personally I think this is just like the drug war that would arrest you if you did something as innocent as planting a seed in your back yard basically it's used to arrest people you do not like and can not find another reason to arrest them the bad guys will get the guns no matter what... the people that just want to protect their homes will be restricted by self righteous people thinking if you are on antidepressants you should not have the right to protect your home, of if you commit a crime when younger you should not have the right to protect your home now, laws against taking your ak whatever into a store, a bank, a school, have no issue with that... it's a constitutional right to own a gun, not a privilege - but that doesn't give one the right to go headed into a bank with a loaded gun swung over your shoulder .
Neither is taking video/ photo of them engaging in sexual acts with adults . . . So you must now have a permit to purchase and a license to own any item / mechanism capable of recording, storing, viewing or transmitting any binary file that when assembled would result in any video or still image. A background check will be completed at all points of sale, public or private, including barter or any other means of non-cash transfer of any item / mechanism capable of recording, storing, viewing or transmitting any binary file that when assembled would result in an image. I mean why not; you seem so eager to establish the code for lawful citizen behavior using a benchmark established by the actions of those who refuse to abide by the rules of society? This could really become fun . . . for 21st. Century statist absolutists that are free to do what they wish without the constraints of those obsolete principles of the Constitution.
On the contrary, unalienable rights always are, as long as they are used responsibly. Nonsense, since there is never any conflict except when wrongs are misperceived as rights.
I had two tabs open replied out of sequence (if that matters here) . . . Once you accept that the discussion of "rights" pivots on deciding what the citizen is allowed to do or allowed to have or how a citizen is allowed to act you are no longer discussing "rights", you are discussing something else. What it is I'll reserve judgement for now, but understand, after the above statement you have surrendered what was considered inalienable and are no longer discussing principles connected to the Constitution.
What other admendments have "shall not be infringed" placed one them? Also why is the 2nd Amendment second from the top? What do you honestly think "well regulated" means? I mean really, do you think they were talking about the right to say what kind of gun and how many rounds it could fire and how many federal, state and local laws were needed to infringe upon the right? "Well regulated" is placed next to "militia", not "arms". What the **** is a well reulated milita or army? It is one that is well organized, well led, trained and supplied. The Founders didn't want gangs of undisciplined locals banding together without leadership. These armed men must formed up for a reason, have orders to follow, and be led by experienced officers and NCO's. Now during the time of the Constitution, can you provide one shread of evidence of the Founders wanting any kind of gun ban on any law abiding free citizen? If the milita (freemen aged 18 to 45) were the only people the Founders wanted to keep and bear arms, why is there no evidence that they had gun buyback programs for themselves---because most of the Founders were over 45 year old? Why didn't they have laws forbidding women and children from having them?
First, let's tone down the rhetoric about 100 round magazines. They are extremely rare and unreliable. From what I've read, part of the reason that the Aurora killer stopped was because his 100-round magazine jammed. For the most part, magazines of over 30 or 40 rounds tend to be unreliable. 100 rd magazines are novelty items to use at the gun range, and used to enrich magazine makers. The possible usage or need for an item shouldn't have anything to do with it's ability to be bought and sold. Nobody needs a BMW or a Porsche. Nobody needs a 70 inch TV. That doesn't mean they should be illegal. We don't know what Mrs. Lanza thought or why she had the guns. She paid the price for them.
You are wrong. I am very lazy and a 173 round "Clip" helps me not to exert the extra energy of reloading. I need that energy to drink my beer and kick a puppy once I donate my estate to the NRA. Axe, you are a very silly person.
I stuck "satisfactory" in quotation marks, because I believe that the right to bear arms literally means that. I don't believe in said restrictions as a result.
Deer hunting? No you would ruin your meat. So what is it for you might ask? Stopping a criminal, foreign army if necessary, and abolishing our government if necessary. THAT is what such a weapon in the hands of a citizen is for.
If the high capacity magazines did not improve killing they would be defective, and even so I think they already often are defective products, as weapons using magazines as you mention are prone to jam. You are wrong, creating a weapon is creating what the constitution calls "arms", it is a weapon and thus you have the right to it. The use of the weapon is different, as you cannot shoot someone randomly on the street.
