I'm not sure what your strategy is. If you think that acting overconfident will successfully distract people from your inability to back up your claims then you're wrong.
LOL, read Konig's papers. You used him as a source, you should at least read his papers so you know what your source actually believes. Google him, its easy.
people who feel as you do are the best argument for why the rest of us need to be well armed and vigilant do tell us where the federal government was delegated the power to ban or restrict firearms. even without a second amendment, the federal government doesn't properly have such power and thus the tenth amendment-if properly enforced-would ban any federal gun bans.
Obviously the commerce clause which you interpret more narrowly than the courts, But its not super relevant to my view, because I want the right to regulate intrastate transfer and possession to remain at the state level. I don't want Congress to decide much byond interstate transport and to provide for a national registry, I want state legislatures to decide the rest, including what its citizens are required to provide to register a gun or whether they are. If Alaska wants to extend an individual right to bear arms, it may. If California decides not to, it may regulate. They can decide whether to cooperate with that national registry that Washington created. If you can persuade your state legislature to allow for the ownership of a nuclear bomb, enjoy the glow!
in an ideal USA the federal bill of rights would not be applied to the states. The founders concept of federalism would be intact. Crap like welfare and progressive income taxes would be tested at a state level and if found wanting, the state that implemented such programs would pay the price when productive citizens would leave the state and it would go bankrupt or end its handouts. and states would be the ones that regulated firearms not the feds. And states could probably prevent people from carrying firearms concealed on public streets or regulate where you could shoot a firearm. But in that ideal world, no state would be preventing citizens from owning the same firearms that a militia member or a state policeman could use on duty. and no state would deprive black citizens of the same rights white citizens enjoyed-which is why we have incorporation
No. the response time to a 9-11 call about an intruder or a bear at your window in Manhattan will differ wildly from the response time in the wilds of Alaska. that does not matter when you are going to get a marriage license or get an abortion, but it does with respect to access to a firearm. I think Alaska is better suited to write the gun statute than Washiington because it understands the landscape and the unique risks to safety and security its environment and its people will provide.
Oh, a strawman. Imagine my surprise. I never said anything of the sort. A lot more goes on in basic training than simply marksmanship training. But certainly if one joins the Army and is already a crack shot, he can devote more of his efforts towards learning other aspects of soldiering. The most important thing about those two uses are the same: hitting your target. So, let's reverse the question: are you trying to tell me that the skill gained through years of practice can be accomplished during a few weeks of basic training? I certainly don't believe that, and I've been through basic training. Have you?
So, just states' rights for your pet beliefs. The response time in Manhattan will still be minutes. The response time of an intruder will be seconds. You still lose.
This is not about 'states rights' I do not make the argument that states have rights that the feds do not. I have not made the argument that Congress cannot make gun law. Instead my argument is that it ought not. Its about where policy should be set in specific areas of our lives. do not 'lose; if you win that argument at committee hearing before a bill mark-up session and your state makes you happy. take your argument up with the state legislature who will weigh your concern about your time frame alongside the concerns of people who are sick of deaths all around them, from firearms raining down on every neighborhood in the city. Gun control legislation tends to be more popular in urban highly populated areas than rural less populated ones because they measure their fears and risks differently depending on their environment, crime rates and etc.. Your state legislature should be able to find compromise and tailor their laws for local needs, or even allow cities to enact their own. Now I am done with you because you decided to be an ass with that "I won' comment. It wasn't a partisan competition.
That's not what the Democrats want. I didn't say that I won. I said depending upon a police response time when you have an intruder is a losing proposition. No cops are that fast.[/quote][/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] I apologise for jumping to a wrong conclusion. I misconstrued your response as a petty partisan reply. Instead you were saying I lost to the intruder. My bad . Not all Dems want the same things. Many Dems would point out the practical problem with my idea. Its too easy to drive across a state border for this state notion to work, but its the best I can come up with.
Like I said before, I have more respect for you being willing to acknowledge the right inherent in the Second Amendment even if you disagree with it. I find that refreshing, and intellectually honest. I can disagree with you on your core belief (and I do) but at least I can respect where you're coming from. Of course, you talk about the "direction of appellate prevailing winds" and I can only shake my head. I know you feel your positions honestly, but as someone who owes his life to having a gun and knowing how to use it I do not lightly accept the assertion that my right to my life does not include an equally important right to defend my life, or to defend it with the most efficient tool available for the purpose.
Most of the soldiers I know believe in the Right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. As a Republic, we should teach basic military riflery in public schools.
I get that access to an efficient method to defense and it certainly saves some lives when there is solid training and education. But it is also the most efficient way to kill innocents intentionally with that same education and training. When you add suicides by gunshot, accidents by gunshot and circumstances where you combine that gun with alcohol, or drug use, or extreme youth, I doubt that you are left with a positive number.
The second amendment as currently interpreted by the courts, prohibits government from either banning, restricting, or effectively regulating gun ownership at the municipal, county, state or federal level.
I agree that the 2nd amendment prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So, @Galileo, why is there any need for a discussion of its "preamble"?
One obvious example who a right to own itself is not in play, is the regulation of 'concealed/ carry permits. We have yet another effort struck down today.
Presuming by this comment that you're in favor of stricter licensing for CCW than "self defense" and would favor "will issue" rather than "shall issue", would you care to discuss why? Strict licensing requirements for CCW like in some California counties and in NYC result in almost nonenissued, and then mostly in favor of the well to do or sitting judges. Why do they deserve to be able to defend themselves in public more than the lower and middle classes?
We live in a society based in the protection of individual liberty and freedom; as such there are risks associated. Acknowledging people's rights and seeking to protect them from governmental infringement means there is greater opportunity for those rights to be abused by people. However, as we saw in the Paris terrorist attacks, a motivated societal predator can and will acquire the means to kill innocents regardless of the laws. I believe that we, as a nation, should use more resources to provide training and instruction to the citizenry and teach them the merits and responsibilities of an armed populace. When you speak of alcohol and drug use, or youth, you are already talking about "accidents by gunshot", and that is a number most people would be surprised to discover is actually as low as it is (far fewer than 1,000 a year). I think education is more important; many children used to be properly trained in safely coexisting with firearms; my grandfather was gifted his first hunting rifle when he was only 8 and purchased his first handgun from the hardware store with his own money by the time he was 12, and he and his classmates carried guns to school and kept them in the coat room until classes let out. No school shootings and very few accidents. He started what he called "gunproofing" of me when I was only 4 years old; introducing me to proper firearms safety and etiquette, and those lessons stood me in good stead throughout my life. As for suicides (the largest number of gun-related deaths in the U.S.) the simple reality is that more guns get used for suicide in the U.S. for the simple reason that the guns are more widely available as an option than in many other countries; but our overall suicide rate is no worse than average for the world. In the end I think that, overall, guns bring far more good than harm to our culture.
