Matt Damon calls for IMMEDIATE gun ban in the US -

Yes, I'm going with the grammar as per the way the 2nd amendment was written.

We have solutions for the maintenance of a free state.

The idea that a rifle and pistol are indispensable is simply ludicrous.

People should be able to own guns, but the 2nd is being used to suggest that there be no controls. And, THAT is not acceptable. Even the founders demanded the militia be well regulated.

 

OK, I could be a flaming hypocrite, as a retired Police Officer, I have my sidearm under Federal Administration, I am exempt under LEOSA and under that covenant, so no State laws apply to retired Law Enforcement.

 

Thanks for your service!

And, you have been trained, vetted, and experienced up the ying yang - far more than would be rationally required of any citizen such as myself.

So, the fact that it is assumed that you should/do carry in all states seems rational to me.

 

You say you are going with the grammar of the second amendment as how it's written. So in other words, disregard the intention of the men that wrote it. They obviously meant of all men to bear arms, not just the militia. It's in their quotes. You want to Disregard Samuel Adams words about separating the text from the historical background. The quotes of the men that wrote it are the historical background.

The Supreme Court disagrees with your biased interpretation.

And what "controls" would be consistent with our founders intentions.

 

Your term would include double barreled shotguns. Plus its not true. Pistols still beat long guns in mass shootings.

 

Mass shootings by themselves are quite rare, and are responsible for only a minute number of deaths overall. Compared to the number of individuals murdered by other means such as bludgeoning, the number of lives lost to mass shootings could be considered to be statistically insignificant.

According to the advocacy group Everytown For Gun Safety, only eleven percent of mass shootings involve long arms. Meaning the other eighty nine percent of mass shootings utilized handguns. https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

 

there are state controls. Tell us how you can read the constitution, the second and the tenth and actually find federal gun control powers to be legitimate.

 

"Well regulated" meant to be proficient or skilled at their job. (like a well regulated watch) They wanted a militia that was already skilled at using a weapon. That's why the 2A rights were reserved for THE PEOPLE and not the MILITIA.

Why would the 2A state that a militia with heavy government control is necessary for a free state? Why would they then say that the right of "THE PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

All "gun control" laws should be at the state level and even then individual rights cannot be infringed without due process and proof that that individual has abused his rights.

Texas is a good example of this. The "2A" for the Texas Constitution goes like this.

"Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

 

All our rights have exceptions.

The most common exception is probably public safety.

 

Texas is a "shall issue" state - the legislature ignores who "wears" arms, and requires nothing toward training.

The NRA also argues against all training requirements.

Times have changed since the 1700's. We depend on our military, our national guard and our police - whose members we select without concern for training. We then train these individuals.

 

Anybody who carries a gun without training puts their life and their freedom at risk. I'll be the first to call them guilty on a jury if they were negligent. Nobody carries long guns in TX unless it's in unpopulated areas such as hunting or on a ranch or private property. It wouldn't bother me if they did as long as they carry it safely and make no threats toward anybody. Anybody who carries a handgun in TX has been finger printed and background checked on a state and federal level, has no felony record, no record of spousal abuse, no record of substance abuse, no record of mental illness, no overdue alimony or child support, no delinquent student loans, and attended a training class. This class includes instruction on carry laws, use of force laws, and a handgun proficiency test.

Furthermore, I've served in active duty military and the Texas Air National Guard. My weapons training was minimal, but I did go through the M16 training annually for 10 years. I've had a secret security clearance for 28 years. I've been background checked to work in almost every state and federal and local government agency there is and many major military weapons contractor's sites. I have had a license to carry a gun for 7 years. I know a dozen people with the same qualifications I have or more. We are not a bunch of ignorant hillbillies brandishing guns. I even have a kid with a higher security clearance and more weapons training than I have.

