Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

Recreation, sport, collecting as a hobby, target practise, skeet shooting.Guns have purposes that are not to kill. No. Its practice for putting more holes in more paper How many target shooting competitions have you been to or participated in?They even make 22 caliber target pistols that are only good for target shooting: Not in my opinion.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.I'd prefer to be able to defend myself. Too, I'd rather not have to depend on the police.As far as the government, though: I agree that its weak, but its an argument nonetheless I'd prefer to be able to try to defend myself. Its better to have and not need than to need and not have.Bleh... two cliches in one post ABE: Great point.People who argue from the 'death prevention' position should focus on banning cigarettes instead of guns if that's really thier goal.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

You can in Missouri. Its a bitch, but you can do it.I shot a fully automatic AR-15 and a Mac-11, IIRC.They really tore up the old bowling pins

Well, it was about 10 years ago. The owner was all about being legal, and had to go through a lot of paperwork and checks to get his permit to buy them.I'm sure he hasn't gotten rid of them, but you may be right that it is now illegal to buy more of them.

I dunno. The MAC-11 ranked pretty high on the Fun-O-Meter (and I wish I could find that old pic, 10 years ago when I had hair down to my elbows and wearing a tie-dyed T-shirt shotting a MAC-11 , it was priceless)As for being "worth it".... My guys has, like, a $60,000 gun collection... whats another $5k He even has a grenade launcher attachment, but he can't buy actual exploding grenades so all he has is smoke and parachute flares Edited by Catholic Scientist, : appalin' spallin'

What does it take to count as an "infringement"?Not any and all regulation is an infringenment, no?

I'm not so sure this is true. I'm remember a past discussion where it was shown that the Supreme Court ruled that the term "arms" specifically meant firearms, as in guns. Assuming I'm correct, we would have the right to guns, not just weapons in general.I'll have to do some digging and I'll edit this with what I find.

I don't believe that's true. Can you support your statement? Where does the Consitution say that?The National Firearms Act was passed without an amendment to the Constitution and it placed controls on firearms.

I'm sorry, I meant that part about any attempted control being an infringement, not the part about congress making amendments.I don't think that every control counts as infringement because there are controls and they have not been an infringement.But if you're just going to argue that some laws that have been on the books for a long time are actually unconstitutional, then I probably won't want to argue against that.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Heh, that's cool.Remeber when the SCOTUS was hearing the case in DC where they were interpreting whether or not the right to arms was an indiviual or collective right? I heard that Wyoming had some clause in their contract to become a state of the union, whatever thats called, that if the individuals gun rights were infringed then the contract would be void, and further that if SCOTUS ruled it a collective right, that Wyoming could seperate from the union, or something like that. I'm going from memory here.You ever heard anything about that? Can you give me a link to something because I never did find anything about it but I thought it was interesting.People were all packing up and getting ready to move out there

I call bullshit. Sounds like you're talking out your ass.Almost all? Where's your data?

So you were talking out your ass...I smelled it!

I'm not asking about law. I'm asking about history. Specifically about the agreement between the state of wyoming and the federal government in joining the union. More specifically on any clauses about firearm restriction that might be in that agreement.Do you know anything about it or not?

And that is how it is, no? Granting, in some places the 'proper license and permit' equals 'nothing'. Regardless, as AZPaul3 said, WE decide when we are justified in "taking the law into our own hands" through the appropriate means according to the particular case. I understand your sentiment, but you're acting like there a whole lot of incompetent gun-owners causing a lot of big problems. I'm not seeing an issue here that is of any concern.Assuming some other local issue of concern, that doesn't necessitate a Federal action towards it.Do you see something wrong with the way things currently are?

So? Yes, that is the way things currently are. But the inappropriate gun users are the ones who are using their illegal guns illegally. What kind of new laws would help if the inappropriate users aren't following the laws? There already are reasonable regulations and laws. But yeah, some people break them. Do you think piling up more laws is a better solution than better inforcing the current ones? For everything or just gun laws? And how much is too much?Some disparity is necessary as not all states are the same. The moutainmen in rural Montana don't need the same regulation as thugs in urban New Jersey. Are you advocating as much regulation as possible while maintianing the minimum requirement of the amendment? Perhaps, but the Supreme Court ruled in DC vs Heller that the second amendment was an individual right of the People, as in you and me. I have the right to Self Defense. Didn't the Supreme Court rule otherwise? That it IS an individual right. What's inappropriate for one state can be appropriate for another. I'm not seeing a need for Federal regulation yet. And that's how things are.