take a deep good look at society and discover what and where we went wrong. Why when no gun laws on the books, hardly no mass shootings at all. Now with a ton of gun laws and more gun laws every day, we have more and more mass shootings. Why? Again, does anyone care? Does anyone want to find out why? I guess no, it is too easy to blame the inanimate object and make it evil when it is the individual behind that inanimate object and perhaps the whole society behind it that makes it possible.
Federal law already requires all firearm dealers, manufacturers and importers to be licensed, and requires such licensees to initiate a background check on a non-licensee to whom they intend to sell or otherwise transfer a firearm, regardless of where the transfer takes place.
That's kinda like asking why do gun-control extremists support confiscating all firearms and repealing the 2nd Amendment. I'm an NRA member, and I can differentiate between reasonable measures that don't threaten "the right" of law-abiding citizens and those that do.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This thread has appeared here hundreds of times under different titles, but the short answer is simply this: The greatest reason to retain the right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. There is also this observation from history: "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria [Government limo] sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! –Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The GULAG Archipelago History is replete with examples of the need of the people to be armed. Aside from that, you know better than to try and make the arguments you make relative to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not give government any authority to regulate guns. I'd like to share with you a RULING by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) Notice those words "neither is it" in the sentence. "It" refers to a Right to keep and bear Arms. So "it" exists independent of the Second Amendment. As John Adams, the second president of the United States put it: "[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." I oppose background checks - We have the Fourth Amendment I oppose licensing and permits - I don't need permission from the government to do that which I already had a Right to do Assault weapon ban? The FIRST time a gun control law was over-turned on constitutional grounds the court RULED: "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of the free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) Yeah, I don't like creating separate classes of citizenship in order to justify putting dangerous people back into a free society. Pay for your crime, do your time and come back to the population as a freeman. I have no problem with it Ronstar. Keep dangerous people behind bars or execute them. Limits on Rights? Ronstar, you are joking. You'd have a cow if the mods here said you could only start this thread twice a year. Exercise your Rights. Don't limit them, And - in conclusion: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin I'm sure IF you could give up essential Liberty and pass the tyrannical laws you want passed, you'd find out that once you surrender your Liberty you will end with neither Liberty nor Safety. But, that is the concluding message I have: The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. Since the government does not grant the right, they have no de jure (that is lawful) authority to restrict it. A careful examination of the Second Amendment reveals that the government can only regulate the militia (to make sure they are adequately armed and trained.) The regulating does not cover restricting weapons to individuals. Okay, this has been asked and answered yet again.
