The technicalities of the Constitution aside, I think we can all agree that a society should have the authority to regulate what weapons we can possess. We simply cannot have people running around with biological or chemical weapons. We cannot have people possessing bombs and explosives. We cannot allow people to own arsenals of automatic weapons, that can be used for a terrorist army. We cannot allow children to own guns. Or convicted felons to own guns. Or people who are a danger to themselves or others due to extreme mental illness.
The opinions of society are constantly changing. What if the society of next year decides to invalidate all of the regulations enacted by the society of last year? Unless you can present evidence to the contrary, the above is not occurring. Unless the definition of biological and chemical weapons is expanded to include things such as pepper spray, and general filth. See above. There are already federal rules against explosive devices. True automatic weapons are already tightly regulated by the federal government. As we have seen, terrorists are perfectly capable of utilizing ordinary household kitchen appliances for their causes. Perhaps we should disallow the ownership of forks and light bulbs next? How is "children" defined in this specific context? To what age range do you refer? Legally they cannot. Prove otherwise. Then see to it that they are properly committed, and gotten the help they need. Do not leave them alone in the general public of society where they will be ignored.
No, we do not all agree. One can question whether it is morally right to give people long prison sentences because they did something that was not inherently morally wrong. In addition, like many other members in this forum, I believe defense is a basic human right, and if you take that right away there's really no stopping all the other basic human rights from being taken away. At the very least, I think the present laws urgently should be drastically scaled back.
I say bring back the M80's to celebrate Independence day!!! You know dynamite used to be openly stocked on the shelves of mining outfitter stores. It was once common for people to use it to remove tree stumps. Of course today few people live on spacious rural property anymore, so most of the population probably could not imagine having the need to use dynamite. Why not? You think the presence of weapons automatically leads to civil chaos and disorder? Many American gun collectors own small stockpiles. Where are these "terrorist armies" you speak of ? Why not? In some places many parents start their child practicing at the range when they are 12. 70 years ago it was not that uncommon for a 15 year old to go hunting out in the forest. All sorts of stupid things are considered "felonies" now. I recently read a story about an aspiring cop who was convicted of a felony for keeping his legal gun in his car glove box: http://newyorkcityguns.com/2015/03/draconian-nj-gun-laws-brand-aspiring-police-officer-a-felon/
Considering your Constitution to be a 'technicality' is pretty telling about your position. But, I'll address the last three sentences; It is already illegal for children, mentally incapacitated, and felons to possess a firearm. Yet.... children, mentally disturbed, and felons DO already possess them. So, when you say "we cannot allow", who, exactly, is 'we'? And what, exactly, do you propose to enforce this prohibition?
A gun can be defined as individual arms. If someone kills with a gun, somebody legally defended themselves, or somebody was negligent or a criminal act was committed. They are precise and are not for indiscriminate use like a WMD. Bombs, grenades, chemical weapons, nukes, etc.... are not individual arms. I think that is the difference between a gun and grenades, bombs, etc.... I think the Constitution allows us to be armed with equal firearms and capacities to what our military uses. I would allow full auto for the general public. I think they are less dangerous than semi-auto because most criminals will run out of ammo quicker with full auto and be caught(shot) while reloading.
the USA has been infiltrated by possibly thousands of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other Muslim extremists. we also have white supremacists, and Militia types. they cannot be allowed to create an army of terror.
They aren't nearly as scary if the public is equally armed. A cop with a handgun took out 2 armored terrorists with rifles. I know he was a cop, but an armed public is a deterrent to crime and terrorism. Why else are most mass shootings or terrorist attacks conducted in "gun free zones". Even in TX, terrorists prefer unarmed military bases to malls or movie theaters where there are many more people. About 5% of adults in TX have CHLs, so they wouldn't get far without meeting resistance. The Aurora movie theater shooter passed 2 theaters on the way to the theater he shot up because he knew that theater outlawed concealed guns.
No we cannot. You'll first have to get up the support to amend the constitution. Good luck with that.
you can make an AK out of a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing shovel blade. You can 3d print weapons now. You can easily make an AR with a mill machine and a drill press. Not to mention zip guns. Alcohol makes a great weapon. Gasoline goes bang. Diesel and fertilizer will make a Fuel Air Explosive that can rival a nuke in bang. Where are all these terrorists and their weapons?
