| There are 28 comments on this blog. |
|
|
Yes it is infringement.
|
|
|
If we need to protect ourselves from the government we will need at least semi automatic weapons that look scary.
|
|
|
Lol at "if"
|
|
|
"If" small word, big meaning.
|
|
|
What about question #2? Why is it ok to ban x-ray undetectable guns but it’s not ok to ban assault rifles?
Afterall guns in and of themselves are not good or evil, but rather fault the owner who does bad things w it. That’s the argument that gun advocates make for assault rifles so it should hold true for x-ray undetectable guns too.
Btw, the conceal carry permit issue will be reviewed by US Supreme Court later this year.
|
|
|
For the record...
Most Californians that desire a CCW don’t agree with “the good cause” rule. It has been challenged in court several times, but ending up in the 9th Circuit it has been upheld. There was some traction recently with a case making it past the first round of judges all the way up to the entire panel of judges. Then they overturned the lower courts decisions.
As a matter of fact, most states are either a “shall issue” state or don’t restrict CCW by requiring a permit. To Fubar’s point can you imagine if the same restrictions were placed on any of your other constitutional rights.
What if before you could vote in a local election, you had to show good moral character? Can you imagine the uproar if journalists had to get a permit to publish news stories, and before they got the permit they had to prove to the state that there was “good cause” to publish it?
To be clear, the 2nd amendment is not about protecting your right to go hunting or target shooting. It is about allowing the individual the right to have weapons to defend themselves and their rights. To the OP’s point. Most gun owners (not all) are open to talk about gun issues and are pretty reasonable, they just want to make sure their rights are protected and aren’t taken without due process. The problem lies with non-gun owners who are usually ignorant about guns, and speaking from emotions rather than logic.
|
|
|
As for the X-Ray/gun question....
This is a very specific situation where THE GOVERNMENT decided that there was only one purpose for building a gun specifically for evading X-Ray machines and it banned them. To my knowledge, that ban has never been challenged in court.
|
|
|
BTW - it’s never been challenged because practically speaking an “Undetectable Gun” doesn’t exist. Even if the entire body were made of some material that wasn’t detectable by an X-ray or magnetometer, the ammo would be. Now I know that to some people the gun in and of itself is a scary thing, without the ammo, it’s just a fancy rock.
|
|
|
It's funny how opposing arguments from the right and left pop up every time this shit happens.
1) There are thousands of laws on the books that ban guns in one form or another. Adding another law (banning assault weapons) won't accomplish anything. Remember Bump-Stocks? They were perfectly legal until the Nevada shooting. As of 2019, they are illegal. Did that prevent any mass shootings?
2) Mass shooting still only account for a small percentage of all deaths by guns in this country. The 99% of gun victims wouldn't be saved by any new law being proposed.
3) The NRA, and this President, aren't helping the situation by blaming the mentally ill, video games, Mexicans, Lolipops, or whatever.
4) The problem isn't guns. We need to get back to being a more civil society. We bitch and moan over the silliest shit and get violent over the smallest provocation.
Oh, and I'm a liberal!!
|
|
|
I meant like plastic guns w plastic bullets. Maybe law originated when our airports only had metal detectors or low quality x-ray machines. I’m pretty sure I read that these types of guns aren’t allowed. (That also goes to the notion of 3-D printable guns.)
I’m pretty sure SCOTUS will strike down the conceal carry permit idea or severely limit it because kavanaugh will be the 5-4 vote needed.
It’ll be interesting to see how our country reacts when China 🇨🇳 finally flexes it’s authoritarian muscle to quell the protests in Hong Kong...might be another Tiennamen Square where protesters are fighting tanks w rocks.  pretty scary thinking about them. Hope China doesn’t go gestapo on their own people again.
|
|
|
“The problem lies with non-gun owners who are usually ignorant about guns, and speaking from emotions rather than logic.” Doubledmike
+1
|
|
|
As far as banning x-ray proof guns, I think it's a moot point. Criminals will just make them anyway, so we are no more protected with that law. Now if you had a death penalty attached to bringing one through airport security I could get behind that!
|
|
|
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.
