Excellent reply, it clearly defines two facts, children are dependents and felons being lawless respect no laws.
So again, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that children and felons should have some restrictions placed on them when it comes to gun possession/ownership? So you would be in favor of gun control?
You made that point already. No one is arguing for kids having unsupervised access to firearms. I had several guns when I was a kid, but those were different days.
Felons yes and no to "gun control," unless you are referring to how to properly handle a firearm to hit the intended target.
But who decides where that common ground is? Should we reestablish that common ground each time the majority shifts in Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency?
You say no to gun control in one post yet in the previous post (below) you indicate you "support such restrictions". How can you have it both ways?
Sorry about that. That was how I read post #232. My bad. So you do favor some restrictions or gun control?
No. I drive by 2 private schools on my way to the office. Both have armed guards escorting kids from the car to the building. Instead of arguing gun control, they are protecting kids. The common ground is that we don't want innocent people murdered. Gun laws only provide killers with easy victims.
The understanding is quite simple. Those who are inclined to abide with firearm-related restrictions, because they have everything to lose if they do not abide, are put at a disadvantage by criminals who will not comply with firearm-related restrictions because they have nothing to lose.
We will include "supervised" when we rewrite the Constitution. It is interesting reading through all these posts. It appears to me that everyone is in favor of some kind of gun control/restrictions on firearms. It just seems we all have different ideas on what they should be. Here is an idea: Maybe we should create some kind of national high court where we could have a panel of highly respected individuals from within our nation's legal system who would rule on what types of laws are in violation of the Constitution and which laws are not.
Better yet call a constitutional convention and rewrite the whole damm thing. And do that every 50 years. No 200 year old document can be used unless the words are stretched so far they are useless. Have the words mean what they mean.
Small children should be defined. NO, they should not be allowed in school. Own - depends on the gun, age, adult supervision, and many other things. Should a 10 year old be able to hunt with family? Mentally ill - We're going to have to be very cautious about how that is defined. People should stop and think on that one. Should this include people that are obsessed with clean hands? Violent Felons should not, and as far as I know can not own guns legally. Guns should not be allowed in all places. I don't know of a state that allows them everywhere.
I think they should be defined by the family; not some arbitrary standard created by politicians. As I've mentioned, when I was young kids brought guns to school all the time. They brought them for Show-and-Tell, and used them to hunt small game for the stewpot on their way home after school. My elders all bought their first guns with their own money before the GCA of '68 put a stop to it... and "school shootings" were an utterly alien concept. Again, I think that is something that should be stipulated by family. My grandfather started teaching me the fundamentals of firearms safety long before I was 10 years old. We do need to be cautious, and very careful about who we define as "mentally ill". There are those who think the very desire to own a gun should be a disqualifier. I think non-violent felons should have their rights restored upon the completion of their full sentences. There should be legal mechanisms in place so that former felons who have proven themselves rehabilitated and have lived as honest citizens can apply to have their rights restored. I think those who have committed no crime should not have their rights infringed.
I said nothing about restrictions. I was, in fact, arguing against the restrictions another poster was expressing support for. You're right: there are no restrictions in the Second Amendment as written, except restrictions upon the government which is forbidden from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If people want restrictions then we should have a national discussion about repealing or amending the 2nd Amendment. Without that discussion no restrictions are Constitutional.
