I wonder if this individual (L-KaBong) is some sort of gov't disinfo bot. His logic is well..............delusional and dangerous.
I agree with the background checks. Look, gun rights advocates have argued that an Adam Lanza should not result in regular folks losing thier gun rights. I agree. And gun rights advocates also said that we have a mental health issue in the country and if we didn't have crazies out free there would be no problem. I agree, in principle. But if we institute a policy of locking up all the crazies we would be not a country, but a gigantic admitting ward with a national housing unit. Adam Lanza was not an illegal person or a criminal before he committed his act. Neither was the Colorado shooter. My point is that a Government speared clamp down on gun ownership and/or forced institutionalization is just more government and less freedom and doesn't accomplish anything useful to anyone, except if you are a future government employee. However, to get back to piezoe's original comment, we should have a serious discussion about how to define arms, and what arms and how people and arms can (peacefully) co-exist. And perhaps it is time to replace the 2nd Amendment with something that will allow the states to definitively determine their own gun laws. If Wyoming wants to allow allow assault rifles and Delaware wants to effect a complete firearms ban, let them do it. And Washington has no say. (military grade arms have to be carefully considered in this) Once again, gun ownership should not be regarded as a NATIONAL right on par with fundamental rights as due process and freedom of speech. The idea that the people should be armed to prevent tyranny is archaic ast best, and probably is of dubious historical authenticity.
The only issue with letting states have the ability on this subject is that one could buy an assault rifle in Wyoming and drive to Delaware to shoot someone with it. Look, there is an established way to amend the Constitution. If that process yields no guns, or a ban on a a particular type of weapon, then so be it. The Constitution was followed. Apart from that, any suggestions that it is archaic and no longer relevant is academic.
I stated that the 2nd Amendment should be, in effect, amended or supplanted with a new amendment which would allow localities to establish their own gun laws. Discussion on the applicability of amendments today is never academic. Someone buying legally in Wyoming and possessing illegally in Delaware is beside the point.
Fine, go through the process of changing the Constitution the way you want it to read, and consider it "archaic" in the interim. Until it changes, nothing else will. Beside the point? It makes your whole suggestion about one state doing what it wants and the other doing what IT wants completely irrelevant in regards to fire arms legality.
I don't think you understand what the United States of America is as a Republic. You really need to audit a local college's US Government 101 class. You are simply too uneducated to converse with. Or too dumb. Or both.
That's a good point regarding state by state regulation. Uniform regulation is the only thing that makes sense to me. It is also clear that amendment, as difficult as that could be, could lead to definitive rule on firearm ownership, at least for now. Re the statement: "The Constitution was followed." I have to ask was it? And I think it was, and it wasn't. I doubt that there was much consideration given to the advancement of weapon design when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. The purpose of the amendment is clearly stated. It was because "A well regulated Militia [was] necessary to the security of a free State." So why would the drafters of the amendment have been concerned with future advancements in "arms," which at that time meant hand-held muzzle loaders and single shot pistols? The answer is, they would not have been. They would have been O.K. with fully automatic assault rifles, because their purpose was to be able to raise a "well regulated militia... to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions..." The purpose of a militia, as intended in the 18th century, is made crystal clear in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The meaning would have been exactly the same at the drafting of the second amendment. A militia, in the 18th century, was a part-time army, just as it is today. Our militia today consists of the National Guard, and no one is suggesting the National Guard should be limited to muzzle loaders. Furthermore the second amendment does not speak at all to the question of owning firearms for the purpose of sport. That is a strictly modern day issue to be determined by modern day law, so long as that law does not violate the Constitution. The second amendment says that you and I can keep (own) firearms and have them on our person (bear them, and presumably use them for any reasonable purpose) because they might be needed to raise a militia . The amendment cannot be divorced from the 18th century need to raise a militia. And this is where we are confounded by the fact that we have a militia -- The National Guard. Hence we have not only the issue of how the definition of arms may have changed over the centuries, but also the issue of how militias may have changed. I maintain that the drafters of the amendment would have been perfectly OK with the National Guard (our militia) shouldering AK-47's and missile launchers, but rather shocked to hear of anyone wanting them for hunting. Furthermore, I can't see any support in the second amendment for the often expressed idea that it was intended to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. On the contrary, it was the raising of a militia to protect the government from rebellion that was used as the justification for the second amendment. There is nothing, nothing whatsoever!, in that amendment that suggests that the citizens were to be allowed to own firearms in case the government got too oppressive, and the citizens therefore were moved to rise up against the government. This is a kind of nonsense we are being subjected to by some in the gun lobby today. I am not saying that you might not be very glad to have an AK-47 under the bed in case your government wants to take your liberties away. I'm saying the intent of the second amendment, as written, was just the opposite. The government wanted you and your muzzle loader on their side. So now we have a little problem on our hands as far as the courts might ultimately be concerned. 1) the purpose of the second amendment was to facilitate the raising of a militia. We have a militia already. It is called the National Guard. 2) A literal interpretation of the second amendment might presuppose an expansion of "arms" to any weapon useful in the raising of a militia, that expanded definition of "arms" is already embodied in our National Guard. Have the private gun owners of America been left out in the cold, so to speak, by the second amendment. Does it, or does it not apply to them? It may have applied to them at one time, before we had a National Guard. But does it still apply? Are those falling back on the second amendment to protect their right to own guns designed specifically to kill people, assuming that "arms" in the second amendment means any weapon designed to be useful to a militia, going to to lose this battle in the courts, because their arms are not needed to raise a militia. Does the second amendment apply to those with guns that have nothing whatsoever to do with raising a militia? The constitution is obsolescent, and the second amendment is obsolete. This is the current problem we must resolve. We can if cool heads prevail.
At the time it was written we had just won only a few years earlier, by force of arms, our freedom from just such a tyranny. Even if not specifically mentioned, what makes you think it's not at least implied? "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home..."
The problem for your argument kabong and piezoe is that gun ownership is a fundamental right.. as basic as your right to give your opinion without fear of consequence. It is that simple. And the idea that the right itself exists, at least in part, to prevent tyranny certainly has basis in the words and writings of the Founders themselves. There is nothing archaic or 'dubious' about it. âIt is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.â - Thomas Paine âTo preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.â - Richard Henry Lee "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson