[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

a reply to: fencesitter85

The 2nd amendment still holds. There are registries, licenses and requirements. As long as criminals have and can get them... We legal licensed background checked owners will daily carry everywhere. Everyday.

Concealed, open carried, for personal safety, sport and collection. Legally purchased and registered and licensed

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Heller decision in the Supreme Court made it very clear that even in the case of the Federal level (the right to bear arms) there are reasonable limitations as there is with every right. Our rights usually end at damage done to another citizen.

It's only ludicrous because you know there no rebuttal to it.

The second was clear.

The fifth was clear.

The ninth was clear.

The fourthteen was clear.

Some people don't want to treat the first like the second.

'Ludicrous' they say.

The Bill of Rights says things quite a bit different.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you are saying that the citizen in a certain state that limits the sale of certain weapons cannot just go to the next state and buy certain weapons?

Did I say that?

a reply to: fencesitter85

With regards to the phrase "well-regulated" in this context, I refer you to a post I made in another thread a while ago that explains it in detail.
Soldier charged after toting rifle through N.C. mall

(snip)
The definition of regulated, in that 18th century context literally means "trained". The words in that context can be freely interchanged. Our modern definition of "regulated" of regulations does not mean the same thing as the intended meaning by the founding fathers.

Let us clear that up right now.

In addition, the Constitution does not "grant rights" but protect rights that everyone is inherently born with in the United States.
A General Dictionary of the English Language (1780)

Here are a few screenshot snippets taken from the 1780 dictionary (see above link), showing clearly that the phrase "well regulated" means "orderly", which is further defined by trained.



So, as you can see, using 18th Century vernacular, it refers to the citizens being well-trained and organized. It does not mean making it increasingly difficult to exercise that right. In addition, it finishes off with, "..shall not be infringed.". That is added to clarify that it should NOT be prevented or impeded in any way. Draconian laws and placing a high price (i.e. $$$) on exercising a right is unconstitutional.

When was the last time an American needed a license to worship their deity of choice in the United States?

Same thing.


Oh, and as for the state of weapons at the time, this post sorts it out for you, in context, and in great detail.
Hypocrisy: List of 26 gun-owning Democrats who participated in anti-gun sit-in

(snip)


And??? It's a cute cartoon although a bit misleading. They are the same thing.
The man on the left is armed with the state of the art military firearm of the day, a Brown Bess 75cal flintlock musket, over his shoulder hangs a cartridge box that has 24 cartridges containing black powder and a lead ball. This is the same (or very similar) armaments as the British soldiers he will and does face on the field of battle. What is not pictured on the left is the storehouses that contain barrels of black powder, lead ball, and cannons.

On the right the man is armed with the state of the art "civilian" firearm of the day, a semi-automatic .223cal rifle, over his shoulder is a belt containing cartridges containing gunpowder, lead bullet, and a primer. This is NOT the same, or even similar armaments as the opposing force he will face on the field of battle.

So, actually, the modern man on the right is actually less armed than the man on the left since he is armed with weapons that are not an equivalent to the enemy. This is unlike the man on the left who does bear equivalent firepower to his enemy, and has more stored that is not depicted in the cartoon.

ETA: I forgot to mention the man on the left has a bayonet over his other shoulder, and a bayonet lug on the barrel of the musket. As of the 1993 AWB, it is illegal to have a bayonet lug on a rifle. It was one of the criteria making it an "assault weapon" at the time. THat was a compromise that was made at the time.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
As far as "guns going away" of all the tinfoil fringe ideas this is the most ridiculous.

Brought to you regularly by the NRA and the Gun Lobby.

There are 240 million guns in the hands of Americans, and around 10 million more a year go into those hands.

It's quite simply fear-mongering to promote the fear that "the government is going to take away my guns."

Clearly didn't pay to the 2016 DNC convention where they called for outright bans for days straight.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You certainly seem to imply that. You brought the 10th Amendment into it.

a reply to: neo96

There's no rebuttal necessary; speech acts are not the same as owning whatever firearm you want.

It's ludicrous.

No, the Bill of Rights is very clear again, see the Tenth.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

You certainly seem to imply that. You brought the 10th Amendment into it.

