The power to ban firearms...?

[LordBrownTrout]

I think most people are fine with making things like Grenades/RPG/fully automatic weapons illegal for the general population. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The conversation President Obama started was banning a type of semi-automatic RIFLE, which (to me at least) is totally unnecessary.

Rifles - as a whole group - account for maybe 300 homicides/year. AR-15's? Maybe 15 people/year. In a country of 300 MILLION people that is an extremely, extremely small number. The man is playing political games and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

You want to make an impact on gun violence? Start figuring out ways to help educate youngsters in the inner cities and make sure they complete high school and go to college. Now that is something I can stand behind.

Quit wasting your time dude on this AR-15 thing. It's a political talking point designed to get folks exactly like yourself all wound up. Don't be a dupe.

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

The killings are in the cities. I haven't seen hillbilly Joe shoot up a cinema or school.

 

[KevinWestern]

The gun issue has certainly become a hot potato that BOTH sides are politicizing to try to win votes.

Definitely, but I just want the left especially to be a little more sincere about the whole thing.

As I mentioned before 7,000 minorities can die in the inner cities from handguns and you won't hear a peep from Obama. But 23 affluent people die (which was a tragedy, of course) and the entire left is mobilized to ban the one form of rifle used.

You get my point? It comes of as disingenuous to me.

Get these inner city kids some hope, some education, and you'll solve 80% of the gun violence issue vs banning an AR-15 and solving 0% of the gun violence issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think most people are fine with making things like Grenades/RPG/fully automatic weapons illegal for the general population. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The conversation President Obama started was banning a type of semi-automatic RIFLE, which (to me at least) is totally unnecessary.

Rifles - as a whole group - account for maybe 300 homicides/year. AR-15's? Maybe 15 people/year. In a country of 300 MILLION people that is an extremely, extremely small number. The man is playing political games and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

You want to make an impact on gun violence? Start figuring out ways to help educate youngsters in the inner cities and make sure they complete high school and go to college. Now that is something I can stand behind.

Quit wasting your time dude on this AR-15 thing. It's a political talking point designed to get folks exactly like yourself all wound up. Don't be a dupe.

Yes, and some people want AR15's banned. That's why it is a RIGHT that cannot be infringed on by most people, some people or a few people. Its either an absolute RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS or it isn't.

I agree on the focus on inner city youth. As well as we should toughen up gun laws and sentencing, and REFUND mental health departments to deal with that.


BUT, if the right to bear arms "cannot be infringed upon", then I should be allowed to own a rocket launcher and some grenades. Right? If not, then the right CAN be infringed upon, and thus, the Constitution's 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says.

But why ban AR-15s? They're just a rifle, and (out of all the millions of things that kill people) are definitely not anywhere at the top of the list. In fact, they might be pretty close to the bottom next to lightning.

What if I live in a rural area and want to keep one for protection?

Because, if nothing else, the issue of banning ARs shows the ignorance of the anti-gun folks. They are afraid of the gun because of how it LOOKS. They fear cosmetic issues like a place for a bayonet.

It is ignorance and fear-mongering by politicians seeking more controls.

 

[bucs90]

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

Do you know of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

Also, your constant referral to rednecks shows your own ignorance. Most of the rednecks I know were taught firearm safety as children when they were taught to hunt. Perhaps you mean something else. At any rate, your bigotry and ignorance is noted.

Yep. As of last week, in South Carolina there is NO mandatory hours of training to get a CWP. None. Its up to instructor discretion how long you stay. The lawmakers said if a person shows up, and the instructor is comfortable with it, he can sign off on it. 0 hours required. And Senator Lee Bright (SC) is pushing a bill that eliminates the need for a permit at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?
Yes or no.
Its really that simple.

Its "really simple" that you know you do not have an answer to the question; to cover this, you instead offer a red herring.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, and some people want AR15's banned. That's why it is a RIGHT that cannot be infringed on by most people, some people or a few people. Its either an absolute RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS or it isn't.

I agree on the focus on inner city youth. As well as we should toughen up gun laws and sentencing, and REFUND mental health departments to deal with that.


BUT, if the right to bear arms "cannot be infringed upon", then I should be allowed to own a rocket launcher and some grenades. Right? If not, then the right CAN be infringed upon, and thus, the Constitution's 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says.

But why ban AR-15s? They're just a rifle, and (out of all the millions of things that kill people) are definitely not anywhere at the top of the list. In fact, they might be pretty close to the bottom next to lightning.

What if I live in a rural area and want to keep one for protection?

I'm ok with AR15's. I wouldn't support a ban on them. I own a Rock River in fact. Great gun.

My point is....is the right to bear arms absolute? Or, can it be restricted?

