My little gun control rant.

[bomb dropper]

Well the last few days I've been trying to get all the paperwork around for my ccp. And it's got me thinking alot about this.

I've read and read the second amendment and no where does it say "a barrel less then 16" is in a different category" or "no colonialist should have a firearm that fires more then one round with each pull of the trigger" now I know that it was written a long time ago before autos where even thought of. But why is it that there are so many restrictions put on a very short to the point amendment. It's for a militia so therefor I want a semi auto rifle or pistol or short shotgun. But if certain people where to have it their way we wouldn't have any of those.

But when someone dresses up like a Marine and gets benefits and free gifts from it, even though he never served gets off with nothing more then a slap on the hand. Because he has the right of "freedom of speech"

I guess that I'm just getting fed up with all the bs that I have to go through to get a CCP or to own a suppresor. it's not much of a rant but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm getting at.

 

[Sediment]

If you noticed the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about Muskets or Assault Rifles either.

 

[Sediment]

But when someone dresses up like a Marine and gets benefits and free gifts from it, even though he never served gets off with nothing more then a slap on the hand. Because he has the right of "freedom of speech"

Wondering what you are talking about with this part though...

 

[hardworker]

Most of the laws on the books for most states are just regulations on weapons, not restrictions. The problem is arms have come a long way since the founding fathers. The extra hassle of getting a fully automatic gun doesn't bother me as much as the fact that they capped production of them for civilians in 1986, driving prices to astronomical levels. A line does need to be drawn somewhere. Where is what people have problems with.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

The 2a doesn't need to specify anything. It doesn't grant rights, it's just a restriction on the federal government. The 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA are blatantly unconstitutional, but since the group it affects is so small getting them overturned will be like ice skating uphill.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

NFA 1935 -- From another Fascist President, FDR

 

[bomb dropper]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24286790/detail.html about the fake Marine.

I know that there has to be laws to regulate the power of a full automatic weapon. Or a destructive device. But why can't someone who is 20 years old buy a pistol over the counter.

 

[CoRoMo]

If you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it will explain the need 'to prevent abuse of the government's powers'. This is a paramount reason to enumerate the rights of the people. Of course, in order for the people to fulfill this role at all, there must exist an adequation of arms in the people's right, as the government holds. Therefore, whatever arms the government bears, so shall the people. Otherwise, the people couldn't possibly prevent jack squat.

This has been infringed upon beyond all understanding.

 

[yeti]

I know that there has to be laws to regulate the power of a full automatic weapon.

Why?

 

[bomb dropper]

Thank you CoRoMo that is my new argument to the leftist I work with

 

[Sam1911]

I know that there has to be laws to regulate the power of a full automatic weapon. Or a destructive device.

Again, why?

 

[bomb dropper]

Why?

Bad wording it was supposed to be sarcastic.

 

[hardworker]

The American people are the best armed people in the developed world. Even if the government has machine guns, we still are able to own just about any other kind of gun. That's nothing to sneeze at. The world it not the same as it was back in the revolution. Back then, everyone was poor, including the government. The governments were much smaller everywhere and only lightly armed. Nowadays, the government is huge and has the people completely out gunned.

It's not all downhill for us gun owners though, look at how the AWB was let to die, and how the courts struck down the handgun bans in some of our bigger cities.

I won't pretend to know what will happen if they ever try to confiscate all guns, but I'd bet that it won't be pretty, even if they have us completely out gunned.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

even if they have us completely out gunned.

It's the other way around. The gov't is completely outgunned. It doesn't matter what type of new whiz-bang machine gun you have, when you are outnumbered 5,000+:1 you are in serious trouble, and it will soon be someone elses new whiz-bang machine gun. And I don't think any politician would even think about using something other than conventional weapons. If they wouldn't use N/B/C weapons in the middle east they aren't going to do it on our own soil. Carpet bombing suburbs wouldn't bode well for reelection hopes.

 

[Patriotme]

But don't we have a "Living, breathing Constitution?"
Obama was a law scholar. He must be right.

 

[VinnAY]

I've read and read the second amendment and no where does it say "a barrel less then 16" is in a different category" or "no colonialist should have a firearm that fires more then one round with each pull of the trigger" now I know that it was written a long time ago before autos where even thought of. But why is it that there are so many restrictions put on a very short to the point amendment. It's for a militia so therefor I want a semi auto rifle or pistol or short shotgun. But if certain people where to have it their way we wouldn't have any of those.

2A also makes no mention of firearms. It reads "arms". Is that a sword? Knife? Ice pick? Single shot musket? Assuming by omission that you can have things because it doesn't say you can't, is flawed. It's meaning has to be interpreted and justly applied. Two lines can't possibly address all situation or manner of questions that come up two hundred thirty something years later.

 

[CoRoMo]

Carpet bombing suburbs wouldn't bode well for reelection hopes.

Elections will be a thing of the distant past, when such measures begin.

 

[Carter]

Personally, I think gun control laws (especially bans) are horrible economically. Think about how much money gets spent on guns every year. Now think about how much more would be spent if certain laws were abolished, and how much would not be spent if more laws were in place.

Gun control hurts the economy IMHO.

But thats just a side note to the fact that it violates the constitution...

 

[nelsonal]

I had an interesting thing pointed out to me a while ago, when the second amendment was written it was not uncommon for a group of investors to buy and outfit the most modern warships. Can you imagine a group of private investors buying a missle cruiser for patrolling the Somali coast today?

 

[Iam2taz]

But don't we have a "Living, breathing Constitution?"
Obama was a law scholar. He must be right.

Yeah... It is just about on life support!

 

[mcdonl]

Obama was a law scholar. He must be right.

Nobel winner none-the-less....

 

[FROGO207]

Less is more. I think that the gun owners do qualify as a minority and as such are entitled to all the benefits that all other minorities are allowed in the USA. I am thinking of subsidized firearms purchases and allowances for newer full auto for starters. We need to work harder to overturn the firearms legislation that restricts us so IMHO.

 

[Old krow]

I know that there has to be laws to regulate the power of a full automatic weapon. Or a destructive device.

I'm assuming that you meant the sale or ownership? They really don't regulate the power of them.

Again, why?

I'll play the devil advocate here. I'm not advocating this either way, just stating a case;

IF a convicted felon, of a violent crime (not felony jay walking) who has been to trial, been convicted of rape, murder, <insert violent crime here> gets out on good behavior, he should be able to own a fully automatic weapon?

Prohibiting that would in and of itself be a restriction imposed upon the Second Amendment.

If we made the case that we should be able to "bear" any arms that the government bears, should we all be allowed Stinger missiles? NBC?

Now on the NOT Devil's side,

We need to work harder to overturn the firearms legislation that restricts us so IMHO.

The reason that it hasn't been overturned was previously stated; they're a small minority. If we want to keep guns as a part of our heritage, we should make it to where we're not the minority anymore.

 

[Neverwinter]

But don't we have a "Living, breathing Constitution?"
Obama was a law scholar. He must be right.

Courtesy of the Texas Board of Education:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs.

 

[Charleo0192]

The 2a doesn't need to specify anything. It doesn't grant rights, it's just a restriction on the federal government. The 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA are blatantly unconstitutional, but since the group it affects is so small getting them overturned will be like ice skating uphill.

Its part of the bill of rights which was made to protect the rights of citizens. It is saying we are allowed to bear arms, period. It is protecting the right, but is also the thing giving us the right.