What does a perfect gun law look like

Won't answer the question?

Is all the push for more training a result of high numbers of accidental discharges resulting in injury and death?

 

It's where all the crime is that proves liberal agendas regarding guns is an abject failure.

It's a great case study to prove the "regulation" crew is detached from the reality and incapable of aligning their agenda to actual results.

 

well you see I have spent years studying the second amendment and I believe most of the top scholars and I are on pretty much the same page. The second amendment-a right that the founders did not believe CAME FROM the constitution (See US V. Cruikshank, circa late 1870s). The second amendment was based on the NATURAL right (The founders believed in natural law and natural rights-rights that came from reason rather than the government) and the Natural right underlying the second amendment was the right of SELF DEFENSE. arms that were protected were weapons CITIZENS would normally keep and BEAR for lawful purposes -especially self defense. Offensive weapons designed to attack areas like bombs and mortars were not contemplated by the Founders. Police weapons, by DEFINITION are for self defense and thus are covered. I realize there are some modern weapons that are in a gray area such as belt fed machine guns or one man portable rockets. But clearly police firearms are covered by the second

 

The statist answer: "Whatever fully reflects my morals, values, and preferences."

My answer: none.

 

Doesn't matter what you studied. I can read the words in the 2A.

Everyone has their opinions.
Which is why all this BS about where one wants their line in the sand is all over the place.

Each line in the sand is the amount of infringements each is willing to allow.
No matter that the 2A says 'shall not be infringed'.

 

That is the true answer to fully implement the 2A.
But of course, nothing is the same today as it was 250 yrs ago.

 

I believe my line is somewhere north of all firearms used by civilian police
why don't you tell us yours and I will explain why it is most likely unconstitutional

 

That's called the Second Amendment. Like many laws that protect basic freedoms and make a society work well, too many people ignoring them creates chaos- and that gets blamed on the laws instead of the violators. We have laws against crime using guns, laws against criminals possessing guns, laws against people with problems such as mental issues buying guns.

IF we enforced those laws successfully, our "gun problem" would take a huge drop. If instead, we just pass laws that impact only the people using guns legally, all we do is disarm the victims of the criminals who will use them illegally.

You have to see and think past the end of your nose to figure these things out.

 

Where my line is, is not the topic.
But you have a line. Also, where your line is not the topic.
I am not interested in your opinion. You and I have different opinions on where we want to infringe on the 2A.

Where anyone's line is, is not the topic.
The topic is perfect gun laws.

My point is, is most everyone is for some infringements.
Where the 2A, says, 'shall NOT be infringed'.
And I responded to a poster to the thread that said, NO laws. And that is the correct response to the literal meaning of the 2A.

 

Perfect gun laws punish those who use firearms to wrongly harm others
threaten others or engage in unjustified behavior that has a high likelihood of harming others

the second amendment is a negative restriction on a federal government that has no proper power to enact ANY Gun laws. but at the state level, the second's incorporation prevents states from passing laws that interfere with keeping and bearing firearms. Not restricting how they are used

 

Obviously its not just the 2A. All it says is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." which is why it's constantly being challenged and discussed. Many would argue that even violent felons once out of prison should be able to own firearms. Where in the 2A does it say violent felons can't?

 

As with most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment exist as much as it has been applied by the court to the actions of the state.

The 2nd Amendment does not restrict the exercise of right to keep and bear arms, it restricts the government's ability to restrict that right.
Your question, then, should ask "Where does the 2nd Amendment allow the state to restrict felons from owning and using firearms"?

 

Sure I guess, ends up the same in the end regardless of the word smithing.

 

I'm pointing out that it's the spirit of the Constitution that matters. The Constitution speaks for the rights and freedoms of people. It's our primary law. When we start to redefine our primary directive, everything becomes negotiable. Therein lies the real source of the problem.

I do think those who try to qualify the statement of rights with the reference to a well regulated militia for example, are using that as an excuse for rejecting it.

This revolves around a misunderstanding. A militia is a force that government can call on when the needs of defense exceed resources. The concept is that in the end, the people are the defenders as well as tghe everyday citizens. When the Civil war began, the Union had only about 26,000 troops, and was far outnumbered by the Confederate army. Lincoln announced a call for 75,000 men to form militias to defend the union, and got it. The union did not have the resources to arm or train them nor the time to do so- but the militias came armed, mounted, and in many cases uniformed, and elected their own officers from within their ranks. Over the course of the war, close to 2 million men served in defense of the Union by way of militias. There's a 1866 roster in our family of a unit of the Pennsylvania Militia unit, with one of our ancestor's names on it.

The reference to a militia reinforces the reason for the citizens to be armed; it explains why it's necessary. It's not a restriction or limitation. Defending the right to own arms includes making laws that prevent that right from being abused by those who would use arms for unjust purposes, such crimes and violence. Doing that protects and defends the 2A. Attacking the 2A instead of enforcing the laws against crime is an attempt to destroy a great deal of freedom that goes well beyond the right to be armed.

I've often thought the founding fathers overestimated the capacity of future generations; gave us credit for a greater wisdom than we seem to have.