What does a perfect gun law look like

the gist of my argument is that what FDR and his pets on the court did was blatantly unconstitutional and corrupt. An amendment to allow the government the powers to do stuff like SS would have been the proper way to do it. And I don't believe an amendment to allow federal gun control would be constitutional as long as the second exists

 

Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense.

I'll use the old second amendment advocates' own argument:

If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.

So now, criminals will have guns in the White House and there will be fewer people with guns to stop them.

That IS the second amendment advocates' argument.

If you say 'well the police will have guns'. well .

Yes, there are, BUT IT IS FOR THE SAME REASON THEY BAN GUNS.

They don't want the president getting shot.

Oh, it's okay if you and I get shot elsewhere.

It's okay if someone carries an AR 15 in a walmart, no biggy if he shoots you and me

But no, not in the white house, no guns there.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of people who oppose gun regulation.

 

You haven't actually refuted my comment.

 

Everyone except very select people going into the those buildings go through a metal detector. There is no metal detectors in most people's lives. So, they must be ready to defend themselves.

I provided a very simple explanation. End of discussion.

 

sure I did-the proper way for the federal government to obtain power that it was not given in Article One Section Eight is to push for an amendment and if the amendment is agreed to, then acting pursuant to that grant of power would not be corrupt. Pretending that the commerce clause was intended to allow congress essentially unlimited power is corrupt and that is what FDR did. If the founders intended that, there was no need for the most of what was put in Article one Section Eight

 

Quit truncating my posts and not addressing the full context.

Second amendment types want plenty of guns near you and me, but are okay with them not being near the president.

That's hypocrisy.

 

It is very simple in spite of your protests. I keep guns in the house for self defense. I live on a road where there is no other way of getting to my house except down that road. If they set up a guard station so that they had metal detectors along that one road and no one could come down my road or if I had an armed law enforcement officer guarding my home, I would no longer have a need for guns. Those conditions are similar to those in the capitol. They have metal detectors and armed guards, there is no need for law abiding people to carry weapons into the capitol.

 

I have always said I don't oppose gun free zones if they are well protected. My office when I was an AUSA had armed guards all over the building. Even when we moved to a non-governmental building, we had an armed guard and bulletproof glass in the foyer and we invariably had several armed special agents in our office constantly

 

It doesn't prove that FDR is corrupt. For me, that has a particular meaning, such as taking bribes, that sort of thing.

If you are saying the system didn't work as you thought it should, and that's your idea of 'corrupt', Fine, that's your opinion,
but it's not a crime.

 

That's your opinion. Most second amendment aficionados I've encountered want their guns everywhere, no matter what. To them, I say, hypocrisy.

 

Opinion? Don't you think I am correct?

I don't know of a single gun owner that has any desire to have a gun in the presence of the president.

 

OK a traitor then.

 

agreed, being around the president is pretty safe. (unless you are a teenaged girl in the current environment)

 

Access for civilians to any firearm used by law enforcement.

 

So.. all this talk of more and mandatory training... I assume that accidental discharges and deaths of the most important concern regarding gun laws?

 

the entire purpose is throwing as many obstacles they can in the way of lawful citizens being able to buy and use firearms. Gun banners know that the Courts are no longer on their side and keep throwing out different ideas to harass gun ownership, hoping that some aren't struck down as blatantly unconstitutional

 

My State of Illinois does, and also mandatory classes for CCL.

It sure has drastically dropped the gun crimes in Chicago! /sarcasm

 

Yep, citizens should be able to own the same weapons their own civil government might use against them

 

the FOID in Illinois is a blatant affront to the second amendment as incorporated and to the controlling supreme court case law as established in McDonald and Bruen

 

If you think gun laws, and stricter ones with more hurdles, reduces crime then you must believe any criminal gives tow rats ass about your laws.

 

Are natural rights afforded all living creatures?

Assume anything you want.

 

Chicago is all there is in Illinois?

 

And our military.

 

The military cannot be used in civil law enforcement so I don't think the second protects nukes, Triple A batteries or mortars. etc

 

Nothing about the 2nd says anything about civil law enforcement.
Just, in order to maintain a well regulated militia, arms to keep and bear shall not be infringed .