It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment

[Billy_Kinetta]

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Indeed it is not, because the federal government is prohibited from infringing upon the right. Period.

That said, there is no "peculiar wording" of the 2A. It's merely your inability to read and comprehend common English.

 

[SwimExpert]

seems to me that every American should own the small arms of the American infantry soldier Lakhota .

I agree - just like when the Second Amendment was written.

You really mean to tell us that the Framers intended the militia to forever be armed with 18th century technology?

 

[Contumacious]

seems to me that every American should own the small arms of the American infantry soldier Lakhota .

I agree - just like when the Second Amendment was written.

You really mean to tell us that the Framers intended the militia to forever be armed with 18th century technology?

Chief Crazy Horse has demanded that he change his handle to Two Dogs Fucking


.

 

[2aguy]

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

Europe marched 12 million people into gas chambers and mass graves....because only the police and military had guns......and the weird part...knowing that a government could murder 12 million innocent men, women and their children.....all because the small group controlling the police and military didn't like them...knowing that these murders happened in modern nation states with the rule of law, democratic institutions, modern universities...the people of Europe actually gave up their guns in the belief that they could always trust their governments..

That is f*****g weird......

When only the police and military have guns...then the people will have no choice when the wrong people get the power and start murdering them.....

 

[2aguy]

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

I see so as long as civilians can purchase weapons that don't kill with speed and efficiency the New York Times Editorial Board will have no moral outrage or see a national disgrace. Liberal logic is an oxymoron.

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

So....let's say the New York Times editorial board is attacked and murdered by Islamic terrorists......and don't tell me that that can't happen...tell that to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.....tell me the New York Times won't bring in men with guns to protect their staff....

And tell me they don't have armed guards right now........if they believe that only the police and military should have guns...then they should live as they suggest and only have unarmed security......

 

[2aguy]

You're in good company with other Progressives: Hitler, Stalin and Mao

don't forget pol pot, the castros.........

 

[2aguy]

Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing are only possible when only the police and military have guns....and the rest of the people are unarmed.....

 

[2aguy]

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Okay.....please..wise one.....which mass shooters would this have stopped? Please name one.

Second....you know that criminals get their guns in two primary ways...they steal them or have someone with a clean record buy them for them.....

Since this is the case, how would licensing normal gun owners, and forcing universal background checks, and accurate and timely information to the National Instant Background Check system stop one criminal from getting a gun?

And do you understand the downside to Universal Background checks?...I thought not....

 

[2aguy]

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons.

this is one article that points out why they really want Universal Background Checks...to make more, law abiding, normal gun owners potential felons for simple possession errors...

'Three Gun Control Proposals Republicans Can Actually Support' ... Unless You Read the Fine Print - The Truth About Guns


There have been others since, but they always seem to follow the same pattern. The problem most people see with such “universal background check” proposals is that they would pretty much make it illegal to share your love of shooting. Let me give you some illustrative examples.

• You’re out on your buddy’s ranch and he wants to try your new gun. If you hand it to him, you have performed an illegal transfer making both of you felons.
• You want to buy your buddy’s gun. The nearest gun store is not happy about having to do transfers for individuals rather than selling from their own stock, and in response they have hiked up the transfer fees they charge to 50% of the cost of the sale. Without any government restrictions on the price of transfers, every gun store in town does the same.
• You live on a ranch 100 miles from the nearest gun store. You want to buy your buddy’s gun, but the trip to the gun store plus the transfer fee would cost more than the gun itself including gas and time invested.

Those are just some of the practical issues related to universal background check laws. The theoretical issues are even greater, since the Manchin-Toomey bill would have opened the flood gates for government entities to start compiling a master list of gun owners. Most gun owners agree that the first step towards confiscation is registration, as evidenced in California. If there were a way to perform a background check without a paper trail and without a fee, I doubt there would be any remaining significant opposition to the proposal.

Laws to Prevent Mentally Ill from Buying Guns (81% R, 79% D)

Another superficially great idea. Every time there’s a mass casualty event involving firearms it seems the mental health of the perpetrator is a major contributing factor. While it would be great to have a way to screen out such potentially dangerous people, that proposal comes with a couple of sticky issues.

The first potentially fatal flaw is the fact that the definition of “mentally ill” isn’t exactly set in stone. To illustrate exactly how subjective that phrase can be, there’s an entry in the DSM (the bible of diagnostic psychology) that makes the use of caffeine a qualified mental disorder. So in theory, if you’ve had more than one cup of coffee this morning then you are “mentally ill” and owning a gun would be illegal.

That same ambiguity is the reason why we’ve seen some disturbing gun confiscations in California (and attempted confiscations by the VA) from people who no one would qualify as “mentally ill.” The concern is that the ambiguity could be exploited by those who simply want gun owners extinct to make gun ownership technically legal, but practically impossible.

