States rights is still an important consideration. And technically, even the least 'gun friendly' areas do technically adhere to the right to 'bear arms.' Even in CA and DC for example, firearms may be openly(visibly) carried without a 'permit' so long as they are not loaded, which complies with the letter (though certainly not the spirit) of 'bearing arms.' There is an argument to made for the people of each state to have some say in how they regulate firearms just as much as there is for them to have a say in how they handle other things like immigration. Though I do agree that I wish more states would decide to accept constitutional carry and I believe that was the intent of the 2A.
I am certainly with you in your support of states' rights, although regulation of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights goes beyond my limits. Regulating firearms rights can lead to regulation of things like mandating vaccinations at the threat of being being fired from your job, making your kids wear masks in schools, or encouraging citizens to inform on other citizens that are only 2.5 feet rather than 3.0 feet from each other.
Neither, since neither option would have any impact. Very obviously, you were not on a multi-jurisdictional task-force attempting to stop gun smuggling. And, no, I wasn't in Texas, although 1,000s of weapons are smuggled across the Texas-Mexican border each year. I was in Virginia. Yes, gun smugglers use garden-variety pleasure craft to smuggle guns into the US, where they are sold on the Black Market. Basic Law of Economics: Anything banned ends up on the Black Market. Even if something isn't banned per se, a Black Market emerges.
By the way, my next gun is a Kel Tec P50. My wife wants one too. Its already been selected by the Secret Service. So sad that a 50 round magazine is banned in the tyranny states. Its hard to get now since so many folks want one. The suggested manufacturer's retail price is less than a thousand dollars. But because of a lack of availability, they are going for over $3,000 now.
Ban free speech or a free press. A press is more powerful. But speech is more easily concealed, with whispered slights and subtle lies, secret oaths, combinations and conspiracies. Look at all the evil done, the misdirection, the deceit, hopes destroyed and the grinding of optimism along with purposing murder, rape and all manner of reprobate behavior via common speech.
When I think of "free speech" I do not think of "whispered slights and subtle lies, secret oaths, combinations and conspiracies". I think of free citizens expressing their views openly and freely. You know, like Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry.
I know all the testing Picatinny does with Army weapons before allowing them to be fielded. I saw the Army using Mossberg shotguns in Iraq, so all my shotguns are Mossbergs. Similarly, I note that the Army issued M14's to non-school trained "designated snipers" in Afghaniatan. (The Taliban learned to attack at ranges beyond those of the M16 and M4. As civilians, M1A is as close as we can get to an M14 without the hassle of a Class III license.) Sp taking all this into consideration, I prefer the M1A.
Great weapon, but really heavy and long. The AR is just more “practical” in many ways. The Mini-14 is closer to the AR than the M1A is.
You never fail to deliver! P.S. Spoiler alert: The stupid gene crosses all political and apolitical lines.
I agree. And in my days in uniform I was much happier carrying a 5.53 bullet launcher than an M14. But I won't being doing any more LRRP's... I'm retired. And the added range of an M1A beats the AR15 for me. Different missions require different solutions.
All individual rights have restrictions, one reason is in the name of public safety. I live in an urban area, two blocks away from section 8 housing. I've stood in line at the local barbeque joint with a kid who had a handgun in his front jean pocket with an extended magazine sticking out. My city has a higher per capita homicide rate than the right-wing poster child, Chicago. I don't live in fear. I don't own a gun. There is just a lot of dumb people, with not a lot of self control, whose only sense of worth is their street cred, walking around packing. It is more or less a deadly fashion statement. There is no good way to get the guns off the street. What I would like to see done, in the name of public safety, is only registered gun owners could by a limited amount of ammo for their handgun and they would be legally responsible for that ammo. Now, as it is, anyone can buy as much ammo as they can afford.
Ammo is just as easy to manufacture/alter at home as firearms are. The metalwork required in ammo manufacturing is high school jewelry class level. The chemistry is more advanced, but no more so than making meth. The point being that as it is now, the demand for ammo is being fulfilled by professional manufacturers (and only barely as demand is very high and increasing) who make it cheaply enough that making at home isn't a profitable alternative (home loading still saves money, but that still requires obtaining the casings, powder and primers, which are the more difficult parts to produce). Reducing supply with legislation will increase demand to the point that it becomes more profitable for the black market to invest in manufacturing. The more this happens, the easier it becomes for criminals to get guns/ammo relative to how difficult it is for law abiding citizens to get same. The simple fact is there is no law that can decrease the demand for firearms or ammo, and so long as the demand exists, the black market is incentivised with profit to pick up any slack. Firearms and ammo are not plutonium or microchips. They dont require a massive industrial investment to manufacture. It can be done small scale, in secret, anywhere, with investment only a bit higher than that of a methlab or a grow farm. Impede supply and that investment will start to be worth it.
How is that stopping anyone from legitimately owning a gun? How many boxes of ammo do you need a year for "self protection"? Want target practice? Do like the Swiss. Withholding one element like primer to only those licensed will inhibit black market reloading and a lot of countries have enacted laws that decreased the availability of firearms. It can be done.
Primers arent particularly difficult chemistry either. Remember we're talking about 100 year old technology minimum all the way around and through todays civilian firearms. There's no part of them that is difficult for the common person to DIY if they have enough incentive. And in the US we have a much higher demand for firearms than any other nation. That demand equates to a very profitable incentive.
It infringes on the right to keep and bearcarms, and nowhere in the Constitution is the government given any power to limit how much ammo a law abiding citizen can own? What is the purpose?
Boy, am I glad I don't live where you do. We have no gun permits or registration here at all. "Constitutional Carry" (open or concealed carry) is the right of every legal gun owner. We don't live in fear here at all. It may seem trite, but people say "Yes, Sir" and "No, Ma'am" and help each other out. Wow, I grew up in New York and am so glad I left.
If you look into it you will find that other countries reduced the number of "dangerous" guns on the streets with a, say, 60-day buy-back program and a very hefty penalty if you're caught with one of the banned weapons after the buy-back period ended.
Maybe this is off topic but I just wanted to point out that this is a false dichotomy. Virtually all of those who want to ban one actually also want to ban the other. We've seen this play out in several states. Once they banned the legal carry of one, it was only a few more years until they banned the legal carry of the other. So I believe your question is more of a purely hypothetical one.
