Yes, sucks huh? They have the 2nd A sale going on right now too, I wish I could buy one. I would most likely crash it on day one trying to be Airwolf though... Are we talking about the controls govt should have on the 2nd A in regards to what is protected and what is not? I'm not going thru 25 pages to find out is why I ask?
No need to read 26 pages. Just read the first post and then my post ripping apart the first post and showing how ridiculous it is for those who pretend to be gun supporters to willingly give up even more liberty. All the rest has pretty much been a bunch of FUDDs supporting compromising away our rights versus a small handful of us who understand liberty, the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment, pushing back against their ideas. We understand that we'll never convince those who hate liberty but there may be future readers of these threads who are legitimately, open-mindedly, researching the topic and some of us don't want to leave the falsehoods and twisted logic of those who hate liberty as the final word.
Can you explain how insisting that the government follow the Constitution is obstinate? If following the Constitution is obstinate then you've already surrendered your rights because you've surrendered the Constitution. Now we're only struggling to compromise - a thing you've said you like. I have a gun-rights compromise for you. My offer is the Constitution: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What's your counter? Oh, I remember: reasonable regulation. I accept your compromise; now let's talk about what's reasonable. I offer this as what's reasonable, according to the Constitution: NO RESTRICTIONS. And your counter is what? Mandatory background checks.
The compromise is somewhere between restrictions on NBC arms and restrictions on all arms. 'NO RESTRICTIONS' is as obstinate as 'restrict everything'. You won't find me saying 'MBGCs are reasonable' anywhere. Because they aren't. You won't get anywhere with strawmen like that.
NBC weapons are not arms covered by any purpose of the 2nd Amendment. That's a ridiculous comparison used to justify your desire for gun control. Is the Constitution obstinate? You and these people seem to agree that it is.
How convenient. The purpose of the 2A is to allow the populace to defend themselves, both individually and collectively. Please explain why NBC weapons are not 'arms' that would aid in this goal and why the 2A doesn't apply to them. Are there any other weapons that you personally don't consider as 'arms' to be covered by the 2A? Incendiaries? Explosives? Energy weapons?
Are you of the opinion that NBC should be legal for private ownership? I do not. Much like the 1st Amen has limitations the 2nd should as well. I’m not of the opinion that magazine capacity should be regulated for example but private ownership of a SAM should be regulated.
You're scary because if, as you keep trying to say, those are arms in the context of the 2nd Amendment then they must certainly be permitted for private use until such a time as Congress and the state legislatures pass and ratify a constitutional amendment to ban their private ownership. Better get writing your congressman right away.
Im not sure we are on the same page I do not think they are protected nor should they be. Small arms yes, beyond that no. Unless it’s a Sherman tank, cause I really want one of those one day
Or they could just make parts of that database available. For example, have a downloadable alphabetized list of names for everyone in that specific county. Or maybe further subdivide that listing of names by city of official residence. We could make an exception for some specific high-density areas. The area surrounding New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles county, the area surrounding Boston, and Philadelphia.
It’s a non starter. The motor vehicle department are state run entities. You’re asking for federal laws to be regulated by state agencies just because what, driver licenses are cheaper if combined ? . You need to treat this like a federal matter first and start over again. No way high density areas like nyc should have the same firearm laws when they don’t even have the same building codes, traffic laws or anything else, as East Podunk North Dakota. Sorry, you’re not parading around with with an AR15/ over your shoulder walking down Times Square. Even conservative business owners in those locals would be against it. There are thousands of active criminals that don’t now have felony records that could then carry any weapon legally in big cities. Ain’t happening. You’re under the illusion that every active criminal has been arrested and found guilty of a felony.
We can regulate any fking thing we damn we’ll please. We’ve been regulating firearms since the 1800s, and even earlier. That will never change. Talk serious. The 2A is subject to regulation. Always was, always will be.
It is due process of law. Those who can legally own firearms, and those who cannot, are defined by existing federal law. Unless one is convicted of a prohibiting offense, there is nothing that can legally be done.
Barring future weapon development, it's been regulated to the point it needs no more. 30 round magazines are not new, semi auto firearms are not new those type of things are resolved. When we have ray guns then maybe we will need to address it again
Slaughtered kids tell us in death, we haven’t done a good job with what people getting them, the type and the availability.
Your blaming the firearm, that is never going to work in a country where there are already 100s of millions of them in private hands.
It’s a bogus idea that nothing can be done too. There aren’t hundreds of millions of AR15 style weapons and high cap autos. I have firearms for self defense and a permit. I’m totally unaffected by any proposed new gun regs. In general, states and countries that have stronger gun laws have less gun violence. But, keep spreading fake news if it keeps you awake at night.
Just think of all the Liberal judges and jurors who would salivate over this one. Convicted of a crime no longer necessarily equates to guilty of a crime, when it comes to self defense and the use of a firearm, when in a liberal court. Agenda first....commons sense?....well, not necessarily.
