As I said, we could have said those things, but didn't. I mentioned them not to introduce them into the conversation, but because those are common arguments by gun defenders when things get a little heated.
Godwin's Law doesn't apply, here - you weren't compared to a Nazi.
As I said, we could have said those things, but didn't. I mentioned them not to introduce them into the conversation, but because those are common arguments by gun defenders when things get a little heated.
Godwin's Law doesn't apply, here - you weren't compared to a Nazi.
I know, I was being facetious.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Then begin a "turn in your gun to avoid a fine/arrest" program at all police stations. Then, after a resonable amount of time, anyone caught with one is punished (start with a fine and the gun is taken away, all the way to jail time for not following the law.)
Am I going to be paid the fair market value of my guns when I turn them in?? What about historical guns? Would I be paid a fair price for my 1851 Colt Navy Revolver?
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury
Making handguns and assualt rifles illegal does not violate the Second Amendment.
Since citizens of the United States are explicitly given the right to bear militia arms that they could use for defense of the security of the state, it most certainly would - in the same way that telling an American citizen that he could not petition the government for the redress of a grievance would violate the First.
Like it or not the Second Amendment is a real thing, and it very much does stand in the way of the sorts of sweeping gun bans that you're talking about. You can't just wave your hands and say "oh, no, it wouldn't." The Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of Americans to own small-bore rifles and shotguns so that they can hunt or target shoot. It protects the right of Americans to own arms that they can muster in defense of the nation.
Am I going to be paid the fair market value of my guns when I turn them in?? What about historical guns? Would I be paid a fair price for my 1851 Colt Navy Revolver?
Sure, I guess. All that can be detailed. The point was it can be done.
Since citizens of the United States are explicitly given the right to bear militia arms that they could use for defense of the security of the state, it most certainly would - in the same way that telling an American citizen that he could not petition the government for the redress of a grievance would violate the First.
No it wouldn't. I said handguns and assault rifles, I said nothing about hunting rifles and shotguns for sport/defense.
The Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of Americans to own small-bore rifles and shotguns so that they can hunt or target shoot. It protects the right of Americans to own arms that they can muster in defense of the nation.
Right, so making handguns and assualt rifles illegal would not violate any of that.
Right, so making handguns and assualt rifles illegal would not violate any of that.
Since handguns and rifles are exactly the weapons you would use to defend against an invading army, the Second Amendment very clearly protects the right to ownership of these weapons.
If the text of the Second Amendment said "venison being damn tasty, the rights of the people to keep and bear hunting arms shall not be infringed" you'd have the latitude to ban handguns and rifles. But it doesn't say that, so you don't. Handguns are protected by the Second Amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It does not specify what these 'arms' are. It is up to the goverment and the people who elect it to determine what the definition of 'arms' is. It is common sense to say that 'ams' means 'firearms' of course, but as to what firearms we have a right to 'keep and bear' is another matter. If you equate the above right to mean unfettered access to any firearm imaginable does that mean that Joe Blow down the street should have the right to own a minigun and mount it on his car? I mean there should be some restrictions on the 2nd Ammendment am I not right?
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Since handguns and rifles are exactly the weapons you would use to defend against an invading army, the Second Amendment very clearly protects the right to ownership of these weapons.
If the text of the Second Amendment said "venison being damn tasty, the rights of the people to keep and bear hunting arms shall not be infringed" you'd have the latitude to ban handguns and rifles. But it doesn't say that, so you don't. Handguns are protected by the Second Amendment.
The Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Ammendment say nothing about a militia "defending against an army using handguns and assault rifles". These are all spins you are placing on this 220 year old piece of legislation.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Genuinely curious and not trying to argue: isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution?
Affirmative. But the Supreme Court has only ruled as in the case of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER that the 2nd Ammendment supports the individuals right to firearm ownership not the interpretation of exactly what firearms in the 2nd ammendment covers. If there was a Supreme Court ruling that gave more granularity on what firearms the 2nd Ammendment covers I am more than willing to discuss it. Not that I think the Supreme Court is infallible of course (the Supreme Court also in the past upheld the practice of slavery amongst other legislation we would wish to forget).
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
All guns are dangerous. Singling out specific aesthetic properties of guns, like grip size, stock shape and mag placement, to indicate which ones are "assault weapons" or not shows that the people who drafted the law don't know what the hell they are talking about.
The rules about whether a semi-automatic rifle was considered an assault weapon did not in fact involve the size of the grip, the shape of the stock, or the placement of the magazine. The criteria were two or more of the following:
* a folding or telescoping stock * a pistol grip * a bayonet mount * a flash suppressor * a grenade launcher
The rules about whether a semi-automatic rifle was considered an assault weapon did not in fact involve the size of the grip, the shape of the stock, or the placement of the magazine. The criteria were two or more of the following:
* a folding or telescoping stock * a pistol grip * a bayonet mount * a flash suppressor * a grenade launcher
You almost were exactly wrong....
the size of the grip
* a pistol grip
Whether or not a grip is a pistol grip is determined by its size.
the shape of the stock
* a folding or telescoping stock
Whether or not a stock is folding or telescopic is determined by its shape.
the placement of the magazine.
This is where you weren't wrong, but only because it doesn't pertain to rifles... its for pistols. A pistol can be classified as an "assault weapon", according to the AWB, if it takes the mag somwhere other than the grip.
Because this criteria doesn't distinguish "assault" weapons, I concur that it was written by people who are stupid when it comes to guns.
™ Version 4.2
