The Right To Bear Arms

[PaulS1950]

Since when is the right to defend ones self obsolete? Almost every plant, animal bacteria and virus have a means to defend themselves. What makes it so wrong for people to defend themselves? Just because some criminals use guns doesn't mean that we should disarm those who use the guns to defend themselves. two million people each year use a gun to defend themselves ugainst criminals - most often without firing a shot.
If the second amendment is obsolete then so is the USA.
We have lost the fourth amendment - it is no longer a right.
There are places in the USA where the fifth amendment is no longer a right - New York city for one.
What is next - our freedom of religion? freedom of speech? no, wait - our right to vote.

The USA is a constitutional republic. It is the constitution that gives us power over the government instead of the other way around. If the constitution is obsolete then we need to have a vote to get the right kind of government in place. Wait - if the constitution is obsolete we don't have a right to vote - it may take a war!

 

[Nosmo King]

Since when is the right to defend ones self obsolete? Almost every plant, animal bacteria and virus have a means to defend themselves. What makes it so wrong for people to defend themselves? Just because some criminals use guns doesn't mean that we should disarm those who use the guns to defend themselves. two million people each year use a gun to defend themselves ugainst criminals - most often without firing a shot.
If the second amendment is obsolete then so is the USA.
We have lost the fourth amendment - it is no longer a right.
There are places in the USA where the fifth amendment is no longer a right - New York city for one.
What is next - our freedom of religion? freedom of speech? no, wait - our right to vote.

The USA is a constitutional republic. It is the constitution that gives us power over the government instead of the other way around. If the constitution is obsolete then we need to have a vote to get the right kind of government in place. Wait - if the constitution is obsolete we don't have a right to vote - it may take a war!

The constitution is not in peril. Our system of courts coupled with our unique system of checks and balances assure continuity of the rule of law.

But that constitution does not provide absolute freedoms. Our freedom of speech is restricted as libel and slander are criminal offenses. Likewise, it is a criminal offense to unduly call for emergency action such as false 911 calls or shouting "FIRE!" in a theater. Our right to practice religious rituals is restricted. Some sects would make blood sacrifice. Even though it would end up battered and deep fried afterward, try sacrificing a live chicken during a voodoo ceremony.

Everyone accepts limits on freedoms to assure public safety and civil peace. Everyone but the gun fanatic. To him, there are no limitations, no matter how watered down that are not the cause for cries of constitutional crisis. No measure, no matter how common sense, no matter how widely agreed upon, no matter that the idea was championed by his political side first, but when proffered by his opposition he flip flopped.

No law works, they will tell you. So why pass new laws? What a brilliant piece of inductive reasoning that is! What depth of thinking came up with that screed?

Surely had the second amendment been written in the full knowledge of what modern weaponry is capable of, the founders would have clearly identified what "arms" are. Rocket propelled grenades perhaps? That's a weapon designed for war. Why aren't they on the streets? For you see, weapons are regulated and those regulations came about over concerns for public safety.

Certainly there is a solution to the gun violence that plagues this country. Certainly there are ways to at the very least, start to make and end to the phenomena of "mass shootings". Certainly there is a way to at least take the "mass" out of that awful phrase.

But if the gun lobby keeps it's Grover Norquist like trance over the re-election hopes for some members, we can expect nothing but more of the same. It seems the "right" to have an assault weapon trumps the rights of first graders to grow up.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete - and is certainly not unlimited.

It's only confusing to a toddler. Some day you may grow up.

 

[PaulS1950]

The constitution is not in peril. Our system of courts coupled with our unique system of checks and balances assure continuity of the rule of law.

But that constitution does not provide absolute freedoms. Our freedom of speech is restricted as libel and slander are criminal offenses. Likewise, it is a criminal offense to unduly call for emergency action such as false 911 calls or shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.
That is because those crimes affect the rights of others
Our right to practice religious rituals is restricted. Some sects would make blood sacrifice. Even though it would end up battered and deep fried afterward, try sacrificing a live chicken during a voodoo ceremony.
There are religions that still practice ritual killings of animal - Jews come to mind.

Everyone accepts limits on freedoms to assure public safety and civil peace.
Limits on freedoms but not our rights so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Me owning a submachine gun does not infringe on your rights
Everyone but the gun fanatic. To him, there are no limitations, no matter how watered down that are not the cause for cries of constitutional crisis. No measure, no matter how common sense, no matter how widely agreed upon, no matter that the idea was championed by his political side first, but when proffered by his opposition he flip flopped.
The right to the means to defend ones self and the constitution does not infringe on anyone elses rights. It is clearly already illegal for felons and the criminally insane to have guns because they have been tried and convicted of crimes that infringe on the rights of others. Law abiding gun owners have no responsibility in the actions of criminals and the criminally insane. There is no reason to infringe on the right to keep and bear any arms that are in current and popular use in the infantry.
No law works, they will tell you. So why pass new laws? What a brilliant piece of inductive reasoning that is! What depth of thinking came up with that screed?

