The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[Kwanger]

So what you are saying is that the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about in Heller?

Because they said flat out that the first half puts no burden or duty or requirement on those protected by the right, that it's merely a reasoning for the right to exist in the first place.

Seriously, you can't possibly still try to make the argument post Heller that some "competency" as you put it is a requirement for the right to exist.

That argument is settled.

Reasonable restrictions is what Scalia said, and he listed them. You really should read the Heller ruling.

Fair enough, and I'm not arguing against it, merely pointing out that some people get carried away with the latter part of the amendment, sometimes to an extreme.

If we are going to be completely pro 2A, we need to always consider the entirety of it, Heller ruling or not. Selective picking of it in an extreme pro sense is just as bad as being selective for the other side of the fence.

 

[t165]

This seems like a good place to raise this question again. I have never gotten a good answer in the past when I raised it. I'll try and word it a little different this time.

I read on gun forums all the time individuals stating to leave the 2nd Amendment alone. Some individuals (like Ted Nugent) believe it gives them unrestricted firearm posession rights. However, after the founding fathers signed the 2nd Amendment they traveled back to their respected states which had many gun restriction laws restricting vast segments of the population. There was gun ownership/posession laws in place before and after the 2nd Amendment. It seems to me the founding fathers did not want the firearms laws/restrictions resting with the federal government. However, they had no problem with restricting gun ownership/possession at the state level.

There has always been gun control law in our country. When Colombus first arrived do you really think all the sailors with him were permitted to own/carry firearms at will? While I have not done an exhaustive study on firearm laws prior to and after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment it is clear that restricting gun laws were in place both before and after. Remember the wild, wild, west...some of our most famous lawmen routinely took firearms from individuals. Thats right...many gripe about Chicago and their gun laws (which I do not agree with) but what about Tombstone, Arizona and Wyatt Earp. Didn't he enforce no gun carry laws through Arizona state laws regardless of what the 2nd Amendment states? I guess we should add Mr. Earp and several other oldtime lawmen to the "Brady Bunch".

Oh...my question. If the 2nd Amendment grants unrestricted firearm ownership/posession then why has gun restriction/ownership laws always been in existence both before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted?

I own firearms. I shoot and hunt. But I do not want meth-head joe-blow six blocks over having a firearm. I do not want mentally ill anarchist-Andy running around his yard with an AR, hiding in the bushes, and yelling about the voices in his head telling him to shoot somebody, to have access to firearms. Personally I find restricting firearms to these types "reasonable" and I have personally taken their firearms away from them. Now, the meth-head Joe and looney-tune anarchist Andy types will disagree but too bad...the vast majority of Americans agree with me and that...as they say...is the way it is!

 

[TexasRifleman]

Oh...my question. If the 2nd Amendment grants unrestricted firearm ownership/posession then why has gun restriction/ownership laws always been in existence both before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted?

If you will look closely you will see that it was almost 100% race/class based.

The belief at the time was that the Bill of Rights was for "free men" and not everyone fell into that category. Race or income level could exclude one from "free men". Thankfully we have risen above those beliefs for the most part and now realize that just by virtue of being born human one is a "free man".

There were very few if any restrictions on what "free men" did with firearms.

As for what Columbus did that's just a silly comparison. The government of Spain ruled Columbus' decisions first of all, and second of all Columbus would have been on a "military mission" in modern equivalent, being on a mission for the Government of Spain.

In modern times US citizens in the military subject themselves, voluntarily for the moment, to a different set of rules and restrictions called the Uniform Code of Military Justice and they do in fact give up temporarily some of the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Those sound like reasonable answers?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

As Promised - Scalia's Clever Cover On "Reasonable Restrictions"...

In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

(Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.

Woody

 

[TexasRifleman]

Fantastic post!!!