And neither can firearms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Definitions_of_the_term You have already undone the basic premise of your entire argument.
How can Liberals claim to be "liberal" when they support all these endless weapons laws? You want to end mass incarceration, don't you? Most of these people being given harsh prison sentences never meant harm to anyone (or at least not anyone innocent).
Along with eleven million illegal immigrants from the nation of Mexico, who the current administration wishes to provide with social security numbers, and driver's licenses. In simple terms, they will be given all they need to buy firearms, even if they are legally unable to own them. Along with major metropolitan cities filled with angry black individuals who are willing to burn down their own neighborhoods at the drop of a hat. Who says that they are?
I agree that violent felons and other such criminals don't need guns---they need a rope most of the time. "Children" should start with toy guns, then progress to Nerf/Airsoft/BB guns, then on to standard firearms based on their maturity and mental capacity. Traditional man-portable firearms (full-autos included) are for free people to keep and bear---not for socialists and commies.
Society's right to regulate firearms Society has no Rights. The only Rights, in this case, are Individual Rights as listed in the BoR. - - - Updated - - - it is the only man-made predator of Man
How about speech? If there is any truth to the saying "the pen is mightier than the sword", then why not heavily ban speech? How many riots start due to one person rousing a crowd with an emotional and well tuned speech? How many political tyrants have come to power based on the foundation of speeches? Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, all started as powerless outcasts and built their foundation on speeches and papers. Hitler through speeches in beer halls, Mussolini was a journalist working for a newspaper, Lenin through speeches and papers while he was exiled. Lately, Baltimore is in an uproar because of rabble rousers. You can claim speech is regulated, it is not. The classic example of yelling "fire" in a theater does not prevent a person from yelling "fire", the legal ruling was that a person is responsible for the damages resulting from yelling "fire". That differs from gun control. Gun banners want to control and ban firearms to prevent future possible damages, they want to punish all people on the assumption that one of those people might cause damage. To apply that attitude to speech, there would be a law preventing someone from speaking to too large a crowd, or for too long, or in certain places, or a political paper would be limited to a certain number of downloads, or a website limited to a certain number of views. Everyones speech would be prevented on the assumption that one speaker at some point might cause a riot. Apply your gun control logic consistently to speech and see how you like it.
It's no coincidence that many of these gun control proponents do not really support the concept of free speech—not when it comes to saying things they don't like. If you're against the Second Amendment, chances are you probably don't hold the First in high regard either.
I don't agree and you want to ban far more than WMD. We can allow people to own automatic weapons and we do. SO learn what you are talking about before spewing inaccuracies. The problem is that gun banners want to do far more than stop felons from having guns. Since you are unable to tell us what makes a select fire rifle more dangerous than a semi auto one, I am rejecting your argument as specious
a full-auto weapon can be used to commit mass-murder in a very short amount of time. won't be long before a terrorist uses one.
so can a car or a pressure cooker and if cops have them for self defense so should other civilians but you are incapable of understanding that a full auto rifle is no more deadly than a semi auto rifle so when you actually learn that fact, I am sure you will be demanding a ban on semi autos people who think like you are why patriotic citizens must be ever vigilant and ever well armed
So can poison at a large eating event. Mass-murder of innocent unarmed people is actually very rare—even if we go by the rare statistics it's almost entirely the domain of islamic jihadists and government-sponsored bombing campaigns over foreign cities. Besides, if there was a deranged person who wanted to kill people, do you really think you would be able to prevent them from getting their hands on a gun? The U.S. government has been waging a war on drugs for decades, yet in many neighborhoods people can still get their hands on illegal cocaine. Do you think gun control—even a total gun ban—is going to be any more effective than the restrictions on drugs? Another, but somewhat related issue; why should someone who has been convicted of selling drugs in the past be prevented from buying a gun? If he could get his hands on illegal drugs, what makes you think he couldn't also get his hands on an illegal gun?? These criminals often have more need to defend themselves than the rest of the population does. People involved in organized crime often have more to worry about from rival groups than the police. I don't know, just something to consider. I know many gun rights activists are the same ones who are "tough on crime", but I will point out the anti gun control logic applies both ways here.