Because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States those powers that are theirs that are not subject to the powers assigned to the National/Federal government ... and some States choose to limit the guns that are for sale and the nature of those sales in their territory.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you for agreeing that the right to bear arms is/should be a non-issue. Because a citizens right to bear arms does not harm or effect any other citizen rights.

But... why can't I buy certain firearms??? Would not the restriction on what firearms I buy be considered an "infringement" on my right??? You OK with my right being infringed upon???

a reply to: neo96

Now you're muddying the water.

I don't care what the DNC said; a) they lost b) that doesn't change the Constitution.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yo G.

The first amendment. Constitutional RIGHT.

The SECOND amendment Constitutional RIGHT.

People that IGNORE this word: INFRINGE.

The definition:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Is what's ludicrous.

: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringe a patent

originally posted by: fencesitter85 As I say, I'm not anti-gun. I'm just trying to understand the aggressive opposition to better background checks for military grade weaponry, that's all.

Again with the liberal buzz words. "Military grade weaponry"?

The AR15, incidentally, is probably one of the best civilian utility rifles around. All the same qualities that make it great for the military, make it great for the guy on his ATV checking his cattle fences and driving off coyotes. It's also a great competition rifle. Even in the UK we use them for CSR competitions.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But you are ok with a citizens in certain states buying certain firearms in the next states? If so then bringing up the 10th Amendment is pointless and adds nothing of value to this discussion.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you for agreeing that the right to bear arms is/should be a non-issue. Because a citizens right to bear arms does not harm or effect any other citizen rights.

But... why can't I buy certain firearms??? Would not the restriction on what firearms I buy be considered an "infringement" on my right??? You OK with my right being infringed upon???

You can't buy certain firearms within your State's jurisdiction because your State government has decided that those weapons or those sales need regulation.

You don't have a right to buy any weapon you want at any time. You have the right to own weapons.

originally posted by: fencesitter85
- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today.

At the time, "the press" consisted of hand-placed lead type on a wood frame press. A lot has changed. Certainly one can't extrapolate 'freedom of the press' to now cover electronica, can one?

Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun? Surely the words "Well regulated" support the notion of gun control laws?

"Well regulated" was a descriptive phrase used at the time to mean "trained", "expert", or "properly adjusted", not "blanketed down by regulations". The root concept is that of a clock which has been adjusted by an expert to be accurate, such a clock has been "regulated". In that light, "a well regulated Militia" means one that is experienced with the use of firearms.

And there's no such thing as an "assault rifle". It's rather difficult to own a fully automatic weapon here (a 'machine gun'), they are outrageously expensive, require special storage, a federal license with background checks, and have to have been manufactured prior to 1986 - new ones are right out.

- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing? ...wouldn't you feel safer knowing that not just anyone can rock up and buy a gun?

This sounds good, and with very strict safeguards I'd be for it to an extent. But what you have to watch for is that you'll find EVERYONE is suddenly disqualified one way or another, unless you're part of the 'in group' at the time. This sort of thing is why states pass 'must approve' types of carry permit laws - if you allow the local sheriff to decide based on his convictions, you immediately find only LEOs and politicians may have them.

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category?

Of what use is it? Other than, of course, to facilitate their confiscation by the government? Will it prevent crime?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

But you are ok with a citizens in certain states buying certain firearms in the next states? If so then bringing up the 10th Amendment is pointless and adds nothing of value to this discussion.

I'm okay with everyone owning whatever weapons they want. In fact, I personally believe we should all be required to carry a sidearm after our 18th birthday. We're not talking about what I believe.

No, bringing up the 10th Amendment is not pointless in regard to the fact that the several States have the right to establish their own laws regarding their own sovereignty.

You do understand that we are all dual-citizens, right?

a reply to: Bedlam

I find it interesting that people have been ignoring the video I linked on the first page regarding of what type of weapons the Founding Fathers intended.

a reply to: neo96

Nothing I have said suggests that any RIGHT provided for in the Constitution should be infringed.

Are there any US States that have outlawed gun ownership?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then you are OK with my right being infringed upon (at least that is the implied message your post conveys) and it's not only State laws that prevent me from owning certain firearms.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

Oops missed this gem:

You don't have a right to buy any weapon you want at any time. You have the right to own weapons.

How can I own something if I can't buy it???

a reply to: Gryphon66

So basically you are saying that if 50 states do not allow any kind of weapons to be brought in and sold then the citizens are just s*** out of luck?