Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[StMichael]

The law of the land:

 

"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"

 

The second amendment protects the people from the government. The government needs to learn the meaning of infringed.

 

Sadly, this is not the only amendment that they are messing with.

 

We have a right to protect ourselves. We, however, do not have a right to police protection. And the President, whoever they are, have no right to even think they can go around this. Want to ban guns, then amend the constitution. Otherwise you got nothing. 

 

And not one law circumventing this amendment would have prevented, Newtown, Oklahoma, or any other mass murder.

 

On another note, I scanned and saw some unenlightened comments about how lack of regulation led to the housing collapse. It was over regulation and dictates by the Federal government, starting with the CRA from Jimmy Carter, handed to Clinton that forced banks to give loans to people who did not qualify. Please people, do some research before you embarrass yourself in your real lives...

[Era Might]

The law of the land:

 

"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"

 

The second amendment protects the people from the government. The government needs to learn the meaning of infringed.

 

A state militia is a government militia. And the Second Amendment speaks of a "well regulated" militia, not an unregulated militia.

 

 

reg·u·late   [reg-yuh-leyt]  Show IPA

verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.

1.

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

2.

to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.

3.

to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

[Winchester]

The second speaks of weapons in the hands of the people, not the militia. The weapons are not militia property, but the property of the people. And there is zero power delegated to the Federal government to abridge the right. This leaves the states and localities free (from a constitutional perspective) to violate that right all they want.

[Era Might]

The second speaks of weapons in the hands of the people, not the militia. The weapons are not militia property, but the property of the people. And there is zero power delegated to the Federal government to abridge the right. This leaves the states and localities free (from a constitutional perspective) to violate that right all they want.

 

It's one sentence (i.e., the clauses are related). And it's speaking about the defense of a "free state," not self defense, nor defense against the government.

 

Of course, anything can be read into anything, but the literal text says very little, and frames its point in the context of a "well regulated militia" in a "state" (I know you hate that word).

Edited January 17, 2013 by Era Might

[StMichael]

No it does not. And Militia is not state sponsored nor federally sponsored.

 

Thankfully the founders left enough notes behind that specifically speak to this:

 

What is behind this amendment?

 

• enabling the people to organize a militia system.
• participating in law enforcement;
• deterring tyrannical government;
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts.
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

 

Alexander Hamiltion (1788):

 

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

 

If I need to am more than happy to provide a ton of information that the 2nd Amendment is a God given right whereby we are allowed to protect our lives, property, etc.

 

It is a different story if you disagree with the right, and therefore the only remedy for this is an amendment. Otherwise, any action taken against it by local, state or federal is a breech of the Constitution.

 

 

A state militia is a government militia. And the Second Amendment speaks of a "well regulated" militia, not an unregulated militia.

 

 

reg·u·late  [reg-yuh-leyt]  Show IPA

verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.

1.

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

2.

to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.

3.

to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

 

[Era Might]

No it does not. And Militia is not state sponsored nor federally sponsored.

 

Thankfully the founders left enough notes behind that specifically speak to this:

 

You're appealing to something outside the Constitution? Whose interpretation of the constitution, or extra-constitutional notes, matter? Yours? The government's?

[Fidei Defensor]

No, it does not.

 

Yes, it does:

 

CCC 2316: The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.

[4588686]

Yes, it does:

 

CCC 2316: The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.

 

Oh, hey.  What do you know.  

[Jesus_lol]

Sometimes It is nice not being catholic. If I had a conversation with both Bloomberg and the Pope and they both told me guns only belonged in the hands of police, i would be pretty comfortable telling them both to get stuffed.

 

But I think you are extrapolating too far what the catholic church has written. As far as regulating goes, all that means is they dont support a completely unregulated gun system, which is far from the 20,000 gun laws the USA has. If you have anything more specific than "some regulation may be required", feel free to post it.

[Fidei Defensor]

Sometimes It is nice not being catholic. If I had a conversation with both Bloomberg and the Pope and they both told me guns only belonged in the hands of police, i would be pretty comfortable telling them both to get stuffed.

 

But I think you are extrapolating too far what the catholic church has written. As far as regulating goes, all that means is they dont support a completely unregulated gun system, which is far from the 20,000 gun laws the USA has. If you have anything more specific than "some regulation may be required", feel free to post it.

 

It says authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. I'm not saying I agree with the endless laws in place. I will say, however, that authorities do have the duty to make sure that gun ownership doesn't infringe on the right to life. If that means going through a background check, so be it.  If that means keeping assault rifles out of the hands of the public, bring it on (like anyone besides the military needs those kinds of guns. Guns are for killing, plain and simple.)

[4588686]

Sometimes It is nice not being catholic. If I had a conversation with both Bloomberg and the Pope and they both told me guns only belonged in the hands of police, i would be pretty comfortable telling them both to get stuffed.