 

[AKElroy]

Since reading numerous posts by both ContitutionCowboy and TexasRifleman, I will refrain from adding anything other than this; I would like to fully associate myself with their comments. I bow to your collective superior wordsmithyness. Well done--

 

[christcorp]

There is a penalty for libel or slander. There is a penalty for murder or man slaughter. You can do either and face the consequences. The restrictions on the 2nd are as unacceptal as they are for the 1st. Your rights end where mine begine.

So, based on this logic; if a person commits a crime and shoots someone; after they serve their time and are released from prison; they should not be restricted and should be allowed to possess guns again? And after the child molester is convicted and serves their time in prison and is released; there should be no problem with them working at the pre-school? Yes, my rights end where yours starts; but yours ALSO ends where mine starts.

Look, a number of you keep forgetting something very, very important: gun registration, licensed gun dealers, background checks, all of that didn't exist before 1968. I grew up in that environment. Crime of all kinds was lower then.

This argument doesn't hold any water. You're trying to argue that less gun laws reduce crime; and therefor the reason we have more crime today, is because we have more gun laws. Guns are a tool. A tool used to "Defend ourselves" against crime. The guns themselves don't commit crimes; nor do they stop crimes. Remember: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Crime in the 60's compared to today has to do with numerous social variables and not guns. I wouldn't be surprised if per capita, there were MORE guns in our country today than in the 60's. And based on your theory; we should have less crime. I personally don't believe that our crime rate is any higher or lower because of requiring a permit for a CCW; or doing a 45 second background check.

 

[rbernie]

So, based on this logic; if a person commits a crime and shoots someone; after they serve their time and are released from prison; they should not be restricted and should be allowed to possess guns again? And after the child molester is convicted and serves their time in prison and is released; there should be no problem with them working at the pre-school?

If they cannot be trusted to mingle unfettered in free society, then they dang well should not have been let out.

 

[t165]

Okay TexasRifleman...I got you to admit the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been amended over it's short life. You admitted it was flawed at inception. While you offered admissions the flaws were based upon race/class you still avoided the fact millions of white citizens were denied posession/carry rights based solely on geographics absent of social standing. A fact that was realized before the 2nd Amendment was written and adopted, and which will continue well past our lifetimes. Regardless of where the citizens of the original colonies migrated from they brought their culture/firearm restrictions with them. NEVER...NEVER in the history of this country have there not been restricting firearm laws. Before arguments can be taken seriously in support of the 2nd Amendment history has to be addressed. All too many citizens think there was a time when there were no laws which fettered firearm ownership, possession, or rights to carry them. That is a false assumption. I cringe everytime someone rants gun control is some new fad created just to upset them and take their rights away. The roots of gun control run deep, and yes, the writers of the 2nd Amendment also wrote, passed, and practiced gun control legislation at the state level.

And the UCMJ was not mentioned by me...you did use it to try and avoid the question I asked as to prevailing firearm restrictions prior to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment. I'll let you off the hook on that one. However, after the 2nd Amendment was firmly in place, when cities and towns were cropping up all over the United States of America over the last couple of centuries why did citizens have to relinquish their right to carry/own firearms? If the 2nd Amendment has always given American citizens the "right" of ownership/possession/carry concerning firearms then why all throughout the history of our nation have we had gun control? Nobody will give me a straight answer because nobody has a straight answer! Show me one period in America's history when there was not gun control before or after the 2nd Amendment was created.

You can't! Because there has always been and always will be gun control. I do not want to live in California. Illinois or similar jurisdictions. I do not agree with their draconian firearm restriction laws which punish the law abiding citizen due to the actions of common criminals. But arguing the 2nd Amendment gives absolute firearm rights to all citizens is simply foolish. Again, show me at anytime in America's history the 2nd Amendment actually accomplished that.

 

[TexasRifleman]

No, the Second Amendment itself was never flawed, it was a flawed belief of the times that "free men" was a limited class.

