Who should be restricted from owning a gun

At age 9, I had unrestricted access to firearms and knew how to use them safely. I could even reload the ammo when I was done. Responsibility is not an age. Many adults should not be allowed to own a spork!

 

I shoot a Glock19 and have never had a problem reloading brass. I do use a resizing die.

 

Well said. I will use the spork comment a LOT!

 

I thought it was just the .40 S&W that was unsupported.

 

Gees.. I went back to research this issue and found so many "opinions" that its hard to figure out the facts. From what I've read, my best guess is that you are correct... and only on guns manufactured before 2002. But that's just my best guess.

 

I have had no problems with 9mm and don't have a .40 S&W.

223/556 casings give me the most problems when reloading.

 

I started with 40 S&W... a Beretta 96D. Cop gun. Then bought more. The FBI developed 40 S&W because when the military moved to 9mm they thought it had too little stopping power. I agree. But I have some 9mm because if SHTF it should always be available since the military uses it.

 

I may have to add a 40 to my collection. When my wife asks me why I need another gun, I will use your post!

 

We have 9mm, 40 S&W, 12 ga, 308, 9mm, 553, 45, and 410. My wife thinks some guns are "cute" and I just shut up and jump on that.

 

Your vote doesn't include the necessary conditions to remove a right from the people. Start there and perhaps the rest of your discussion will benefit from it.

 

Jurors are twelve citizens and make a decision based upon the FACTS.. they aren't political... just citizens determining FACTS. My it ever be so.

 

You asked a 'should' question. I will give you a 'should' answer. There should be no federal based constitutional right for any individual to own a gun. It's a public policy question, and it 'should' be decided by legislative branch, based on Congressional or statewide initiatives/ referendums that are either reflected state constitutional changes or statutory laws. Alaska's priorities and challenges on this issue are very different than New York's or Mississippi's.

I'd like to take some white-out to that entire second amendment, if you gave me five minutes of alone time with each existing original copy. Its nothing but a huge headache and has been for about 75 years. That's my answer.

 

Nice! Is your 308 bolt action?

I collect antiques, so I have to cast my own bullets and make ammo you just can't get any more.

 

Gun ownership is like the right to vote. Clearly stated in the Ten Commandments. Shall we come to some "middle ground" about the right to vote? Or is it an ABSOLUTE RIGHT like owning a gun?

 

No... an M1A semi-auto... and a Saiga (AK clone) chambered in 308. All my guns are military clones. I'm a West Point grad.

 

The right to own a gun is a basic RIGHT as defined in the Bill of Rights. The right o bear arms is no more negotiable than the right to vote.

 

And I could do the same with the First and make your comment illegal and have you locked up for posting it.

 

You could have someone locked up for supporting the Bill of Rights? Really? LOL... try that... keep us posted... should be fun.

 

You aren't familiar with Cruikshank, are you?

 

btthegreat doesn't seem to be a supporter of the Bill of Rights.

 

Actually, there is a reason why the constitution included its own mechanism for amendment, change and repeal of same. Founders seemed to feel that this should be a document that changed with new political and cultural realities. I have never believed that all the rights listed were equally vital to our form of government. Its rather illogical to assume that simply because they were passed via the constitutionally proscribed mechanism of ratification in 1791, they suddenly were, and still are today - especially with the federal courts having such an unpredicted role in how the Constitution including those amendments would impact the republican form of government, and nation. We should continue to debate and reexamine the premises and political theory behind every phrase in the ratified Constitution.

We get to keep what we feel we need, and discard or alter what is not working. Not much point to having Article 5, if you decide that the Constitution is too sacred to examine and re-examine, now is there. That means I get to support the ones I think work and are vital, and not support the ones I don't or yes support amending the ones I think can be improved with some tweaking.

 

We have Article V, and we have it for a reason - to change the Constitution. Nothing else is acceptable.

 

And guess what. It has been used to change and yes totally repeal sections of the Constitution before. Does the 21st amendment ring any bells. If we could use it to ditch the 12th amendment in 1933, we can use Article 5 to ditch the 2nd amendment.

We won't of course, but that is not the question the OP asked.

 

The right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment.

 

Bullshit.