 

But I think you are extrapolating too far what the catholic church has written. As far as regulating goes, all that means is they dont support a completely unregulated gun system, which is far from the 20,000 gun laws the USA has. If you have anything more specific than "some regulation may be required", feel free to post it.

 

It is a stronger statement that 'some regulation may be required' it states positively that regulation is a right and duty of the state.  

 

 

If the state were disarmed to a great degree would you support a great degree of civilian disarmament?

[Jesus_lol]

It says authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. I'm not saying I agree with the endless laws in place. I will say, however, that authorities do have the duty to make sure that gun ownership doesn't infringe on the right to life. If that means going through a background check, so be it.  If that means keeping assault rifles out of the hands of the public, bring it on (like anyone besides the military needs those kinds of guns. Guns are for killing, plain and simple.)

 

And I think there is a duty for the government to regulate them, to a certain extent. I dont support disarming law abiding people, or telling them that only certain guns/accessories are ok.

 

Just FYI, Assault Rifles(meaning full auto rifles) have been heavily regulated since 1934, and new production of them was banned in 1986. Preban ones each come with nearly a  year of Government NFA paperwork, background checks, and then cost upwards of 20,000$ for something like a full auto m16. They are incredibly expensive, and barely anyone owns them at all.

 

the other ones you see in the news, are not assault rifles, they merely look like them. They dont function the same, and in fact are not significantly different from millions of hunting/target shooting guns in the USA for the last 110 years, they just have a more modern(sorta, the AR was designed in the 60s) appearance.

 

 

It is a stronger statement that 'some regulation may be required' it states positively that regulation is a right and duty of the state.  

 

 

If the state were disarmed to a great degree would you support a great degree of civilian disarmament?

 

 

And that doesnt mean the church would support the same laws as you, just that it is the responsibility of government to enact some laws on the topic. Such as not selling to criminals, etc. If the church has gotten more specific, i would be glad to read it.

 

No. If we had unarmed police(truly unarmed, even the UK police have access to true military spec guns), i would still want guns for self defense, hunting and recreation and the same ones would still be good at it. However, it would make me a little less angry at arbitrary restrictions if the police went along with them.

 

No cop would ever be happy walking a beat with a handgun that has half of its ammo capacity blocked off, because it is a needless handicap against criminals, especially so when the criminals are likely not following the law. No one who has ever needed a gun has ever needed *less* ammo.

 

But if cops need these more capable weapons to deal with and defend from criminals, I dont see why civilians dont. After all, criminals attack civilians WAY more than they ever attack police, and generally the police are responding to deal with criminals that are already posing threats to civilians.

[Groo the Wanderer]

AR-15s are NOT assault rifles, no matter what those twits Obama and Biden keep saying.

[4588686]

 

And that doesnt mean the church would support the same laws as you, just that it is the responsibility of government to enact some laws on the topic. Such as not selling to criminals, etc. If the church has gotten more specific, i would be glad to read it.

 

I never said it did.  I simply said that I recalled the Church said that authorities have a right and duty to regulate firearms.  

 

 

No. If we had unarmed police(truly unarmed, even the UK police have access to true military spec guns), i would still want guns for self defense, hunting and recreation and the same ones would still be good at it. However, it would make me a little less angry at arbitrary restrictions if the police went along with them.

 

No cop would ever be happy walking a beat with a handgun that has half of its ammo capacity blocked off, because it is a needless handicap against criminals, especially so when the criminals are likely not following the law. No one who has ever needed a gun has ever needed *less* ammo.

 

But if cops need these more capable weapons to deal with and defend from criminals, I dont see why civilians dont. After all, criminals attack civilians WAY more than they ever attack police, and generally the police are responding to deal with criminals that are already posing threats to civilians.

 

I think this gets to it.  This isn't really about state power.  If it were people would be getting on board with squashing the power and influence of the arms industry as they are the prime driver of the militarization of the police (SWAT teams began to proliferate because the industry had managed to get way too much money allocated to the pentagon and there was a glut of armaments which was solved by shifting those resources to police departments).  This is about the plain and simple fact that people like guns and knives because they are cool and you can do cool things with them.  Which is fine except a lot of people die every year because the US is so saturated with guns.  

Edited January 17, 2013 by Hasan

[Anomaly]

The reallity is, restricting certain types of guns have no real effect on people's ability to kill and maim.  This has already been proven in the US.

 

The reallity is, you aren't going to reduce the number of guns in the US because of the hundreds of millions already in existence and the fact we have a legally established fundamental right to them.

 

The uncomfortable reality is that more innocent people (children) are killed from devices such as cars.

 

If the intent is to protect children and save lives, there are more effective ways of accomplishing this without resulting to emotional, ineffective, unworkable actions that defy reason.