That is now rectified. The Second Amendment itself has never changed and was never mistaken. The entire Constitution is written around the assumption that "free men" are protected. It's not just a 2A thing.

Show me one period in America's history when there was not gun control before or after the 2nd Amendment was created.

And as I said early in the thread, gun control is simply an admission that other social programs have failed.

You're proud of that?

And the UCMJ was not mentioned by me...you did use it to try and avoid the question I asked as to prevailing firearm restrictions prior to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment. I'll let you off the hook on that one.

No, you suggested that Christopher Columbus' crew was not given Second Amendment rights. I state that being in the military in the US removes one from Second Amendment protections as well, but that is a voluntary submission to the UCMJ upon enlistment, nothing forced. Also that Columbus crew preexisted the Constitution.

But arguing the 2nd Amendment gives absolute firearm rights to all citizens is simply foolish. Again, show me at anytime in America's history the 2nd Amendment actually accomplished that.

The Second Amendment does not say "citizens". Not sure where you read that.

The Bill of Rights has always been applied to "free men" and thankfully that definition has been changed over the years to no longer exclude minorities or income brackets but it never said "citizens".

You need to read some more.

And, in the end, your post is the what I talk about all the time. You will claim to be pro gun, pro 2A, yet you gleefully post when you think you have me on some technicality about how the Second Amendment is broken or flawed.

Wow

 

[Ruggles]

"Quote:
I am not saying that guns are not easily obtainable outside of NCIs but no doubt it has stopped a number of folks who have no business with firearms in society from obtaining them.
How many people? Give us their names.

The fact that you have no doubt doesn't mean it's true."


And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

I think that you know that is not true. As I said how could I give names of folks who never tried to pass NICs because they knew they could not? Thus if they did not try to pass the NICs and obtain a firearm legally because they knew they could not the law was successful was it not? No way to prove or disprove it's success based on that alone.

Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

 

[TexasRifleman]

And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

I think that you know that is not true.

So the thing you are missing is that the Second Amendment names a specifically protected right.
If you want to insist on restrictions you need to be able to PROVE that the restrictions help society.

You can't go on "I think the restrictions probably help". You need to be able to show that the good to society far outweighs the bad.

Can you show the data for NICS to back that up?

Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

And you admit that it's good for society cannot be proven, yet you are happy that it's there.

Again, I don't know what to say other than ...... Wow.

At the end of the day it is absolutely proven that the crime rate did not change when the NICS check was implemented by Brady.

The crime rate now is about the same as it was before Brady.

If it helps so much how do you explain that? You can't.

 

[Ruggles]

"And, in the end, your post is the what I talk about all the time. You will claim to be pro gun, pro 2A, yet you gleefully post when you think you have me on some technicality about how the Second Amendment is broken or flawed."

And you try to present yourself as some type of expert on the 2nd A that should not or can not be questioned when you give your view on it. His point was valid, seconds after the ink was dry on the 2nd A there were many excluded by it living in America. There have also been many in the years since. Your attempt to try and divert the blame for this away from the 2nd A onto the very men who wrote the 2nd A is silly. The 2nd A is nothing more than these men's views and beliefs on the subject and had they wanted or intended it to include everyone they could have easily worded it to do so.

Is the 2nd A flawed? I would say that if it did not have it's flaws it would not be the subject of so much debate, it would be clear beyond any legal reproach. That does not make it a failure, just flawed like everything created by man is. Minds much greater versed on legal and historical matters than any on this forum have debated this subject for decades, and have yet to reach a conclusion.

Your attempt at elitism is boring at best. Because someone does not fully agree with you on the exact meaning of the 2nd A does not make them anti 2nd A or anti gun. Your view and attempt to label someone is pretty shallow on that matter IMO.

WOW back at ya.

 

[t165]

You're avoiding the question TexasRifleman! You are waffling...semantics. Offering only your interperation of the 2nd Amendment. Show me one period in American history, actual reality, when gun control was not practiced in America. Not some make believe land far, far, away! You can't...because it never happened. It never will happen in America. The 2nd Amendment never granted absolute firearm rights in the history of America. And you can never prove it did.