In 2008 the reasoning / support for upholding a wide swath of gun control was invalidated by the US Supreme Court (the "militia right" and "state's right" and the general, "collective right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment). This pretty much makes infirm every lower federal and state court decision handed down over the last 70 or so years that "consistently found that reasonable regulation of the types and numbers of weapons a person can own is constitutional" . . . Especially those that rest their decision exclusively on those invalidated interpretations. Your premise can not be applied without a discussion of the specific regulation / restriction and an understanding of the reasoning used to declare it constitutional. Let's put it this way, if you are a gun control advocate, you are going to be very disturbed once the process of re-examining those cases is begun in earnest. You are kinda backwards on that. Rights aren't created, they are exceptions of powers not granted. Rights are everything that we the people held out from the powers we conferred to government. So, to answer your question, we did possess the right to own to own hi-cap mags, even 200 years ago before they could have even been comprehended because we never granted to government any power to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. So, what that means is, I'm not required to prove that a right exists to do what I want to do (or possess what I want to own); it is your responsibility to prove that a power exists to allow government to restrict my actions or prohibit me to own things.
Relevancy? Do you really want me to go into a comparison of "abridged" versus "infringed" versus "violated"? Why is it not the first? Don't be condescending. They don't define it, so it's open to interpretation. That said: No. See what making ASSumptions gets you? Did you not read the last line of my post? Duh. What's your point, other than to setup another strawman argument? And you think I need schooling on this why, exactly? Because you misinterpreted my post. No. Can you? Not what the amendment says, and not anything I said. You're just trying to pick a fight with someone who probably agrees with you for the most part. what the hell are you talking about? Wow, lots of strawman arguments, based on assumptions about my position that aren't necessarily true. I will reiterate for your benefit (of course, you'll only benefit if you read this entire post): So why are you attempting to ascribe to be me all sorts of positions that I don't hold and haven't in any way implied that I hold? Try barking up someone else' tree.
Sorry if I seemed too hard, but implying that there is a right for lawmakers, judges and others to so badly distort the meaning of the Second. or any law, from thin air, is wrong. Some will call it "interpretation," and progressives have used this excuse for years to imagine the laws are whatever they want. The law is what is was it was meant to be when it was written. There must be documentation and other evidence from the time the law was written to even consider changes to it. The right of the Supreme Court to even have judicial review is just another example---but there was at least better evidence for allowing that. There is no evidence of gun control laws or restrictions on types of guns from that time period for honest citizens. My point is that the Constitution is not a lump of Silly Putty, that can be shaped and conformed to suit the fancy of the current users.
Oh, now I understand your position. LOL You do realize that your gun control was enacted for political reasons, not to address any criminal activity don't you? That centuries of such laws have conditioned a compliant and submissive population of loyal subjects is not really all that noteworthy and certainly is no reason to gloat about the behavior of such a population. The laws the UK has enacted specifically to address criminal actions haven't been that great of a success because your violent armed criminals are mostly not loyal British subjects. Either by outright rejection of your society (e,g. homegrown gangs) or having never been a part of your society, (e.g. Eastern Europeans / Yardies), criminals prove, no matter where one lives, that they don't pay much attention to laws.
Excellent. Totally with you there. These things should never be extrapolated foward to keep pace with cultural change. Like, I have the god given right to keep goats and chickens in my house - especially in winter. Don't try and tell me the practice is anachronistic - my livestock are my livelihood and I defend to the death my right to keep them in the loungeroom. By the fire. Anyone who says otherwise is just AFRAID OF MY GOATS. apologies for the near perfect spelling and grammar.
Consider the clear language of the First ("Congress shall make law respecting an establishment..., prohibiting the free exercise..., abridging the freedom..." etc.) Very explicit limits on the powers of Congress. Yet in the second Congress isn't even mentioned; what we get instead is "...shall not be infringed". Infringed meaning to encroach upon, from the Latin for "to damage, break off, break, bruise". This seems stronger to me actually than the wording in the First, and where the First limits the congressional power, this seems to apply broadly to all bodies of government. I think absolutism is unreasonable. I also think we should be wary of attempts to chip away at rights. It's clear that the intent of the second is not just protecting the right to bear arms, but that this freedom is to serve a purpose: securing a free state through a well regulated militia. People act as if the opening phrase didn't exist. Do we have citizen militia's keeping order? Not so much. It's perhaps a duty we've neglected. So I don't think that Congress is explicitly, absolutely prohibited from acting, but at the same time I can't imagine many actions they could take in this area without running afoul of this amendment. Did the Founders have any concept of the kind of destruction possible with nuclear weapons, or the power some individual could wield from having one in their possession? I doubt it. I'm not persuaded that they intended the Constitution to be a document so rigid as to potentially negate its stated purpose: "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." An absolutist interpretation of the second is at odds with that mission. But a near absolute interpretation is probably not.