I support a law that mandates a license to own a gun, period. Caught without a license, you get a stiff sentence.

Eventually, we'd weed out some of the gun toting thugs. Now, if they get caught carrying w/o a permit, they get a day in jail and probation. Make it a mandatory 5 year sentence just for having one without a license, and the thugs think twice.

Im not about limiting availability. Just limiting access. A difference. AR15's in the right hands are great. ANY gun in the wrong hands is bad.

So because less than 1/10th of 1 percent of guns in this country are used in homicides, you want to make a constitutional right contingent on permission from the gov't?

lol

 

[M14 Shooter]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

If not within reach of the driver or passengers, why the hell not? Safer there where children might get to playing with them!

What good are "arms" if they aren't within my reach?

And WHO says I can have them within reach? The government?

I either CAN bear any "arms" I want, or I cannot. Which is it?

Why do you continue to dodge the question -- I mean other than the fact you do no thave an answer for it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

Neither of which are firearms, go figure.

No, but they are "arms".

Setting aside for a moment that you know you cannot answer the question posed in the OP and so have been forced to try to change the subject...

How are they "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment?

 

[bucs90]

Neither of which are firearms, go figure.

No, but they are "arms".

Setting aside for a moment that you know you cannot answer the question posed in the OP and so have been forced to try to change the subject...

How are they "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment?

How are they not? They are weapons. When the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn't exist.

So, when I was given the right to bear arms in the 1700's, did that mean the right to bear ANY weapon that may be invented in the future?

Or, can the government step in and infringe on my right to bear weapons once a weapon is invented that the government doesn't want me to have?

THAT is a question you simply wont answer.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

Do you know of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

Also, your constant referral to rednecks shows your own ignorance. Most of the rednecks I know were taught firearm safety as children when they were taught to hunt. Perhaps you mean something else. At any rate, your bigotry and ignorance is noted.

Yep. As of last week, in South Carolina there is NO mandatory hours of training to get a CWP. None. Its up to instructor discretion how long you stay. The lawmakers said if a person shows up, and the instructor is comfortable with it, he can sign off on it. 0 hours required. And Senator Lee Bright (SC) is pushing a bill that eliminates the need for a permit at all.

There is no set mandatory number of hours. But there is a requirement for training.

And since the instructor is likely highly trained, he would recognize whether or not the person knew enough to be qualified.

Vermont has no requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. How are their violent crime stats?

 

[KevinWestern]

No, but they are "arms".

Setting aside for a moment that you know you cannot answer the question posed in the OP and so have been forced to try to change the subject...

How are they "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment?

How are they not? They are weapons. When the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn't exist.

So, when I was given the right to bear arms in the 1700's, did that mean the right to bear ANY weapon that may be invented in the future?

Or, can the government step in and infringe on my right to bear weapons once a weapon is invented that the government doesn't want me to have?

THAT is a question you simply wont answer.

We as a people need to decide these questions. The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so.

Personally, I think we're all better off and safer if citizens can own semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Probably wouldn't be comfortable with a store selling grenade launchers, however. I personally would draw the line there. But we should leave all semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and pistols alone.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, but they are "arms".

Setting aside for a moment that you know you cannot answer the question posed in the OP and so have been forced to try to change the subject...

How are they "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment?

How are they not?

This does not answer my question. Again.
Why do you feel the need to avoid answering these questions?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Setting aside for a moment that you know you cannot answer the question posed in the OP and so have been forced to try to change the subject...

How are they "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment?

How are they not? They are weapons. When the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn't exist.

So, when I was given the right to bear arms in the 1700's, did that mean the right to bear ANY weapon that may be invented in the future?

Or, can the government step in and infringe on my right to bear weapons once a weapon is invented that the government doesn't want me to have?

THAT is a question you simply wont answer.

We as a people need to decide these questions.

The question as to which weapons are protected by the 2nd -has- been answered.

The question as to where the federal government gets the power to ban firearms has not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

The same place it has the power to ban certain types of speech (United States v. O’Brien (1968)), or certain types of assembly (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)): the Federal Constitution, where the Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

With regard to banning certain types of firearms, government is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual (US v. Miller (1939)). “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons…We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right[.]” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

The issue, therefore, is not whether government has the authority to ban certain types of firearms – as Second Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that it does – but the criteria used by the government to determine which weapons are dangerous and unusual, and subject to lawful prohibition, and those in common use, and entitled to Second Amendment protections.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

The same place it has the power to ban certain types of speech (United States v. O’Brien (1968)), or certain types of assembly (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)): the Federal Constitution, where the Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Sooo... you cannot answer the question. Thank you.

