That you aren't able to refer to any empirical problen and believe that isn't necessary only describes your bias. We borh know that, but you play pretend
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I, like most 2A supporters, don't doubt that through some malevolent & unconstitutional chicanery "common sense gun control for the children" really means an outright gun ban on virtually all modern firearms which is why America's gun owners are accused of being intransigent. The reason I don't think that eminent domain applies to firearms is that the Founding Fathers devoted a separate & independent Right in the Bill of Rights that applies only of the Right of the people to "Keep & bear arms". However, I'm not naive enough to think that cloistered & heavily guarded political appointees (i.e. activist judges) would not twist the Founding Fathers' wishes into an Orwellian nightmare. Re: I'm not surprised that a Gun Ban organization would opine that gun bans are constitutional. Additional reasons why I feel that gun bans are not protected under 5A are that individuals from whom property is taken are entitled to "due process of law" (1). A wide sweeping gun ban denies individual gun owners that "due process". Furthermore, the taking of property must be "...for public use", not general destruction. Again, I'm not naive enough to deny that unconstitutional mandates such as sweeping gun bans can become "law" but I firmly believe that the idea would be abhorrent in the eyes of the authors of the BoR. "LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE" https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment EXCERPT " It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use. "CONTINUED
ED has nothing to do with drug confiscation How many cops do you want to get killed? Oh btw the actual scenario if it comes to such a civil war would be gun owners targeting the people who direct the cops to do the confiscation.
The gun banners can tell themselves this all they want; but if they try to confiscate guns in this country they will pay their "compensation" in blood. Plain and simple.
Is the court of appeals for the district of columbia the same as the united state supreme court? If not then it cannot be cited as binding court precedent, as it is in violation of the precedent set by both Heller, McDonald, and most recently Caetano, pertaining to firearms. So-called "assault weapons" are not especially dangerous, and are no more dangerous than any other firearms in existence. They are not "dangerous or unusual" and cannot be prohibited from legal ownership.
Where exactly are illicit narcotic substances protected for ownership and use by the united states constitution?
The empirical problem has been pointed out to yourself. The refusal to acknowledge the underlying problem is not the fault of myself.
yep and the people who should pay first are not the rookie cops sent to confiscate guns but the braying gun banners who push such nonsense.
100% agree. If they think people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, let them be the ones banging on the door trying to take them.
They’d better get busy on a knife ban while they are at it. http://www.fox4news.com/news/fort-worth-girl-arrested-for-fatally-stabbing-friend-during-sleepover#/ Of course, they will leave us vulnerable to the gangs. Only the law abiding will give up their guns. How do 13 year old gang bangers get hold of a pistol with a suppressor? http://www.fox4news.com/news/teens-...y-killing-fort-worth-mother-during-burglary#/
It's a spurious estimate of cost. It's also illegal. The SCOTUS has ruled that handguns are protected by the Second Amendment, as they are in common usage for self defense. Also, all that does is cause honest law-abiding people to be disarmed. Joe Gangbanger isn't trading in his handgun. Also, please use an honest source, not a gun-grabbing organization website. I wouldn't use an NRA website to tell you what we should do.
If I posted an article by Wayne LaPierre, I would expect you to be similarly critical. Also open-mindedness is over-rated. A better thing to encourage is critical thinking. Your article from VPC fails that.
Eminent domain requires due process, not a blanket ban/confiscation. It's also a stretch that this would be for "public use." Man, you gun banners hate civil rights.
What happens in gun buy-backs is everyone turns in their junk and broken guns. If you ever see the huge stacks of buy-back guns they like to show off, nearly all are old bolt action rifles and you won't see one AK, AR or any other modern rifle in the stack. Same for handguns - old cheap revolvers.
I like "Adopt-A-Gun" better. Maybe the moderators will lets us include a section for hoplophobes to post photos & descriptions of their neglected & lonely firearms that need a nice, clean welcoming home for those dirty & scary old firearms.
Do you really think that the people responsible for racking up the gun homicide stats are going to participate?
they don't care, gun haters only use criminals as a facade to hide their real goals-banning or restricting lawful gun owners for political reasons
