It depends on resolving the conflict between the Supremacy Clause and Constitutionality of Nullification. A debate that will likely hit SCOTUS regarding pot eventually.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/01/04/jard-featureless-j68/ ^^^ Look at how easy these laws are to get around. And imagine the poor beknighted souls who are reduced to this as opposed to a proper carbine.
Rights can be infringed by due process. (read the 5th amendment) The most fundamental right (the right to life) can be taken away by due process, so all the lesser rights can be as well.
Through actual enforcement, rather than what is currently being observed in the united states. As it presently stands, convicted felons are not being prosecuted for illegal possession, as such charges are being dropped. Rather than facing the consequences of their illegal acquisition and possession, they are receiving probation due to plea bargains, and the soft on crime approach of judges who believe politics is more pressing than the law that was written and passed by elected representatives. The city of Chicago, for example, has dismissed thousands of firearm-related offenses against career criminals, on the sole basis that the offenders are minority individuals and prosecuting them will suggest racism is the reason why. Even firearm traffickers are not facing actual prison time, but rather are being given community service, even when the firearms were registered to them, and were used in the murder of law enforcement officers.
The constitutionality of nullification has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. They rejected it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)
I support restrictions on 'indiscriminant weapons'- N,B,C, bombs, grenades, rockets. Full auto is included in this (thats the excuse they use to restrict it, anyway) which I disagree with, but dont commonly make much stink about (other than to point out that originally it was restricted via the exact same BS 'tax stamp' scheme that was used to set precedent for marijuana restrictions...). Thats about it. The rest, imo, is unreasonable, ineffective (relative to cost of enforcement and ease of circumvention via black market) and the result of irrational fear and ignorance of firearm dynamics.
??? of course its opinion. 'imo' = in my opinion the OP is asking for opinion, implied by 'support'. what exactly are you complaining about?
He seems to think that unless you can provide a mathematical formula, you have no right to make a statement. When I was in Electronics school, two year degree program, we had tests, and you used a mathematical formula to get an answer when calculating component values in a circuit, it was not enough to know the correct Answer, you had to show the working formula as well as an understanding of it to get full credit. Defending yourself from attack is unlike scientific process, however, a certain poster insists on scientific proof of obvious well proved concepts. Example: a small concealed revolver has often saved my life from Armed attackers, now I do not know of any mathematical formulas that prove this true, except to affirm it has happened to me.
or the anti gun posters' claims that they can "PROVE" waiting periods or UBCGs prevented murders. That is steaming BS because they cannot prove a negative. We do know two things are for certain Criminals locked up in prison may be able to assault other prisoners and perhaps a guard here or there, but they are mainly incapacitated in terms of harming the public while in jail Victims who shoot criminals and shoot the criminals well enough to either kill or cripple the criminal prevents those criminals from victimizing other persons. those are absolutely true The gun banners and restrictionists say-PROVE IT WITH FACTS fact-if you are dead or locked up you cannot harm members of the public and to those who say "prove it' I say GET A BRAIN!
There is no reason to ban concealed carry; waiting periods are worthless for anyone that already owns a gun and according to the Department of Justice "universal" background checks are not effective.
Even half a Brain would do nicely ! " those are absolutely true The gun banners and restrictionists say-PROVE IT WITH FACTS.." Fact: Dead Criminals almost never get up off the morgue table or rise once more from the tomb, to kill again. As true as 4+4=8 That is scientific proof right there !
I would eliminate semi automatic and automatic weapons. That would give a good guy with a gun time to respond before the bad guy could do the mass damage that those weapons could cause.
that's sort of ignoring reality bad guys don't obey laws so they will have illegal guns while good guys will be handicapped do you people ever think through the fact that criminals-by definition do not follow the laws?
We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Period. Sadly, the American people - through apathy, ignorance, and laziness - have allowed the government to brazenly infringe upon that right; through lies and obfuscation, and the courts have been complicit in that crime. I would even have sympathy for the idea of certain regulations; but only if we can have an HONEST discussion starting with a firm acknowledgement of the validity of our rights of self-defense and self-determination.
A government of the people, by the people and for the people has the power to restrict guns and no one will ever tell me otherwise. You have the right to own firearms and we have the right to make reasonable and common sense regulations of those firearms. I am sick of people waving the flag and pretending we don't love this country and everything it stands for. We want reasonable gun control BECAUSE we love this country. And we will not sit down and be quiet. We are Americans and we will fight to make this country better every single day.
Thats not 'gun control.' Thats a utopian fantasy. You cant 'eliminate' a type of firearm. You can only legislate their legality. Might as well just say you'd eliminate violence.
Weapons such as a misused motor vehicle resulting in the death of eighty five individuals, and injuring several hundred more, all in the span of five minutes?
we get it-you believe in mob rule and the current whims should override our rights. nothing you have ever supported comes close to being reasonable or common sense. you want "reasonable control" to harass people who don't support your leftwing agent. Reasonable laws target the sources of public endangerment. You see right wing voters as your enemy, not violent criminals
