What law(s) would gun owners like to see in place?

[azmjs]

It's about English grammar. The 'militia' clause is not operative. The 'shall not be infringed' clause is.

Woody

WHAT PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA DONT YOU UNDARSTEND???

Your "grammar based argument" is patently unConstitutionAl. I endeavor to place my finger on that article of the constitution which enumerates the grammar, and I cannot find it, therefore it is unConstitutionAl.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I don't favor additional restrictions. Every conceivable crime one can commit with a firearm is already covered by some law, somewhere, so I would favor laws that reinforce or reaffirm RKBA.

 

[Badlander]

In the day of the founders. Well regulated did not mean government regulation.
something in good working order was considered well regulated.

 

[Telekinesis]

Not fundamentally dissimilar from the position of "a well regulated militia! It's about as tight as you can be! Only the Army can have guns!"

Except that the militia is, under federal code, all males aged between 17 and 45. I don't have the citation as I'm on my phone right now, but I am almost positivethat this is still the case.

As far as the current state of this discussion, I think it is a terrible idea for us to propose new restrictions at a time that (as a group) we are challenging other laws in court. What kind of message does it send when we say we'll sue you to keep these guns, but we WANT you to ban these; and that we'll sue you to let these people possess guns, but we don't want these people to have guns.

Right now we have a pretty solid position of fighting for more freedom and less restriction which we have refined to a point which it works in the top courts of our country. Why would we want to change that?

 

[Snowbandit]

The trick is writing a law that doesn't violate the constitution. All laws restrict someone's freedom in one way or another. In other words, laws, by their very nature, "infringe". It was the intent of the writers of the US Constitution to "infringe" on the rights of law makers by making it illegal for law makers to "infringe" on the rights of weapon owners.

Okay, Mike wants a law so lets give him one that's actually constitutional. How about something along these lines:

Every citizen, over the age of sixteen years, who is not otherwise opposed on religious, moral, or other grounds, shall possess a rifle and pistol suitable for military service, together with sufficient ammunition for training and defense of the nation. Each citizen shall receive a yearly tax credit equal to any costs incurred during the tax year.

There, that's the long way of saying you can have any military rifle or pistol you want and the government's going to pay for it. Plus, they provide the ammo. I could live with that.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

WHAT PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA DONT YOU UNDARSTEND???

Your "grammar based argument" is patently unConstitutionAl. I endeavor to place my finger on that article of the constitution which enumerates the grammar, and I cannot find it, therefore it is unConstitutionAl.

You're funny.

It's written in the English language utilizing the rules of grammar in the English language. What grammatical rules would you suggest if not those of the English language?

I suppose you could adopt the philosophy of one of my signature lines:

The Constitution is totally consistent with itself from beginning to end and thus requires it to be its own source of comprehension. B.E. Wood​

Woody

 

[DammitBoy]

My thoughts were that we ought to come up with something that's somewhat acceptable to everyone.

The 2nd amendment should be acceptable enough for every american. If you don't want to own a firearm, don't. If you do, the government should have no say in what firearm you own.

The only acceptable restriction to me, would be restricting violent felons from owning any firearm.

If you want a law to make stupid people feel safe, just pass a law saying that "every american is now safe" and that should lull the sheeple back to sleep.

 

[Art Eatman]

Enough wandering about for one thread...

Not really High Road to argue in open posts about grammar. Take it to PM or email.