Printable View
This was also in the time that the weapons of the military were muskets capable of firing 3 rounds a minute. Not Semi-Auto 30 round magazines that can fire off 17 rounds a second. Would they make that same decision in today's world is the question to ask. If the answer is yes then I stand corrected if no then I prove my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylancer81
Which was the modern military weapon of the day. The supreme court upheld that in 2000's rulings that its still considered the military weapon of the day. IE whatever our military is using at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by volkov2006
We also had an Assault Weapon ban during that time as I said I am not against all guns just the ones that are considered Assault Weapons. The Federal government is trying to reinstate that ban not extend it except for high capacity magazines over 10 rounds. After the ban expired and was not renewed in 2004 the amount of gun deaths skyrocketed. I am not trying to say that it is not legal I am saying it is not necessarily constitutional. Look at all of the dead from these guns, if 9/11 happened over the course of a year would we have been as outraged. So 3000 in one day an outrage, 10,000 over a year not a big deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylancer81
Statistics don't lie, look at Australia in I believe 1998 a massacre of 50 people happened 12 days after the shooting the government passed an assault weapons ban and since then not a single mass shooting. We just let the dead lie and keep trying to put it on other things, drugs, mental illness, video games, movies, but not guns how could we do that.
Also if people want these guns they can have them but they need to go through the background checks not to just get them and use them when they want. Right know people don't have to go through background checks at least 40% of them. We have to go through paper work to transfer a car title to another person but not a gun what is wrong here?
If the Constitution said it was ok to keep a cow on your roof would you do that too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylancer81
fuck off asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.
Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.
Let me expand on that would you want everyone to have access to nuclear weapons or a tank, gunship helicopter, those are considered arms just like a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
They may be different things but the argument they used is the same as this one "The constitutional right to do it". Thant is what he is doing right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by my my my!
The 2nd Amendment asserts that since militias are necessary and depend upon civilians for men and arms, the right to arms is necessary. However, militias no longer depend upon the arms of civilians. Therefore the only raison d'etre for the 2nd Amendment explicitly named by that Amendment no longer applies.
No I personally would not. However if someone wanted to they could, it would be their right.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Back to the gun debate. Deaths by fire arms have come down since the removal of the assault gun ban not gone up. Since removal of the handgun ban (see below) in Washington DC weapons deaths have been coming down not quite down to the US level as a whole.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc-full.png
Just look at all the data on this page that shows as weapons have become more used in US the deaths have gone down. And in other nations as the ban on weapons has happened deaths by illegal weapons and in general have gone up.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Here's perhaps just few things out of many to think about when viewing our constitution.
The last Supreme Court rulings seemed to ignore the language about maintaining a militia within the second amendment, yet a six year old could read that short paragraph and get that intent unless they a political agenda to gloss over it. SCOTUS was built to have that agenda.
Hunters and gun enthusiasts need assault weapons about as much as they need drones and fighter jets. A literal reading of the second amendment says I have right to own both. And frankly the NRA would lobby for me to have them if I could pay for them because the guys who make them would want to sell me a drone and a fighter jet if I could afford it.
The constitution was written as a guideline to manage a republic, not a literal document.
And the process was so flawed that we had the Bill of Rights, the first in a series of amendments for what was ignored or left undefined.
Let's not forget when we talk about the Constitution it had to amended to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote.
The vast majority of Americans IMHO do not believe that an average citizen should be able to, or has the right to out gun the local police. Any more than they believe that only white, land holding males should have the right to vote and/or hold peoples of another race as property in servitude.
The second amendment argument IMHO is lame and I would actual dare LaPierre and those dwarfs to make that argument to the face of a mother whose baby died in Newtown.
Just my take and I apologize in advance for the harshness of my opinion but 12,000 Americans a year are dying while we argue about an ancient document?