Surely had the second amendment been written in the full knowledge of what modern weaponry is capable of, the founders would have clearly identified what "arms" are. Rocket propelled grenades perhaps? That's a weapon designed for war. Why aren't they on the streets? For you see, weapons are regulated and those regulations came about over concerns for public safety.
public safety is not jeaprodized by legal gun owners. There are American citizens who legally own and fire RPGs, full auto machine guns and even anti-aircraft guns. The permit costs $200.

Certainly there is a solution to the gun violence that plagues this country. Certainly there are ways to at the very least, start to make and end to the phenomena of "mass shootings". Certainly there is a way to at least take the "mass" out of that awful phrase.
The only way to stop violent crime is to prosecute those guilty of it. From those who legally own guns there are two million times a year that they protect themselves and others from criminals - often without firing a shot.
But if the gun lobby keeps it's Grover Norquist like trance over the re-election hopes for some members, we can expect nothing but more of the same. It seems the "right" to have an assault weapon trumps the rights of first graders to grow up.

The man who shot those children was a killer before he entered that school. He killed his own mother to get the guns to continue killing. Before that he had no record of violence. It just proves that you can't prevent violence, you have to prosecute it.
You can't legislate against criminal behavior so we enact laws so that we can prosecute those who commit the acts. What you want to do is punish 300,000,000 people for the actions of what, 3 in the last year? You want to punish them without a trial. I understand your frustration, I feel it too but I know that making it harder for lawful citizens to get guns will only give more ground to the criminals. We need to prosecute them for their crimes. We should ban plea-bargains, light sentances for violent criminals and add a life sentence for anyone who uses a gun in a crime.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete

The 2nd amend is not confusing to anyone who has taken the time to discover the historical context.

As for being obsolete... That is a reason to repeal the 2nd Amend via a Constitutional Amend, it is not a a reason to ignore the 2nd Amend. Let me help you out on how it is done legally:

First you convince 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to propose an amendment to the states; Then you convince 38 states to ratify said amendment.. and then voila, the 2nd disappears!

You should contact Harry Reid right away, as it is my understanding that the Senate may have some extra time on its hands, having deep sixed all major gun control legislation this year... Here is his contact info:

522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans:
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

I am sure that Harry will be thrilled with your proposal and be dazzeled by your political prowess. In fact he may use it as the center peice for the Democratic Platform in the upcoming mid term elections...

VOTE for the DEMS and REPEAL another FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

and is certainly not unlimited

Saying it is "not unlimited" is not equivalent to saying "we can limit it anyway we want". When you treat it like the 1st amend, I will be satisfied.... which means no more scary looking gun bans, shall issue nationwide CCW and no more laws specifically designed to make the exercise of the right protected more expensive and burdensome for the sole or primary reason to make gun ownership less common.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete

You cannot prove this to be true.

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete

You cannot prove this to be true.

If liberals were forced to refrain from speaking things they could not prove to be true, they would not have spoken in their 115 year existence....

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete

You cannot prove this to be true.

If liberals were forced to refrain from speaking things they could not prove to be true, they would not have spoken in their 115 year existence....

They know that they can lie faster than we can prove them to be liars.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The constitution is not in peril. Our system of courts coupled with our unique system of checks and balances assure continuity of the rule of law.

But that constitution does not provide absolute freedoms. Our freedom of speech is restricted as libel and slander are criminal offenses. Likewise, it is a criminal offense to unduly call for emergency action such as false 911 calls or shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.
That is because those crimes affect the rights of others
Our right to practice religious rituals is restricted. Some sects would make blood sacrifice. Even though it would end up battered and deep fried afterward, try sacrificing a live chicken during a voodoo ceremony.
There are religions that still practice ritual killings of animal - Jews come to mind.

Everyone accepts limits on freedoms to assure public safety and civil peace.
Limits on freedoms but not our rights so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Me owning a submachine gun does not infringe on your rights
Everyone but the gun fanatic. To him, there are no limitations, no matter how watered down that are not the cause for cries of constitutional crisis. No measure, no matter how common sense, no matter how widely agreed upon, no matter that the idea was championed by his political side first, but when proffered by his opposition he flip flopped.
The right to the means to defend ones self and the constitution does not infringe on anyone elses rights. It is clearly already illegal for felons and the criminally insane to have guns because they have been tried and convicted of crimes that infringe on the rights of others. Law abiding gun owners have no responsibility in the actions of criminals and the criminally insane. There is no reason to infringe on the right to keep and bear any arms that are in current and popular use in the infantry.
No law works, they will tell you. So why pass new laws? What a brilliant piece of inductive reasoning that is! What depth of thinking came up with that screed?