If you think so then you are not following any principle the US Constitution is founded upon. As the Supreme Court said nearly some 135 years ago: [*=1]"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Trying to discern what the right to arms is, or worse, what it -let's the citizen own-, by inspecting and interpreting words that the right "in no manner" depends on, is clearly not legitimate. The primary intent (object) of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve the general militia principle the framers embraced -- not "maintain" any structure established in the body of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or found to instruct in any way about militia powers. Surely if the words of the 2nd Amendment established or demanded some structure of militia organization and training be created or maintained there would be a history of the 2nd Amendment being used to initiate / guide militia organization or protect / defend such action (from federal interference). The only words in the Constitution inspected to establish and inform on militia powers are found in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16; the 2nd does not add to or modify anything in those clauses and is ignored by Congress and the courts in deciding issues of militia control, organization and maintenance. (Even when the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment held sway, 1942 - 200 Well, upon my inspection of the parts of the Constitution that actually grants power to the government I am totally convinced that no clause can be cited that grants government any power to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. And yes, I am aware that all federal gun control laws are written under the "commerce clause" which makes me question their validity given the energy expended by the federal government to defend those laws citing only the power to regulate the militia . . . I can not accept that a power defended with such a disjointed legal argument is legitimate.
When you carry a weapon whose only purpose is to kill a human being that is premeditation. When you then use that weapon to kill someone that is murder. The only question is whether you planned to kill THAT person or if it is just another random murder.
Their reliability is not the question. The question is the purpose of owning them. But people cannot drive indy cars on the street because we have decided that to do so is dangerous to everyone and if they start designing BMWs or 70" TVs whose only purpose is to kill people we can discuss restricting them as well.
If you cannot stop a criminal with 10 rounds then you won't stop them with 100 and there is nothing in the constitution that speaks to an individual using arms against the government or against a foreign invader except as related to a well regulated militia.
So you have a "right" to a predator drone? C4? To mount an anti-aicraft gun on the back of your truck? Please. That argument is silly on its face.
Then by banning those same weapons your rights are intact because the availability of weapons would be identical to that before those weapons existed.
You have misunderstood my post. I believe that rights are acknowledged by government, not created by it. But I also do not subscribe to the idea that rights are absolute. We surrender them to some degree when we consent to be governed. The question is how much are we willing to surrender, not how much we have a right to. The wording of the amendment matters in the context of how government acknowledges that right. I take it you would side with those Founders who were opposed to even having a Bill of Rights? Thing is, it's rather hard to protect a right from the overreach of government if you don't force that government to at least acknowledge that right's existence, which the BIll of Rights does. I'll acknowledge that was my poor wording. I didn't mean to imply what you've read into it. I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. I take it you would be perfectly fine with private citizens wielding nuclear weapons then - no government regulation whatsoever? It is a form of 'arms', after all. On the other hand, if we're going to intepret 'arms' in a strictly originalist fashion that considers the Constitution to be dead, dead, dead - then fine: You can have a musket and a sword, whatever else was available at the time. You don't get to carry around modern assault weapons under such a rigid interpretation. Frankly, I don't think either approach - one that is too broad, or one that is too narrow - would be sensible. We consent to be governed, and in doing so grant government certain powers. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a Constitution. I don't find anything that gives government that power, but I dont find anything that absolutely prohibits that power from government, either. The 2nd amendment is as close as we get. I would be hard pressed to find any right granted to government to regulate what kind of arms or the number thereof that a citizen could have. But I also can see that there comes a point where adhering to absolutism contradicts the broader purposes of our consenting to be governed under the Constitution, as stated in its preamble. If you really think we've granted no power at all to government in such matters, then I think you should withdraw your consent to be governed, cede your citizenship, and leave the country. Dead serious. Neither can I.
The federal government and my state government who granted my concealed carry license seems to disagree with you.
