Dick's Sporting Goods will stop selling assault-style rifles

I've never smoked. Just ban smoking.

The FBI didn't kill the kids, it was a person who had access to a deadly weapon. If the kid ran into the school with a cigarette trying to stab other kids with it or subject them to 5 minutes of passive smoking, America wouldn't have umpteen dead kids.

Just like guns, people can't be sensible with cigarettes. So the government have to interfere. What happens, the majority suffer from the minority.

 

where is your post prior to this calling for smoking to be banned? and why are gun grabbers not calling for it to be banned with the same fervor as guns when it is far more deadly to innocent cbildren?
Lastly, lets fact check your FBI comment with a simple question. Would these kids still be alive if the FBI had not (as they admitted) made a mistake?

 

No idea, you mentioned smoking, I gave you my thoughts. You'll have to ask the 'gun grabbers' as to what they think.

Would the kids be alive if the FBI didn't make a mistake? Would they be alive if the cop went in? Would they be alive if teachers were armed? No idea; yes, no, maybe, probably not. Just pick an answer that agrees with your agenda.

 

Im not the one with an agenda. But what we know based on your post is that you react to guns being a threat to children but not things that factually kill more innocent children every year. We also know that you cant deduce that these kids would still be alive had the FBI did what they were supposed to do. Most people easily deduce that they would still be alive had the FBI done their job based on ....well common sense. Based on the above its the gun grabbers that have an agenda isnt it.

 

You have an agenda.

 

Most on this board have an agenda. I am a commie liberal who happens to be socially conservative so we can get that out of the way

I think the rel question that should be asked here is why a large company (who's primary goal is to maximize profit) made this decision. I am pretty sure it was not due to a leftist CEO or board member. They decided it would cost them profit to not do this. So why is that if most of the people who purchase at their store oppose gun regulation?

 

The right to bear arms appears closely related to the 2nd Amendment, if you want to abrogate, curtail, restrict, limit or circumscribe it's applicability, seems like you need to modify the Constitution. This is what Amendments are for, so I'd advocate those who favor gun control get behind a movement to amend the Constitution, that's a super tough row to hoe.

Remember the "Equal Rights Amendment"? Originally introduced in Congress in 1921, support grew with the rise of the women's movement in the sixties and the Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in 1971, passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. By the end of 1977 (five years later) it had received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. Four States rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline, but there's no Constitutional precedent or mechanism for rescinding. In 1978, a joint resolution Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no more States have ratified this amendment.

Changing the Constitution is difficult, the theory is that this fundamental law is well articulated and shouldn't be easily modified.

 

In fact it has never been interpreted at any point in US history to say the regulation of guns is unconstitutional. It was not interpreted to apply to individuals (as compared to state militias) at all to Heller in which decision the Court specifically stated the amendment does not ban regulation of guns.

Given the uniform view of courts on this issue if the public wants to regulate guns this will occur. That some individuals interpret it to be an outright ban on regulation, ignoring all US history and all court decisions, won't matter.

 

No one has made the argument that the right to keep ans bear arms cannot be regulated in any way.
It cannot, however, be regulated in such a way that it infringes on the rights of the people.

It has never been interpreted by the SCotUS to protect state militias or a right related to service in the militia; in fact, the question in US v Miller was if the 2nd Amendment protected the right of a citizen who, know to the court, had no relationship to the militia.

The lower courts are anything but uniform, which only points out the liberal bias of some.