Of course the 2nd Amendment was flawed. If it meant one thing then and now means another then it was flawed! Period! The 2nd Amendment was written by men. Law means more than just mere words. The nexus of the words and intentions absolutely necessitates the 2nd Amendment was flawed at inception.

And social programs. Are you a liberal? Maybe we should just throw money at programs to teach criminals to be good people and give them all firearms so we don't violate their rights. Good Grief! I'm glad you are in the small minority with the social programs you seem to champion. Criminal use firearms to break laws and injure/kill their fellow man. Are you so narcissistic to believe a criminal is actually going to listen to you and start behaving? Not!

The laws of America were gleaned from the laws which the original settlers brought with them. There were gun control laws both prior to and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. I challenge you to prove otherwise. And the founding fathers were adopting and practicing these gun control laws. I challenge you to prove otherwise...even though I know you can't.

I'm not going to tell you to read some more. I will try to encourage you to open your closed mind and understand. Try and understand your interperation of the 2nd amendment is not based on reality. It has never been and will never be what you wish it to be. I have challenged you to prove a single point in time in America's history either prior to or after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment gun control was not practiced in America. I will challenge you again to prove it...even though I know you can't!

My observations are based upon fact, reality. If you can prove me wrong then I'll concede. Your argumenst are not based upon fact. They are based on personal interperation and what you want to believe. Except for individuals who have proven themselves untrustworthy by violent criminal actions or mental unstability I think all mature individuals should be able to own and carry firearms. These are my personal feeling and I respect others who's opinions differ even though I may disagree.

But I will not jump on the false bandwagon which trys to make the case the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution grants unfettered gun rights when history proves it never has. Particularly when the very authors of the 2nd Amendment were passing and practicing gun control laws at the same time they were adopting the 2nd Amendment. The facts are the facts. Everything else is BS!

 

[Ruggles]

"Quote:
And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

I think that you know that is not true.
So the thing you are missing is that the Second Amendment names a specifically protected right.
If you want to insist on restrictions you need to be able to PROVE that the restrictions help society.

You can't go on "I think the restrictions probably help". You need to be able to show that the good to society far outweighs the bad.

Can you show the data for NICS to back that up?

Quote:
Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.
And you admit that it's good for society cannot be proven, yet you are happy that it's there.

Again, I don't know what to say other than ...... Wow.

At the end of the day it is absolutely proven that the crime rate did not change when the NICS check was implemented by Brady.

The crime rate now is about the same as it was before Brady.

If it helps so much how do you explain that? You can't."


Why is it always people from Dallas / Ft. Worth that always think they are the elite of Texas? Newsflash your metroplex stinks to high Heaven and your traffic sucks almost as bad as your football team!

As to the rest of your points......

I really can not (nor do I care to for that matter) break it down any more for you than what I have already said. You attempt to cherish facts above emotions, I would suggest to you that you are posting on a wee bit more emotion than you would like to admit.

I can tell you one fact, no one is going to change their minds on this matter based on this or any other thread.

 

[Old Fuff]

Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

It is also true that it cannot be proven, statistically or otherwise, how many NICS rejects don't later obtain firearms through sources other then an FFL dealer.

There is also no correlation between the number of NICS rejections and levels – up or down – of crimes committed with firearms.

The reasons are fairly obvious. Criminals and other prohibited persons do not have to obtain firearms from licensed dealers, and when they do a straw buyer is usually used. If the straw buyer themselves are not prohibited from buying or owning firearms it is highly unlikely that a background check will be effective in stopping the transaction. Some prohibited persons are cleaver enough to use forged identification, and again the background check is unlikely to block the sale.

Statutes that cannot be effectively enforced against those that they are supposed to control are useless for they’re intended purpose. That they control the behavior of others makes no meaningful difference except to waste money and resources.