People with a License To Carry watch out for each other. When out with friends, we remind each other when we are not allowed to carry in a certain place. (like high school football games) We discuss the law if we have questions and we all have a copy of pertinent gun laws at home. We recently had a range day at our church. We have dozens in our church with LTCs. We rarely mention guns at church and we have banned open carry because guns would be a distraction to our worship, but I pity the person who tries to carry out a mass shooting at my church. We frequently take younger people under our wing who have gotten LTCs and make sure they know the law and encourage them to practice with their gun and be mature. I'd hate to see them get into trouble.

 

The supreme court ruled in McDonald v City of Chicago that public safety is not a legitimate measurement for restricting the second amendment. They rejected the argument outright.

 

More than three decades ago the district of columbia determined that only those who registered their handguns with the city would be allowed to legally own them. Afterwards they stopped allocating funds to be used for the registration of handguns, thus enacting a defacto handgun ban by ensuring no one would be able to legally register their firearms. It took more than three decades for this scheme to finally be overturned by the supreme court.

In light of such, why should the NRA not oppose any and all requirements, knowing full well that they could easily be discontinued and amount to another defacto prohibition?

 

Texaa has no training requirement for gun ownership or carry permits. Anyone with a carry permit for a short barrel gun may carry a long gun in all the same places.

This isn't about you. So stop being so paranoid.

I do not care how responsible you and your friends are. I know that trained and/or responsible people exist.

You seem unopposed to training eequirements. Tell that to your congressmen, the NRA and your friends.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they rejected that argument as adequate justification for the specific law in question.

 

Funny Audie Murphy was a Country Boy, a Hillbilly if you will, no Formal Training, just hunting, yet He was a Hero and one of the Highest decorated Soldiers of WW-ll, not bad for a Hillbilly.

I have a fair amount of training and volunteered for really ugly stuff, so just for the record, you are not alone in highly specialized stuff or unspecified nebulous TS 90% x'd out stuff.

No where is any training specified in the Second Amendment, Vermont and Washington have no mandatory training 0 accidents, Puerto Rico with all of it's strict training requirements and virtually no issue, has off the charts crime, I could be the same as You, however, even Anti Gun Liberal NYC is less restrictive than Texas in some ways, and what in heavens name has Student Loans to do with Guns anyway ?

How is Texas better than Vermont anyway ? The Constitution and BoR is not about Mandatory Gun Laws, it is about Freedom & Liberty, and saying NO unequivocally to Mandatory Gun Control, Frankly, I would rather be an uncouth Hill Billy, than be a Gun Snob.

And for the record, two of the Highest Decorated and Highest trained Soldiers that also served ESU had dreadfully silly negligent discharges that I covered for.

 

That is no excuse.

It might be a reason for firing some employees or voting against some politician who allowed or promoted that failure of service.

 

They are still disobeying SCOTUS and in contempt of Court and a Lawful order.

 

OK - go for it!

I agree we should follow the law.

 

you need to actually start reading the law and the constitution where in the constitution did you find this bit of bovine excrement?

 

However, Texans must pass a proficiency test, using the same qualifier as the DPS.

 

?? I am sure you are aware of gun restrictions.

 

I was not aware of the course required in Texas. I thought Texas was a "Shall Issue" state, meaning that there are no requirements beyond those concerning buying a gun st a gun store.

My state (WA) is a "Shall Issue" state requiring zero testing, training, or other requirements of anyone who can legally buy a gun from a gun store. You apply and pay a fee, and the state issues. A permit lets you carry concealed, but gives no other benefits that any gun owner without a permit already has. That is, any legal owner may open carry.

So, we're more gun crazy than Texas!

 

Texas is a "shall issue" state, however you must pass a written test and pass the same shooting qualifier as the DPS before issuance of a CCW.

 

Actors are lower than whores.

A whore doesn't pretend to be anything other than a whore.

 

That puts conditions on issuing the permit.

So, what is the justification for limiting the 2nd amendment in that way?

Why do Texans have to learn the laws on use of force, etc? Why is a carry permit predicated on carrying out court ordered restitution, etc?

In other words, what are the limits of laws on permitting people to access their 2nd amendment rights??