this is how you know this country is a beaurocrat controlled disaster that is spiralling downward when it comes to “debates” and supreme court hearings. This should not even be an issue at all. The second ammendmant guarantees the right to posses firearms in the U.S. can neone come up with a real, actual reason why we have to keep going to court to try and make the states decide everything. It is in the bill of right…of our constitution…which is the rights of everyone in the country. Trying to figure out whether or not the states should be the ones to decide who gets guns is an argument that should not be taking place in the first place.
But have you READ the Second Amendment?
The issue all along is who’s doing the regulating.
In which case, there’s the Tenth Amendment:
Therefore, if the Federal Government isn’t the one regulating militias, then it’s the States’ responsibility. That’s why gun laws vary by state.
touche sir
-
Assuming you were commenting to me, it doesnt change a thing in reality. I was talking about FULLY automatic weapons, not Semi Automatic weapons.
-
Converting a weapon to Full Auto from Semi Auto is already a Federal Offence. A fucking BIG one.
-
Home defense is NOT the issue here. People want CONCEALED CARRY permits, the same thing you can apply for just about everywhere else. You can still own a rifle/shotgun in DC and keep it in your house, no problem, but thats about 1/100th of the problem.
Read it again… there are two statements in there, independant of each other. just by adding the word “And” it makes MUCH more sense.
[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,] [AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,] shall not be infringed.
And the way I read the 10th amendment, it is saying that rights NOT talked about, and ONLY not talked about in the constitution may be regulated by the states. Which would clearly make the DC Ban “illegal”.
Can a state come in and say freedom of speach is illegal in that state? FUCK NO they cant.
Umm, the writers of the Constitution did NOT use the word “and”, so therein lies the problem. And DC is not a State, nor even part of one, but an independent District (one that didn’t exist until after the ratification of the Constitution). Therefore certain proscribed rights that applied to States devolves to the District.
And if the SC rules that the ban of a certain type of weapon within the United States and its Territories is Unconstitutional - wouldn’t it mean that all bans or prohibitions of weapon possessions becomes Unconstitutional? I mean, why is a ban on a converted weapon (as a Federal Offence) be any more Constitutional than a ban on a handgun (as a District Offence)? Especially since the DC ban does not ban ALL arms, just handguns?
Conversely, if the ban on converted firearms IS Constitutional, then there is a suggested “regulation” of firearms that is permissible. Theoretically, each right enshrined in the Bill of Rights can be proscribed, given due process. (Article V: “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; …”). This is why bans against felons owning firearms are Constitutional.
Oh, and you would note that the Second Amendment does not explicitly say WHAT arms are able to be borne - which again raises the question of the definition of “well-regulated”.
Oh, and certain forms of speech ARE illegal, BTW. Just look up “libel”, “slander”, “defamation” or even “incite to riot”. And those laws have been found to be Constitutional.
You can twist it any which way you would like, I think the majority of people who read it know what they meant by it.
Regardless of DC not being a state, it is still bound by federal law and the constitution. Is there anything in the constitution GRANTING DC special law-making priviledges over a state? Not as far as I know! Thats a slippery fucking slope to go down that road.
PS- those kinds of freedom of speach are a little bit different, I think anyone can agree on that. Freedom of speach that causes somebody else undue harm is not on the same level.
Well, the “majority of people” doesn’t matter now - just the nine sitting SC judges. It’s their job to “interpret” the Constitution, not ours.
Oh, and AFAIK, DC’s gun-ban doesn’t apply to VA or MD, so how is it “over” a State? DC laws only apply to DC, so there’s no real “slope” there. They’re all also applied like any other part of the US - namely, by its elected legislature. (It’s also probably why the ban doesn’t work - I mean, travel 5 minutes and you can legally buy a handgun).
Speech is speech, guns are guns. And that’s the (intended) point of gun laws. Why restrict automatic weapon conversions unless there’s a concern for undue harm for someone else? I mean, it’s just a machine gun, right? Where’s the harm in owning one? WHY is it a Federal offence in converting a semi-automatic unless there’s concern for harm?
First off, if there was crazy high fees, then you would be obstructing a persons right, its no different than mandating a 10k fee for a permit to assemble peacefully, it would last about 10 seconds in the SCOTUS.
Secondly, you can’t pull words like “regulated” out as an individual word and take it for the modern definition. In the times of the constitution, regulation ment trained, as we didn’t regulate every single part of human existance in the country. DC tried this arguement, the justices cut right through it.
Lastly, your knowledge of home defense pistols is showing. For many years home defense rounds have been made in a “frangable” form. These are sintered bronze that when shot act like a bullet, until they hit a person or object, at which time they fracture into dust. SWAT, HRT and the liking have been using these rounds for 10 years for door breaching (hinge removal) and for CQB scenerios that collatoral damage is possible from wall penetration. A shotgun is a good tool, but unless your in a big house, swinging a full length shot gun is tough and if you have ever shot a pistol grip shotgun, you will realize that the muzzle climb will make any more than one shot almost impossible, as the gun usually leaves the persons hands. Lastly, if your defending your home, KNOW YOUR TARGET, and whats behind it.
Remember one thing, and remember it good. EVERY arguement for the banning of guns, could be very easily used for the banning of any car over 3 cylinders, and that goes faster than 65MPH. I mean, why on earth would someone need a car that does 100+ mph, just owning one makes that person a possible criminal, and we can’t have that. Think its silly, the greenies don’t, cause your car is next on the chopping block.
