It is unconstitutional to ban hadguns....

You have no idea about the Constitution apparently. It has NOTHING to do with safety. In fact, one of the founders and co-writers of the Constitution said this . . .

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." You people have lost your way. You are lost little government sheeple.

 

Really? Where?

I addressed this in the OP, on two fronts. You're wrong.

 

Incorrect. Traffic laws do not apply to my driveway, my speedway, or my dragstrip.

Been there, done that. Twice.
Private property. No report, no citation.
.

 

Right in the preamble.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

After all, where does it have to be specifically said? Public safety is always a top priority or you won't HAVE a public, What are you saying. "This Constitution is established with no regard to the safety of groups or individuals, if we end up permitting/encouraging things that maim and kill people that's too bad??"

 

Stop misquoting Franklin, he said NECESSARY liberty, not just any liberty. Franklin was a careful writer, not an overbroad ass.

 

Look strange person, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution was about liberty and freedom for citizens and the Bill of Rights was about giving citizens rights and LIMITING government.

 

You people are SO confused. We really need to educate our children better, so they don't grow up not even understanding the purpose of the Constitution.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/


The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

Other precursors to the Bill of Rights include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

 

I addressed this in the OP, on two fronts. You're wrong.

 

Irrelevant to the issue at hand -- the police did not write a report because the accidents were on private property and thus not subject to traffic laws.
This is why I will never get a speeding ticket on my driveway. Ever.

 

It has to be specific to be the top priority. Liberty is a far higher priority. Public safety would have required submission to UK rule.

Public safety is never a high priority for revolutionaries.

 

Still looking for a meaningful response.

 

Yet cars kill more.

 

Still looking for a meaningful response to the question in the OP.
Anyone....?

 

Of course they were, as some of the first cars were designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible:



Armored Quadricycle 1898.

http://howafrica.com/17403-2/

 

Nonsense, read the list of grievances in the Declaration, many of them were of the nature that the Crown was making life unsafe for the colonists. The colonies were independent nations going to WAR with the Crown, war still tries to guarantee the safety of the main population by limiting its depredations to the battlefield. It's when the country FAILS in that endeavor that the people are endangered.

Oh, and I know the Declaration and Constitution are separate documents, but the Declaration is a good model for how a nation derives its sovereignty and its laws.

 

Public safety is the absolute top priority of any government. Hell, it's the reason you HAVE a government or a nation in the first place, to anyone but conservatives this is so obvious it goes without saying

 

Do you also know that your "public safety" arguments were addressed and defeated in the OP?

 

The revolution was motivated by "Taxation Without Representation". The future revolutionaries did not declare independence even after the British burned 2 of their cities and engaged in open warfare against militias.

Revolutions are not fought for "safety".

 

You absolutely do not need a license for use on private land. Perhaps something is different in your state but the norm is that you do not need a license to operate a motor vehicle on private land.

 

Bull. You just don't understand the Constitution.

 

A body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies is a current definition of a militia. Noah Webster's 1828 definition of a militia is "The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." I would assume that the gentlemen who wrote the Bill of Rights had an understanding of militia far closer to Noah Webster's than to the NRA. The Second Amendment awards the right to bear arms to organized militias. There is no inherent right of individuals in this country to bear arms. We should begin immediately the confiscation of arms from private individuals and the establishment of gaming clubs which would maintain the hunting privileges of those willing to have their arms located at establishments. Others should be disarmed. This is, of course open to debate and I imagine a civilized society will be able to arrive at a compromise that will serve the interests of most citizens.

 

Are you one of those idiots that want to ban guns?

Sure, they were designed to kill, but that can be for good purpose, and for hobbies.
Crashes in cars have killed more, its all about responsibility and safety. Guns being designed for killing doesn't make them kill more, its the responsibility and will of the person using it.

 

They understand it.

That is why they attack it.

- - - Updated - - -

What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights?

 

Wrong. Oh my, so wrong.

Madison, Federalist # 46 and gun rights
James_madison "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

James Madison (Publius) in Federalist Paper #46
arguing for the ratification of the present Constitution including the Second amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To "sweeten" the medicine of an insistence on individual gun rights in the US, it is usually claimed now that Americans want guns for; hunting, target shooting, home defense, collecting...

In fact "Publius" argues here that the possession of firearms by the citizens and the potential for resistance to tyranny implicit in that possession is necessary as part of the system of checks and balances that holds tyranny at bay.

As one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers Madison is engaged in trying to persuade the states to ratify the present constitution. Without such assurances as this one, it is quite possible that the constitution might never have been ratified. In fact, two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island had voted against ratification by the time that Virginia voted in favor by the slimmest of margins thus establishing a majority.

NB that the private possession of weapons is mentioned by Madison BEFORE he mentions the similar effect of armed militias belonging to the states. It is stated as an absolute good. This explains the structure of the clauses in the second amendment. The militia clause is intended to stand as an example of what in Madison's view was an absolute right of the citizens.

For those who would reply that an armed citizenry could have no effect against a modern army, it is only necessary to direct their attention to the history of the last years.

To those on the left or right who think an unarmed citizenry is a good idea, consider your true thoughts regarding the scruples of government servants and possible future regimes.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/12/madison-federal.html

The above is an excerpt from the federalist papers which I keep urging you anti-rights people to read, but for some reason you refuse to do it. Perhaps you would learn something and know something that you currently do not know if you would just educate yourselves?