Another problem is that the further stigmatization of mentally ill individuals would be a massive barrier to care for gun owners. If the consequence of going to see a psychiatrist could be that an ATF agent comes to your door to confiscate your guns, how many gun owners would actually seek treatment for their potential mental health issues? I’ll give you a hint: none.

Just look at the way pilots see doctors for proof of this concept. Pilots need a valid medical certificate to fly an airplane. If any one of a vast array of medical conditions pop up then their medical certificate could be revoked at any time. Even if they don’t have a problem the docs can still make the process painful and costly — one of my friends recently had a traumatic experience with the suicide of his friend, and the AME is making him go through thousands of dollars worth of psychiatric observation before even considering his medical. As a result, pilots regularly visit “under the counter” doctors for their medical conditions rather than seeking the most competent care in order to avoid any entanglement with the FAA. The results of such stigmatization can be deadly.

Federal Database to Track Gun Sales (55% R, 85% D)

Like I said, gun owners tend to be very private people who don’t like the idea of a federal gun registry. That has become painfully obvious in places like New York, with most gun owners refusing to register their legally owned guns.

The Canadian government has maintained a firearms registry for some time, but they recently decided to scrap it since it turned out to be less useful than the hard drives it was inscribed upon. The idea that an American version would be any more effective, especially given the reluctance of gun owners to voluntarily register their guns, is patently insane.

Even if such a registry were complete and useful, would it actually do anything to stop “gun violence” or bring down the murder rate? Research indicates that 80% of guns used in crime come from either a family member or a “street” illegal source. So, if the guns in the system are already illegal (or rather, a background check and tracing would have no impact on their availability), then how would attaching a name to the guns make them any less available? There’s an argument to be made that the ability to trace a gun back to its source would make participating gun owners and straw purchasers less likely to go along with the scheme, but that can already be accomplished by tracing the gun through gun store sales records and 4473 forms.



**********

Also....you are riding with your friend, you have your gun. You need to enter a store with a no gun sign. If you take your gun off and leave it in his car, with him...are you now both felons?
**************************

 

[2aguy]

seems to me that every American should own the small arms of the American infantry soldier Lakhota .

I agree - just like when the Second Amendment was written.

When the Founders wrote the First Amendment

this was the Printing Press they were referring to...slow to print on paper, innaccurate and usually easy to destroy by government agents...


This article is about the mechanical printing press. For printing in general, see Printing. For technology of movable type, see Movable type.

 

[2aguy]

seems to me that every American should own the small arms of the American infantry soldier Lakhota .

I agree - just like when the Second Amendment was written.

Look...I agree with you......normal citizens should only be allowed to use the current rifle and pistol of the United States soldier...... the rifle in that photo was the "assault rifle" and most modern rifle of the time......and we should expect to own no less today.....

 

[2aguy]

My post # 29 showed why background checks are stupid and simply felony traps for normal gun owners....

this post will show that that is exactly what the anti gun extremists want.....

How Everytown’s background check law impedes firearms safety training and self-defense

However, the Bloomberg laws create a very different definition. For example, the Washington state law says that “ ‘Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.010(25).

In other words, it applies to sharing a gun while target shooting on one’s own property, or to lending a gun to a neighbor for a weekend hunting trip.

Under the Bloomberg system, transfers may take place only at a gun store. The transfer must be conducted exactly as if the retailer were selling a firearm out of her inventory. So the transferee (the neighbor borrowing the hunting gun) must fill out ATF Form 4473; the retailer must contact the FBI or its state counterpart for a background check on the transferee; and then, the retailer must take custody of the gun and record the acquisition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. Finally, the retailer hands the gun to the transferee and records the disposition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. A few days later, after the hunting trip is over, the process must be repeated for the neighbor to return the gun to the owner; this time, the owner will be the “transferee,” who will fill out Form 4473 and undergo the background check.
--------------
Safety training

Sensible firearms policy should encourage, not impede, safety instruction. The Bloomberg laws do just the opposite. They do so by making ordinary safety training impossible unless it takes place at a corporate target range. (The federal S. 374 allows transfers “at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms.”)

A target range is usually necessary for the component of some safety courses that includes “live fire” — in which students fire guns at a range under the supervision of an instructor. However, even the courses that have live fire also have an extensive classroom component. Some introductory courses are classroom-only. In the classroom, dozens of firearms transfers will take place. Many students may not yet own a firearm; even if a student does own a firearm, many instructors choose to allow only their own personal firearms in the classroom, as the instructor may want to teach particular facts about particular types of firearms. The instructor also wants to use firearms that he or she is certain are in good working order. In any classroom setting, functional ammunition is absolutely forbidden.
****************
The next article in the series...private sharing on private property, with a link to long term storage article...