 

[Ruggles]

"The facts are the facts. Everything else is BS!"

Only when they are his facts from what I can read into his post, anybody else's facts do not seem to carry any weight he can not explain away in his mind. I would love to help you keep tearing this egotistical fella down a bit but I have to work in the morning. Keep it up he seems to be on the ropes now.

 

[Ruggles]

"It is also true that it cannot be proven, statistically or otherwise, how many NICS rejects don't later obtain firearms through sources other then an FFL dealer."

I agree, if fact that is what I said.

"Statutes that cannot be effectively enforced against those that they are supposed to control are useless for they’re intended purpose. That they control the behavior of others makes no meaningful difference except to waste money and resources."


I am glad we agree that NICs is not one of these then. As we both seem to agree that we can not determine it's success or failure there is no need to do away with it. Nor for that matter is it unconstitutional so there is no 2nd A grounds to argue against it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Only when they are his facts from what I can read into his post, anybody else's facts do not seem to carry any weight he can not explain away in his mind. I would love to help you keep tearing this egotistical fella down a bit but I have to work in the morning. Keep it up he seems to be on the ropes now.

Again, I keep seeing this "facts speak for themselves" etc.

Show facts, provably so, where gun laws have made society safer.

That's all I have ever asked. That's all.

Not ego, not being a smart ass, just asking someone to show statistical evidence of a gun law making a long term difference in the gun crime rate.

You guys keep insisting restrictions have always been there, so show where they have helped.

You attack me personally, you attack the things I say, but you never offer any evidence of gun laws helping society.

It should be simple to do if the things you claim are correct.

I am glad we agree that NICs is not one of these then. As we both seem to agree that we can not determine it's success or failure there is no need to do away with it. Nor for that matter is it unconstitutional so there is no 2nd A grounds to argue against it.

And you are OK with this? A law exists that you admit has no provable benefit but you are very happy to keep it in place.

I have asked for an explanation of why and I get personal attacks.

I'll try again.

Why do you justify the existence of a law that you admit has no provable benefit to society?

 

[lions]

t165:

Show me one period in American history, actual reality, when gun control was not practiced in America.

Just because there has never been a period without gun control does not make gun control right. Pretty simple to me.

 

[waterhouse]

I can tell you one fact, no one is going to change their minds on this matter based on this or any other thread.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is not a fact. As I stated earlier in this thread, I sent a friend a link to the last time we discussed this (a few months ago). After reading it, he changed his opinion on the NICS issue.

The actual debaters may not change each others minds, but the fence sitters get to read both sides of the argument and decide for themselves. My friend, who doesn't own one gun, went from thinking every single sale should have a background check to thinking that background checks are a waste of tax dollars. That's a pretty big turn around, all thanks to these types of discussions.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

... If the 2nd Amendment has always given American citizens the "right" of ownership/possession/carry concerning firearms then why all throughout the history of our nation have we had gun control? Nobody will give me a straight answer because nobody has a straight answer!...

To begin with, the Second Amendment doesn't give anyone anything. It cannot be genuinely discussed in those terms. The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe the right. We've had gun control because enough of us who are in government have disobeyed the Second Amendment for any number of fallacious reasons. That is the straight answer. It is just that simple.

Any infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms prior to the Second Amendment are irrelevant.

And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

A NICS check will never stop a crime. If ever a crime is committed, it is committed regardless of any law whatsoever (unless the law itself is criminal to begin with - meaning unconstitutional).

Again(,) if you do not like NICs(,) base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

Fact: The NICS is unconstitutional. The only success that can be documented on the success or failure - depending upon your your view of the goal of the NICS - is that it infringed upon the right of everyone who bought a gun from a dealer since its inception.

The 2nd A is nothing more than these men's views and beliefs on the subject and had they wanted or intended it to include everyone they could have easily worded it to do so.