Surely had the second amendment been written in the full knowledge of what modern weaponry is capable of, the founders would have clearly identified what "arms" are. Rocket propelled grenades perhaps? That's a weapon designed for war. Why aren't they on the streets? For you see, weapons are regulated and those regulations came about over concerns for public safety.
public safety is not jeaprodized by legal gun owners. There are American citizens who legally own and fire RPGs, full auto machine guns and even anti-aircraft guns. The permit costs $200.

Certainly there is a solution to the gun violence that plagues this country. Certainly there are ways to at the very least, start to make and end to the phenomena of "mass shootings". Certainly there is a way to at least take the "mass" out of that awful phrase.
The only way to stop violent crime is to prosecute those guilty of it. From those who legally own guns there are two million times a year that they protect themselves and others from criminals - often without firing a shot.
But if the gun lobby keeps it's Grover Norquist like trance over the re-election hopes for some members, we can expect nothing but more of the same. It seems the "right" to have an assault weapon trumps the rights of first graders to grow up.

The man who shot those children was a killer before he entered that school. He killed his own mother to get the guns to continue killing. Before that he had no record of violence. It just proves that you can't prevent violence, you have to prosecute it.
You can't legislate against criminal behavior so we enact laws so that we can prosecute those who commit the acts. What you want to do is punish 300,000,000 people for the actions of what, 3 in the last year? You want to punish them without a trial. I understand your frustration, I feel it too but I know that making it harder for lawful citizens to get guns will only give more ground to the criminals. We need to prosecute them for their crimes. We should ban plea-bargains, light sentances for violent criminals and add a life sentence for anyone who uses a gun in a crime.

All this red text reminds me of my KJV Bible. Words of Jesus marked in red. Well at least there it was.

 

[Nosmo King]

Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience. Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen. Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph. No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact. The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature. They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire. And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience.

The overhwlemingly vast majority are.

Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen.

The overhwlemingly vast majority are.

Fact of the matter is that a statistically insgnificant % of guns - a number that statistically approaches zero - are used to commit murder; that said. to further restrict the rights of the overwhelming majority in order to prevent illegal acts by the impossibly small minority makes no sense whatsoever.

You may now further prove my position that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[KevinWestern]

Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience. Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen. Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph. No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact. The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature. They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire. And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.

Some folks, too, believe that it’s completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” when in fact the type of weapon they’re trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).

Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.

Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word “assault weapon” when it comes to this debate vs “poverty” or “handgun”?




.

 

[bendog]

Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience. Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen. Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph. No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact. The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature. They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire. And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.

Some folks, too, believe that it’s completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” when in fact the type of weapon they’re trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).

Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.

Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word “assault weapon” when it comes to this debate vs “poverty” or “handgun”?




.

Perhaps it's because suburbanites, and higher income ubran dwellers, fear their kids getting killed by crazies with "high capacity magazines" more than they fear a gang kid with a six gun. Perhaps that's not rational, but it's not rational for you to deny that all this gang violence isn't involving high capacity magazines. When I grew up a seven round .45 ACP was about as big as they came, so what else would one call a magazine that holds 13 and up 9mm.

 

[KevinWestern]

Perhaps it's because suburbanites, and higher income ubran dwellers, fear their kids getting killed by crazies with "high capacity magazines" more than they fear a gang kid with a six gun. Perhaps that's not rational, but it's not rational for you to deny that all this gang violence isn't involving high capacity magazines. When I grew up a seven round .45 ACP was about as big as they came, so what else would one call a magazine that holds 13 and up 9mm.

Sure, suburbanites might not have to worry about gang violence – I understand – but isn’t the job of our gov’t and our President to see the big picture and go after the type of weapon that affects the most amount of people? Isn’t that common sense?

With a finite amount of time and resources, which gun type is more logical to pin as a “buzzword” in the news:

(A) “Assault Rifles” – ~40 deaths annually, has affected mostly wealthy communities in mass shootings
(B) Handguns – ~6,000 deaths annually, has affected mostly poor communities in acts of gang violence

Please let me know if I'm being unfair (and why), but isn’t it sort of a slap in the face to our nation’s poor that he chose to go with (A)?

It's like, "hey guys, we know you poor folks have been suffering thousands and thousands of deaths a year due to handgun violence, but we're going to instead focus on the 20 upper class people that died from an AR-15 first and try to ban that. We'll get to you later.."

I'm really not trying to be unfair here, this is just how I'm seeing this unfold. I'd like to hear your thoughts.






.

 

[Nosmo King]

Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience. Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen. Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph. No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact. The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature. They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire. And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.

Some folks, too, believe that it’s completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” when in fact the type of weapon they’re trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).

Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.

Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word “assault weapon” when it comes to this debate vs “poverty” or “handgun”?




.

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons". I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience. Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen. Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph. No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact. The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature. They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire. And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.

Some folks, too, believe that it’s completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” when in fact the type of weapon they’re trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).

Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.

Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word “assault weapon” when it comes to this debate vs “poverty” or “handgun”?




.

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons". I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

If that's the case, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.
Never mind that it is also unconstitutonal to ban handguns.

 

[Nosmo King]

Some folks, too, believe that it’s completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” when in fact the type of weapon they’re trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).

Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.

Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word “assault weapon” when it comes to this debate vs “poverty” or “handgun”?




.

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons". I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

If that's the case, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.
Never mind that it is also unconstitutonal to ban handguns.

I would keep revolvers legal. Also pistols requiring the user to cock the action prior to shooting. The handguns that cause the grief and death and violence have no place on our streets. Perhaps such weapons belong in well regulated militias.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons". I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

If that's the case, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.
Never mind that it is also unconstitutonal to ban handguns.

I would keep revolvers legal. Also pistols requiring the user to cock the action prior to shooting. The handguns that cause the grief and death and violence have no place on our streets. Perhaps such weapons belong in well regulated militias.

Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense and so very much DO have a place in our homes and on our streets... It's unconstitutinal to ban handguns, period, especually those intended for self-defense.

Left unaddressed by you:
If that's your definition of 'assault wepon;, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'. Correct?

 

[bendog]

Perhaps it's because suburbanites, and higher income ubran dwellers, fear their kids getting killed by crazies with "high capacity magazines" more than they fear a gang kid with a six gun. Perhaps that's not rational, but it's not rational for you to deny that all this gang violence isn't involving high capacity magazines. When I grew up a seven round .45 ACP was about as big as they came, so what else would one call a magazine that holds 13 and up 9mm.

Sure, suburbanites might not have to worry about gang violence – I understand – but isn’t the job of our gov’t and our President to see the big picture and go after the type of weapon that affects the most amount of people? Isn’t that common sense?

With a finite amount of time and resources, which gun type is more logical to pin as a “buzzword” in the news:

(A) “Assault Rifles” – ~40 deaths annually, has affected mostly wealthy communities in mass shootings
(B) Handguns – ~6,000 deaths annually, has affected mostly poor communities in acts of gang violence

Please let me know if I'm being unfair (and why), but isn’t it sort of a slap in the face to our nation’s poor that he chose to go with (A) first?





.

Well, again, I don't see a limit on magazine capacity to ... say ten ... as having zero potential do decrease urban deaths. But, I'd agree that it would have more potential benefit in Sandy Hook/ Aurora type situations ... which of course is what has more political affect on likely suburban/higher income urban voters. And, one has to admit honestly that with so many magazines in commerce, it'd take a decade to even begin to make a change in what's in circulation.

I believe Ill has begun to try and enact imprisonment enhancements for gun crimes. The Gop turned away stricter enforcement of straw purchases. The Chi police have altered how cops patrol, and that has reduced deaths in the past few months. So, I don't agree that govt has simply turned it's back on where the vast maj of deaths are coming from. But, the govt cannot convince peopel to stay in school and get educations. The govt can try to make resources available. But, we're talking societal, and not governmental, failure.

And background checks? Who the hell can be against that, seriously. It's beyone ludicrious.

I think you are really posting about what the LW media and Obama has framed the issue as. The things that would be most effective in urban crime simply aren't of interest to the voters Obama wants for the off year and Hill's ascension, along with taking back the House and a 60 member senate. To get there he has to have the gop as lunatic fringe.

Even magazine capacity limits don't have the popularity of background checks. For example, I'd prefer to keep my 13 round 9mm; It hurts my hand to fire anything more powerful, even though I'd really prefer my old .357 or a .45 ACP, but no can do anymore.

But, if someone is not willing to wait the few minutes it would take for a real background check, with the possibility no matter how slight that it would keep a weapon from a crazy, that's crazy. And that's where Obama wants the gop.

 

[Nosmo King]

If that's the case, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.
Never mind that it is also unconstitutonal to ban handguns.

I would keep revolvers legal. Also pistols requiring the user to cock the action prior to shooting. The handguns that cause the grief and death and violence have no place on our streets. Perhaps such weapons belong in well regulated militias.

Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense and so very much DO have a place in our homes and on our streets... It's unconstitutinal to ban handguns, period, especually those intended for self-defense.

Left unaddressed by you:
If that's your definition of 'assault wepon;, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'. Correct?

I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons. They are, in fact, offensive weapons.

And I do support all efforts to ban assault weapons. This round defeated by NRA bought and paid for Senators would be a good point of departure to at least begin to rid such weapons from our streets.