Sharing firearms for informal target shooting: Another legitimate activity outlawed by Everytown’s ‘universal background checks’

Here are two things that a person might do with a firearm: 1. Sell the firearm to a complete stranger in a parking lot. 2. Share the firearm with a friend, while target shooting on one’s own property. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby is promoting “universal background checks” as a means of addressing activity No. 1. But the Bloomberg laws also outlaw activity No. 2. In a previous post, I detailed how the unusual Bloomberg laws about “background checks” for “private sales” constrict safety training and self-defense; and also obstruct safe storage. This post addresses another non-sales activity, firearms sharing.
*************



How background checks affect long term storage when owner is away and wants to leave guns with friends...
Safe storage of firearms: The harms from Bloomberg’s strange background check system


Although the Bloomberg system is promoted as addressing private sales of firearms, the Bloomberg laws as written apply to all firearms loans — whether for a few seconds or a few weeks.

There are some limited exceptions (e.g., certain family members, or at a corporate target range). But these exceptions do not apply to safe storage situations.

Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period, such as a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a family going on a long vacation, or someone evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted friend or neighbor for months or years. Under the Bloomberg system, for the friend or neighbor to store the firearms, the following procedures must be followed:

The owner and the bailee must find a gun store that is willing to process the loan. The store must treat the loan as if it were selling a firearm out of its inventory. Under the threat of a five-year federal prison sentence for perjury, the bailee and gun store must answer the dozens of questions on ATF Form 4473. Next, the gun store contacts the FBI or a state counterpart for permission to proceed with the sale. Under ideal circumstances, permission to proceed is granted in less than 10 minutes. The retailer then logs the gun into his Acquisition and Disposition record book, as an acquisition. He next logs the gun out of the record book, as a disposition. He hands the firearm to the bailee. The process must be followed for every firearm. If there are two are more handguns, the store must send additional forms to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Depending on the state, a fee is charged for each background check requested. The gun store, of course, will process this transaction only if it can charge a fee to compensate it for handling the paperwork. Unlike with an inventory sale, the gun store is not making any profit on the gun itself.

Later, when the bailor returns and is ready to take custody of her firearms, the entire process must be repeated, with bailor and bailee both taking all the guns to the gun store, before they may be returned to the bailor.

 

[2aguy]

Please tell me oh wise one.....

If I am going to the store with my wife....and she isn't going in, but I am....but the store is a gun free zone...so I take my gun off of my belt and leave it with her.....

Are we both now felons since I didn't take her to a gun store and get a background check on her to see if she can legally be in the car with the gun?

Riddle me that, Batman.....

 

[Rotagilla]

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

Europe marched 12 million people into gas chambers and mass graves....because only the police and military had guns......and the weird part...knowing that a government could murder 12 million innocent men, women and their children.....all because the small group controlling the police and military didn't like them...knowing that these murders happened in modern nation states with the rule of law, democratic institutions, modern universities...the people of Europe actually gave up their guns in the belief that they could always trust their governments..

That is f*****g weird......

When only the police and military have guns...then the people will have no choice when the wrong people get the power and start murdering them.....

gas chambers?..really?..you still believe that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."

Correct.

As Justice Scalia explained in Heller, writing for the majority:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, the issue is not whether or not government may place restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as in fact it may; rather, the issue is what restrictions are warranted, appropriate, and Constitutional, and what restrictions are not.

Wrongheaded is the notion that any and all restrictions are 'un-Constitutional,' as a fact of law nothing could be further from the truth. That a citizen who yells 'fire' in a crowded theater is subject to criminal prosecution in no way 'violates' the First Amendment; likewise, reasonable restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms do not 'violate' the Second Amendment.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is now evolving and will continue to evolve for decades to come as the courts and lawmaking entities, through the process of judicial review, come to a consistent, settled, and accepted understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

2AGUY SAID:

"Europe marched 12 million people into gas chambers and mass graves....because only the police and military had guns."

Wrong.

Another ridiculous, reprehensible lie from the right – nothing but unfounded demagoguery and fear-mongering.

The Hitler gun control lie

 

[candycorn]

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

I think once Hillary is sworn in and gets to appoint some justices, you'll see them taking an interests in gun control cases and we may get some of the judgments overturned. It will be a long road ahead but eventually it will happen.

 

[Auld Phart]

seems to me that every American should own the small arms of the American infantry soldier Lakhota .

I agree - just like when the Second Amendment was written.

90 seconds to reload with practice?

HIlariouis

 

[chikenwing]

Your right ,no sense talking about that shit,the framers were just fucking around that day doodling this and that down while they talked about the drunk guy last night at the tavern.

 

[SwimExpert]

Consequently, the issue is not whether or not government may place restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as in fact it may; rather, the issue is what restrictions are warranted, appropriate, and Constitutional, and what restrictions are not.

Wrongheaded is the notion that any and all restrictions are 'un-Constitutional,' as a fact of law nothing could be further from the truth. That a citizen who yells 'fire' in a crowded theater is subject to criminal prosecution in no way 'violates' the First Amendment; likewise, reasonable restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms do not 'violate' the Second Amendment.

This is true. The problem is that most liberals seem to think that "reasonable" restrictions means to restrict gun possession to the point of effective inability to keep one.