They are wrong. Rights can be abused, but that is not a pretense to make regulations for everyone else. It is clear that "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" (5A). "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." (Federaliat #84)
Then compare us to other countries with a Bill Of Rights that includes a second amendment. Compare us with other countries, similar in population size, and similar number of gun ownership. I'll wait.
uh that is because they accept the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause. Ask them if they really believe that "commerce among the states" was intended to allow congress to regulate what private citizens do or own in their own sovereign states
I was shocked to find out that the commerce clause was actually used to end segregation of all things !
Hey, danielpal..., oh, oops, excuse me, I mean vegas giants, you're not going to like this. I bought another firearm today. Took about 2 hours, but that's because I insisted on firing it before buying it (had to wait about 45 minutes for a slot to open in the range, does that count as training?), and another 30 or so minutes because the shop is antiquated and does everything by hand. Otherwise, it would have been much quicker. NICS check, check. Came back so fast the salesman was visibly surprised. Waiting period? Nope, got a CCW, so that was waived. Went in wanting a particular weapon, tested it, liked it, bought it, brought it home. Sorry. And guess what. I haven't shot a single person with it.
It's a .380 - would they even notice? When I get back home this weekend, I've got two ARs to build and some .300 BO to load up. Great fun.
You gonna volunteer to find out? (Sarcasm.) I realize it's not the best round available, but if my choice is to carry a .380 or carry nothing, given the fact that I live in Florida and based on what I'm wearing, those are the options, I'll take the .380.
I hear you. I bought a 9mm Ruger LCR for a pocket gun only to find it didn't fit in the pockets of my shorts. I may be looking at a .380 myself.
With the right ammo, a .380 is adequate. Most .380s have crap sights. Get one with a laser. It will still fit in your pocket. I pocket carry a .380 to church weekly when I don't wear a coat.
I know comparing us to other countries makes us look bad when it comes to gun deaths. Of course you don't want to do it. You want to keep things just the way they are. I want change. I won't accept 30,000 gun deaths as OK. I want to lower that number. Do you?
There is no way to lower automobile deaths without some encumbrances on legal drivers. We all accept some inconvenience and cost to save lives
You are background checked and trained. That's all I fight for - - - Updated - - - The point is the same. Dead is dead.
Right, thankfully, good people defend themselves legally everyday. Sometimes dead is dead. It's our right and we will fight to defend that right.
And even more good people would be dead if it were not for legal firearm ownership. The fact is that the stats are inflated because bad guys are killing bad guys.
Lol, a pocket gun is a Glock 17 for me, loaded with +P Critical Defense.... - - - Updated - - - Oh poo, statistics from other Countries are not available, I lived in other Countries and saw incidents of personal defense. - - - Updated - - - Bad guys are doing the killing and so far, mist of the dying too, Crime Continues to decrease.
Well it is the case here. The truth is that our stats are packed with bad guys killing bad guys. Isn't that very significant? And many lives have been saved by legal gun ownership. Why would we care if other restricted countries are or are not similar? Second of all.... there are no comparable countries.
With all due respect Brother, Concealed Carry and Driving are both Rights, however people pay for licenses for both, with notable exceptions to States with Constitutional carry. Driving / Travel is a fundamental Right as long as you obey regulations and applicable relevant laws. Driving Rights can be revoked just like CCW if one commits Crimes. My driving is indeed a Right, however I have to pay for associated infrastructure related to driving, gas, road maintenance, highways etc.....