Hmmm…More people die from doctors fucking up every year in the US than die from being shot. Go figure. I say we ban doctors. The cause more harm than good evidently.
+1
- elevity billion
Ah, then your argument works the other way, too. Cars on the American road today are highly regulated; yet if I’m allowed a vehicle that goes over 100 mph, then I should be able to own a firearm that shoots in a fully-automatic mode. I mean, if there’s a difference between top speeds of 65 and 100, then what’s the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but degree? So therefore, if I require a fully-automatic weapon so that I can defend my rights from an overbearing Federal Government, it’s my right to own one then, no? Some people argue that that’s the original reasoning the Founding Fathers used behind the Second Amendment (and not home defence from a wacked-out drug addict) so therefore, I should be as well-armed as possible to defend against that.
Oh, and FWIW - my knowledge of handguns is from what I see in the hospital, and what I see with my relationship with the medical examiner. And as of yet, I have not seen in the eight years I’ve been in Rochester, or the five years I was in Newark, NJ, any patient who was struck specifically with a “frangible round”. Don’t get me wrong, I know they exist; those people who have been hit by a round that has fragmented that I’ve seen are usually hit by low-velocity non-jacketed lead rounds.
So either frangible rounds are too expensive for the average person to buy, or the frequency of the use of a firearm in home defence is significantly less than the times when injuries are sustained by those committing a crime (more likely the latter).
So if that is the case, then perhaps we have it the wrong way - we need to regulate everything BUT frangible rounds sold to the public. And yes, “regulated” is in there as a word, therefore it has to be addressed. And the SC will have to decide what that truly means. But I’d be careful saying that firearms should NOT be regulated in any way, because that’s another Pandora’s Box we may not want opened.
Ah - a doctor “screws up” with a cardiac stent and it’s the doctor’s fault that a patient died - and not the 6 decades of smoking and McDonalds that went before it, right? Or maybe if a bad antibiotic was given during a hospital stay, it’s the doc’s fault and not the drunk driving that put him there in the first place. I’ll have to remember that… hey, maybe we should give people guns instead of health insurance - because guns can save more lives than doctors, apparently.
Oh, and PS: could you tell me your name then? I’ll be sure to pass that on to everyone I work with, so we can get you a do-it-yourself suture set. You might want to try out sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express before using it though.[/sarcasm]
Can you show me where your car is a constitutionally protected?
I am perfectly comfortable opening the so called pandora’s box that you speak of, remove firearm regulations, I think you might be rather surprised.
Your reasoning for banning firearms (regulating is just a nice word for banning, be real) is based on your self put reaction to what you see in the hospital. Well ask a tow truck driver what he thinks about 18 year old kids and corvettes. Fortunatly, we don’t run this country on the knee jerk reaction of the few, we run it on the needs of the many. You might see firearm injuries, but do you see the woman that WASN’T raped because she shot the guy, the family that WASN’T a victim of a home invasion, or the daughter that WASN’T a victim of road rage. Course you don’t, you just see the ones that were, and i bet most were up to no good. Your views of how bad are your own. I have a brother that works in the ER as a PA, a mother that worked 30 years in a downtown buffalo hospital as a ER nurse… and they don’t cry that guns are bad. They look behind the tears, and see that most of the people that show up were gang bangers, robbers… and so forth up to no good, and got what they deserved.
Lets not get off the beaten path here. No where in the constitution does it say that firearms were protected just for personal protection. The real basis was even more non-PC. They were protected so that the government would always be scared that if they went too far, the the people could push back, because the PEOPLE control the country, not the government.
Oh, one last bit. Your statement that frangible rounds were to expensive, that people can’t buy them. Well they are used soo much in todays lead free ranges, that a box of 50 is 20 bucks, or less that 50 cents a round. Thats pretty out of control expensive there.
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=516112
Ah - ok.
So the obvious answer for you here is MORE guns, not less. Because obviously, guns save lives more than they take them. Oh, and we should write off a whole class of our population, because they may have committed a crime (hey, innocent until proven guilty?), because obviously, the punishment for getting stoned should be getting shot.
Perhaps that should be the new direction for the economy - since having the bad people shoot each other is way cheaper (50 cents each, or ~26 cents each for FMJ rounds - and I never said that they can’t buy them, but that the average-Joe owner may not be willing to pay a 60-70% premium for them, if they don’t go to a range often enough to justify them) than keeping 3 million of our own citizens in jail.
And heaven help those who just happen to be living in their neighborhood (sacrifice the few for the sins of the “most”…). Oh, and since it’s clear that everyone who lives in these areas does so because they don’t want to live anywhere else, perhaps we should be giving them ammunition instead of foodstamps?
And like I said, if the principle of the Second Amendment is to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT (like you’ve said), then the Federal Government has no business prohibiting possession of fully-automatic weapons, either.
Theoretically, if the Army has them, then the public at large should be allowed to have them. Otherwise, the government has nothing to fear from a public armed with rifles and shotguns when the Army owns miniguns and grenade launchers (much less things like nuclear shells). Ruby Ridge and Waco proved that in clear detail… Vicki Weaver and David Koresh would probably have survived those events if they were armed properly.