Again, your argument is fallacious. The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe the right; it doesn't grant the right to anyone in particular or in general. Any and all infringements upon this right of any and all individuals is a result of unconstitutional government infringements upon the right.

Is the 2nd A flawed? I would say that if it did not have it's flaws it would not be the subject of so much debate, it would be clear beyond any legal reproach. That does not make it a failure, just flawed like everything created by man is. Minds much greater versed on legal and historical matters than any on this forum have debated this subject for decades, and have yet to reach a conclusion.

The Second Amendment is perfect. Unscrupulous people in government are to blame for any discrepancies you perceive in the Second Amendment. Some of those greater minds you speak of were/are disingenuous and bent on an agenda.

I am glad we agree that NICs is not one of these then. As we both seem to agree that we can not determine it's success or failure there is no need to do away with it. Nor for that matter is it unconstitutional so there is no 2nd A grounds to argue against it.

A person must be subjected to a NICS check before a person can buy a gun from a dealer. That IS and infringement. A NICS check is a hurdle that comes between you and your gun. If government places ANYTHING between you and your keeping and bearing of arms, government has infringed your right and is in violation of the Second Amendment.

Woody

 

[AKElroy]

And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

OK, Maybe I will dive in. Regarding the above quote, so what if it did? I can name numerous unconstitutional infringements on many enumerated rights that might well save lives. A free press certainly spools up crazies to action, freedom of religion has certainly stirred its share of occasionally violent passions, freedom of speech/assembly/redress can certainly become violent and lead to injury & death. Maybe it would be best to do away with all of it. That way we can all live in a nice, quiet, safe...prison. There is an expense for freedom. Some are willing to pay it, some, like you apparently, are willing to trade some of it for more perceived security. False security in my view, but an invalid justification even if that security were realized. We do not have to ask permission to exercise any other enumerated right; why should we be forced to do so through NICS? The very existance of NICS presumes the RKBA is the governments' right to distribute. It is not. People have rights. Our government is charged with recognizing and protecting these pre-existing rights, not distributing them.

 

[t165]

I think this is a good discussion and I am listening to others viewpoints. I may not agree and I will probably not change anyones mind...but I am tyring to plant some seeds for thought.

RUGGLES... "egotistical fella" probably some truth to that but aren't we all guilty to some degree? If expressing my opinion and wanting proof to back up statements then I will admit to that flaw! The opinions of meek individuals do not interest me. They usually do not speak their mind.

LIONS... There has never been anything simple about gun control! This thread is proof of that.

Constitutional Cowboy... If not the Constitution then where did your "right" to keep and bear arms come from? Some in the past have stated it's from their religion. That is between an individual and their god. Which also means individuals who's religious beliefs are anti-gun are just as valid. There is no way to argue against a persons religion and expect to make headway. I will not try...even I'm not that egotistical.

And TexasRifleman...I'm not trying to attack you personally. This is a bit of a hot topic and I can be sarcastic. The discussion I am having with you about gun control is one I lost several years ago. I was arguing your side that day. A college professor made it clear to me that reality proves Americans have never enjoyed the absolute right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of one's interpretation or belief the facts prove otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is government document. A man made document. And man, through process, can change it at will.

There is the far "left" on this issue which does not want gun control. They want gun elimination. There is the far "right". They do not want or respect any laws concerning firearms. Toss out these extremist and there is the vast majority of citizens who have to find a peaceful compromise which relate to gun control. This is done through politics, anger, arguing, discussion. I glad we have less restrictive gun control laws than most other countries but we will never be devoid of them. The argument simply will not hold water! The majority of Americans want some forms of gun control.

 

[Harve Curry]

All I can say is we need to follow the original laws layed down to run this country. That is how we prospered and grew strong. Everytime we deviate or allow compromise from the Constitution we get weaker and poorer.
So what part of shall not be infringed is not understood?