I am in favor of greater local/ state flexibility to regulate hand gun access, ownership and usage which will inevitably encourage the above discussion. At present, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in talking about any policy options or ideas . Insofar as the second amendment precludes a useful debate, why discuss any of it? That is going to be the answer every single time a state or city or county turns tries to do ANYTHING.
You keep asking the same question but not acknowledging the answers I have already given. Reread the thread until you find either one of the answers I gave.
I guess I've having a hard time understanding why you believe that some rights get federal protection and some have to devolve to state and local governments. It's not a logical position to hold.
You could start by finding those 'unsatisfactory answers' I already gave, quoting them and rebutting them. That is what the rest of us do when we are unconvinced.
"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." If this applies to any protected right, it applies to them all. That's the way the Constitution works.
what I find hilarious is those who think that court created rights (gay sex, abortion, gay marriage, Miranda etc) are absolute and states cannot infringe or limit them even if 95% of the citizens of a state want laws banning such "rights", are so often the same people who can claim a clearly enumerated right really doesn't apply to citizens and that state governments can limit it or infringe upon it at will
after 40+ years of constantly engaging anti gun individuals I Have noticed that it is often very hard to get straightforward answers to easy question from such people. I will state my position honestly and without evasion. I do not find federal gun control to be based on a legitimate or proper reading of the constitution. states have limited power to regulate the use and possession of firearms but at a rate far less than currently allowed. Laws that only impact lawful citizens are not valid as crime control laws
the only possible language in the constitution, limiting the state from passing an outright ban, is in that pesky archaic second amendment. I want it gone. As for your assertion, it is too simplistic and poorly worded. The validity of a law in this country is determined by its source and its constitutionality. Any law that is passed by a majority/ supermajority of a legislative body and signed by the executive consistent with the proscribed process, and not overturned by courts as unconstitutional , is, by definition, valid. Whether it is effective, or prudent, or equitable or practical is a different question. If your point is that gun control is ineffective as a crime control measure, because the only people who are likely to be inconvenienced are the lawful citizens, it doesn't convince me. Many gun deaths and injuries are caused by impulsive conduct or accidents. If we break even on premeditated murders, we still get a sum benefit.
well many us won't allow guns to be banned and there is no authority in the constitution for the federal government to actually ban guns. We get the fact that you are a gun banner. Almost every gun banner I have dealt with-in my spare time or in my various professional capacities, is motivated by something other than public safety. and almost every one of them, is on the left wing side of the political aisle. I figure that is because us gun owners tend to vote for politicians who irk gun banners and the NRA is effective in helping elect anti collectivist politicians. of course there are other reasons-many people who identify with criminals and their "rights" are gun banners. and as National Review convincingly noted-the war against guns is essentially an attack on white conservative Christian males-a group that so many left wing movements see as the enemy. how do you legislate against "impulsive conduct or accidents" short of killing or jailing everyone who won't give up their guns? edit: the NR article http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...oting-gun-control-left-wing-identity-politics
Well this debate just turned downward. I would be a 'gun-banner' in states where nothing short helped, and I thought it was the only option left to reduce gun violence. I would be against a ban in states where lesser means might work, where there wasn't a significant problem of gun violence or where I felt there was a greater risk from banning than not. The reason I am for a state solution rather than federal, is because I don't think the same cookie cutter works well everywhere. The rest of this is just guilt by association and correlation equals intent garbage. A bunch of generalities and stereotypes you pinned together.
We are left with a "Positive number, " how ? The vast majority of Gun owners are Law abiding citizens, voluntarily seek additional training and have a significant investment in what is more than a mere hobby. The Gun Ban manifesto simply parrots slogans and clever sounding mantras, and sound bites or talking points, never hard solid facts. The actual metric proves Law abiding citizens protect more people than the Official Police, prevent more crimes, and are an asset not a liability. So yes, the numbers we are left with are indeed, Positive.
Abortion rights existed before the Constitution was enacted. See my earlier posts on Blackstone and the legal concept of quickening. This is a matter that the right wing refuses to acknowledge even though it is historical fact.
I haven't read your previous posts, but I did a quick search on "Blackstone quickening abortion". The link below is one of the first. There's this quote: "In 1803 Lord Ellenborough's Act (43 Geo. 3, c. 58 ), an early effort to consolidate offenses against the person, put abortion on a statutory basis for the first time in England. Attempt to induce the abortion of a quickened fetus through the use of poison was made a capital felony, while the attempt by any means to induce an abortion before (or without proof of) quickening was made a felony punishable by transportation to a penal colony. In 1828, attempted abortion with instruments after quickening was made a capital felony as well. The Offenses Against the Person Act, 1837, eliminated capital punishment, abrogated the distinction based on quickening, and subjected all abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, to the same penalty—transportation for life or three years' imprisonment" Read more: Abortion - Abortion In English Law - Fetus, Quickening, Homicide, and Century - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.html#ixzz4nwuVzF9e" While I do see that there was an attempt to codify the difference in aborting a quickened vs non-quickened fetus, the latter still resulted in a rather serious criminal punishment. Doesn't seem like English law regarded it as much of a right.
The second Amendment contains no "preamble" A preamble explains or defines a clause. The second amendment consists of two independent mutually suportive clauses. 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. The People are Citizens that may or may not be members of the Militia, making the Right of all Citizens to keep and bear Arms absolute and inviolate. This is very important so any qualified citizen / individual, that so desires, once Armed, with no infringements, can voluntarily choose to serve in the Militia.
Unsupported claims. Maybe when you post you should try to make an actual argument. In other words, how do you get from point A to point B to point C, and so on?
I've read Article I of the Constitution so I do understand how the militia is supposed to be regulated. You are probably just parroting some propaganda you read on a pro-gun activist website.
Criminals have the advantage of surprise so easy access to guns will empower them more than law abiding citizens. For the sake of argument, even if guns were preventing one million violent crimes a year that would only be about 3,333 lives saved (because only about 1 out of 300 violent crimes results in a fatality). 3,333 lives saved is far less than the total number of lives lost to gun homicides, gun suicides, and gun accidents.
How would gun suicides and accidents be reduced by reducing "easy access" to firearms? Will lawful citizens be prevented in any way from purchasing a firearm?
You are mistaken. In the context of the 2A, the phrase "well-regulated" does not mean that. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." So, you see, the phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
The most important part is the end of the amendment, that makes any claims about the preamble irrelevant...
By definition, otherwise 'lawful' citizens would prove they are not lawful citizens if they own a gun illegally. Its a great way to cull out the 'pretend' lawful citizens when they only obey laws they approve of. As for the others they will be prevented because they respect a law that tells them they are not to own said firearm. Accidents and suicides are often acts of impulse. It is those folks where we will make an impact. If a lawful citizen does not own a gun, its one less gun that will be found by his kid to play with, or used to blow his brains out in an impulsive act of despondency.