Remember that the question is asked n the context of the 18th amendment being necessary to ourlaw the production, sale, ect of alcohol, thereby eliminating any argument regarding implied powers, the concept of which, as you state, preceeds it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nothing.

It has to do with my God given inalienable right to bear "ARMS" which the government cannot infringe on.

So....will the GOP defend my right to have grenades in my truck? If so, they may get my vote back. If they'll just come out and run on what they mean. RPG. Grenade. Claymore mine.

How I defend my home, and with what arms, are NOT the government's business. Run on it. You'll get my vote back.

I think most people are fine with making things like Grenades/RPG/fully automatic weapons illegal for the general population. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The conversation President Obama started was banning a type of semi-automatic RIFLE, which (to me at least) is totally unnecessary.

Rifles - as a whole group - account for maybe 300 homicides/year. AR-15's? Maybe 15 people/year. In a country of 300 MILLION people that is an extremely, extremely small number. The man is playing political games and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

You want to make an impact on gun violence? Start figuring out ways to help educate youngsters in the inner cities and make sure they complete high school and go to college. Now that is something I can stand behind.

Quit wasting your time dude on this AR-15 thing. It's a political talking point designed to get folks exactly like yourself all wound up. Don't be a dupe.

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

Nonsense.

No one has made guns ‘evil,’ ‘liberals’ in particular.

Liberals own guns and enjoy the shooting sports, they simply haven’t conjoined guns with partisan dogma, as conservatives have unfortunately done.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think most people are fine with making things like Grenades/RPG/fully automatic weapons illegal for the general population. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The conversation President Obama started was banning a type of semi-automatic RIFLE, which (to me at least) is totally unnecessary.

Rifles - as a whole group - account for maybe 300 homicides/year. AR-15's? Maybe 15 people/year. In a country of 300 MILLION people that is an extremely, extremely small number. The man is playing political games and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

You want to make an impact on gun violence? Start figuring out ways to help educate youngsters in the inner cities and make sure they complete high school and go to college. Now that is something I can stand behind.

Quit wasting your time dude on this AR-15 thing. It's a political talking point designed to get folks exactly like yourself all wound up. Don't be a dupe.

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

Nonsense.

No one has made guns ‘evil,’ ‘liberals’ in particular.

Liberals own guns and enjoy the shooting sports, they simply haven’t conjoined guns with partisan dogma, as conservatives have unfortunately done.

I did not mean to include all liberals. My apologies for not making myself clear.

But the current environment in which students are punished for biting a poptart to make it shaped like a gun, or having pictures of a gun on a t-shirt, was not brought about by conservatives.

Now, bear in mind that I am liberal in many of my views.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nothing.

It has to do with my God given inalienable right to bear "ARMS" which the government cannot infringe on.

So....will the GOP defend my right to have grenades in my truck? If so, they may get my vote back. If they'll just come out and run on what they mean. RPG. Grenade. Claymore mine.

How I defend my home, and with what arms, are NOT the government's business. Run on it. You'll get my vote back.

I think most people are fine with making things like Grenades/RPG/fully automatic weapons illegal for the general population. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The conversation President Obama started was banning a type of semi-automatic RIFLE, which (to me at least) is totally unnecessary.

Rifles - as a whole group - account for maybe 300 homicides/year. AR-15's? Maybe 15 people/year. In a country of 300 MILLION people that is an extremely, extremely small number. The man is playing political games and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

You want to make an impact on gun violence? Start figuring out ways to help educate youngsters in the inner cities and make sure they complete high school and go to college. Now that is something I can stand behind.

Quit wasting your time dude on this AR-15 thing. It's a political talking point designed to get folks exactly like yourself all wound up. Don't be a dupe.

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

There are less then a 1000 deaths a year due to accidental shootings, usually less then 800.

 

[The T]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

They don't until the Amendment is changed or abolished...SO....Where does that put the present GUN LAWS in force?

They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

How do you plan on DEFENDING yourself with an RPG or hand grenade if someone attempts to steal your truck? Are you going to toss hand grenades at him? Are you going to launch a rocket at your truck?

Grenades and RPGS are OFFENSIVE weapons, firearms are DEFENSIVE weapons, or more formally, zone denial weapons in warfare. From the end of the 18th century and onward, militaries relied upon artillery or other long range machines (ie airplanes) to inflict the majority of the damage, while the infantry denies or retards the enemy advance and direct occupation of territory. That is at least 1/3 of warfare. The other 1/3 is guerrilla tactics with handheld weapons, and the other 1/3 is espionage, I can assure you that the US military has many methods of data collection other than spy satellites, which are only the most recent.

However, should a registered Militia be allowed to STORE/STOCKPILE RPGS and hand grenades during times of peace: YES. But under no circumstance should people be driving around with them in a merry haphazardly fashion.