I'm not going to get in the middle of this policy debate other than to remind y'all that there's no possible way to interpret the constitution as granting an unconditional right, unless you are "not so good at reading"
One could easily interpret this to mean that everone who owns a gun would need to be a part of the well regulated militia. In other words, the state, not the federales, would be perfectly within it's rights to demand that you and your guns turn out for a certain amount of Militia practice now and again.
Forward March.
|
|
|
The Second Amendment bestows two rights upon Americans:
1.) It bestows upon the state the right to form a "well regulated" militia. (In those days "well regulated" meant "well armed."
2.) It bestows upon "the people" the right to keep and bear arms.
Read it for yourself:
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.”
|
|
|
Trump says America has Metal health issue first time agree with him This blogs shows that
|
|
|
*Mental heath
|
|
|
A well regulated militia was in those days the army.
Because an army was needed to keep the United States safe, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In other words, we just fought off what we deemed to be an oppressive government. In case our government does the same thing to our people, they need to be able to have guns to fight off the government.
Just imagine if Trump really was an islamophobic, racist, fascist, dictator. How would you stop all the legal immigrant and citizen people of color being deported or worse if we didn't have guns?
|
|
|
Only Juan way to finds out ^^
|
|
|
LXIX
I read it when I posted it.
Your interpretation only works if you change the commas to periods and sever the connections within that sentence.
You aren't the first person to do that, but that doesn't mean you're correct.
|
|
|
A few comments:
1) 10 U.S.C. 246 defines, and thus regulates, the militia. All arguments against gun ownership based on other constructions of "militia" fail. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
2) There are on the order of 100 million gun owners in the U.S. (rough estimate). There are on the order of 10,000 unlawful homicides involving guns yearly (again, rough estimate, and including things like suicides). That means that 0.02% of gun owners AT MOST may have been involved in gun crime. Enemies of the Second Amendment would have us believe that 99.98% of law-abiding American gun owners are somehow obliged to surrender their Second Amendment rights due to the criminal behavior of the other 0.02%. If you don't see a problem with that, you are either obtuse or you have an agenda other than preventing mass shootings.
3) In the Old West, most people were armed, and many openly carried. Few if any of them, even the most hardened desperadoes, shot up churches, schools, or other public places. Possibly that was because other armed citizens would have taken quick action against them. Maybe also, even those hardened desperadoes still had some residual internal moral values that prevented them from committing such acts. Perhaps one solution to the problem is re-instilling internal moral values that would tell people, "Mass shootings are wrong. Don't do it."
4) Semi-automatic rifles are NOT "assault weapons".
|
|
|
Oh, and one more thing: the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment defines a personal right, not a collective right. "Militia"-based arguments thus fail even harder.
|
|
|
Yes. It has been defined by the Supreme Court as an individual right like most if not all of the Bill of Rights are. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that these rights are not absolute. Even the Court we have now is unlikely to rule that everyone has a right to an assault weapon. It is my understanding that even the NRA has promoted gun ownership as being for hunting and home and other protection. The idea we have a right to have assault weapons for political protection has some similarities to these mass shootings which often have a political motive, ie. Stemming the migration of non whites and Muslims into our society.
|
|
|
Well said IMNventr!
|
|
|
To keep and 'bare' arms. Heheh.
|
|
|
iRent the red flag laws in question are already in use in Washington state and Cali and a few others. They are designed in theory not to prevent someone from buyi g weapons, but to grab guns from someone that a friend, neighbor, co-worker, relative etc think is a concern. Also they are anonymous and abused already in those states. They take the weapons away without any proof or probable cause, so 4th amendment out the window and then the person who lost the weapons have to prove their innocence in court before they can get their property and rights back. Those laws are blatantly unconstitutional.
|
|
|
AsSaUlT wEaPoN rEeEeEeE
Yeah you're an idiot that doesn't know shit about fire arms. And fuck SCOTUS ANY gun law is an infringement. Yes I should have access to ANY arms to defend myself as I see fit including military grade. That's how our Independence was won to begin with and that's how the founders framed the 2nd.
|
|
|
2nd 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.
|
|
|
Because the second ammendment hasn't already been posted here multiple times, I'll just go ahead and post it myself:
"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."
|
| There are 28 comments on this blog. |
