How can we regulate guns ... ?

But it's important to note that it's only a high rate in low income neighborhoods which are predominantly black and hispanic neighborhoods. There are two in my opinion. Poverty and the availability of guns to use in crimes. Those who see it as a symbol of freedom are, for the most part, white citizens. Blacks and hispanics see it as a symbol of power. Neither one is right.- Oni

Not if you propose to enact a ban on assault rifles. Then why do you keep getting it wrong?

This is what I have said: I have also offered as a starting point the UK Firearms Act (amended) which provides definitions of what is allowed and what isn't.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/5/contentsGiven that I've never attempted a definition myself because that just leads to deliberately distracting and futile arguments like this one; it's rather hard to be wrong about it.

Does the federal government have the constitutional right to regulate guns, though?

Yes, but that's what you're wrong about - the idea that you can regulate something you can't define.I mean if we can just handwave and leave stuff to the "experts" who will, by definition, get it right, why even bother talking about policy? Why don't we just say "well, let's have whatever policy to reduce murders the experts know is best" and boom, done? No murders at all?

The Constitution guarantees the "right to bear arms." It does not say what those arms are, or limit Congress from making laws limiting the types of arms that can be owned.That's why it's illegal to have weapons like RPGs or armed tanks (you can own a tank, but the gun must be disabled).It would be perfectly fitting within the Constitution to ban all guns and limit the arms that can be borne to escrima sticks. The government would simply need to assert a State interest in limiting the destructive power of various and sundry weapons to preserve the public safety - it's all just a matter of determining where that line should be drawn, not whether any line can be drawn.It's somewhat like limiting free speech by making it illegal to scream "fire!" in a crowded place, or to incite violence, or to conspire to commit a crime, etc.And of course, in the end, our laws and rights are not simply inherent, written in stone by some imagined deity. It's all just words on paper, held in place by the force of communal agreement that it is so. We have the freedom of speech because we all agree that we have the freedom of speech. The Constitution can be altered, limited, or even replaced given sufficient public and political support for doing so. We've been re-interpreting and even re-writing it for the past 200+ years. It's something a lot of people forget about, since we haven't made an Amendment in a while.

But that's not the meaning of the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment. "Arms" in this context means firearms, not simply "weapon." That would seem to be the interpretation of the founding fathers, at least.E.g., Federalist paper 46:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."I'm pretty sure James Madison was not referring to escrima sticks, but rather to firearms.

The Second Amendment does, however, specify the purpose of the individual right to bear arms - the necessity of being able to call the general citizenry up into an ordered and self-provisioned militia in a time of national defense.To that end, the Second Amendment preserves an individual right to own weapons that are appropriate for light infantry soldiers; that's why the Second Amendment preserves semi-auto battle rifles but not squad-grade weapons like RPG's. A tank is not arms, because it can't be carried and operated by a single soldier. No, it wouldn't be, and areas and municipalities that have tried to ban all guns have had those laws overturned by the Supreme Court. Sure. But you can't simultaneously adopt the position that we could and should amend the Constitution to allow the sort of gun reform you advocate, and then assert that we don't need to amend it to allow the sort of gun reform you advocate. The Second Amendment is an obstacle to sweeping gun bans, because your understanding of the Amendment is deeply at odds with how it has been interpreted by basically everybody else.

I didn;t say that was my interpretation. I was simply pointing out that "limitations" are acceptable already, and the debate is really simply a matter of where the limiting line is drawn. That location is determined by public and political consensus - and I agree that right now the consensus and legal precedent are in accordance with allowing firearms.That doesn't mean that the consensus cannot change in the future, or that the precedent can be overturned. Which was the whole of my point. The interpretation of law, and even the laws themselves, change over time.

I know you're desperate to distract the conversation off into the undergrowth of magazine size, barrel length and calibre, but I ain't going there; it's obviously possible to define the kinds of weapons that you wish to ban as it has been done successfully in other countries.

I don't think those are qualities that define how dangerous a gun is or what constitutes an "assault rifle", so your insistence that I want to have a conversation about those irrelevancies is a misrepresentation. In what country has it been successful? Yours? Not so:

quote:

---

LETHAL assault rifles like the one used in America’s Sandy Hook school massacre are being LEGALLY sold in Britain.

​

A Welsh-based firm is advertising a Ruger SR-22 semi-automatic as a clone of an AR-15, the gun loner Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people.

---

http://www.thesun.co.uk/...ns-on-sale-legally-in-the-UK.htmlSemi-automatic "military-style" weapons with accessory rails such as these were used in spree killings as recently as the 2010 Cumbria shootings. The firearms license for "hunting" guns such as shotguns and rifles (section 1) would allow the ownership of such a gun as this, as well.

I wonder given the last statement if the founding fathers, or at least James Madison, would agree that a civilian not in the armed forces, part of the national guard, or in law enforcement, needs a gun? "Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Haven't we already done this in the form of a standing military? No one is asked to bring their guns with them, our taxes already pay for our citizenry to own and operate the best weapons in the world.- Oni

The point of the Second Amendment isn't to make it possible to arm the military. The military doesn't need a Constitutional amendment to have guns; they get to have guns simply by virtue of being the military.The point of the Second Amendment is to maintain a deep reserve of armed citizens who can be called up if the standing army proves insufficient. We can debate the wisdom of that, but that's what the amendment was put in there for. If you asked me to vote on repeal I don't yet know how I'd vote. But currently the Second Amendment is the law of the land, and gun control legislation has to be consistent with it or the Supreme Court will overturn it.

Oh dear, an article from the Sun.I'm more than happy to add .22 repeating rabbit guns to the list. Next?