General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoyt
(54,770 posts)used back then, citizens should be able to buy and carry many guns similar to those used by military, white wing racist militias and sympathizes need these rifles, most gunz available to gun-bumpers are semi-auto (even though they can kill plenty of people in a few seconds or minutes), and similar BS.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)All that's changed and even the most backward, ignorant and bigoted idiots understand it even if they don't like it.
Time the necroguniacs came to terms with the realities of modern life.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Few gun control laws are unconstitutional. AWBs, registration, magazine limits, training requirements, limits on open carry are all perfectly constitutional.
Time to stop blaming the 2A and start building popular support.
Nothing stopping Congress from passing tougher gun control laws, other than it doesnt want to.
shanny
(6,709 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)It is questionable that the federal government can mandate them. My state has them - I think they are a good idea.
The problem with the gun control movement is they always bundle UBCs with gun bans. That is why they don't get passed. If they were to propose UBCs and leave it at that then they might pass.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)to asking for a complete ban on all semi-auto weapons. You don't need that to hunt or even defend your house.
I say this as someone who strangely really enjoys shooting in all its ways.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Anything is possible.
aeromanKC
(3,322 posts)You need to get a new hobby!!
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)There is this big assumption that semi-auto and automatic weapons are for poor marksMen. I have never seen any proof of it. But then, most of the people who say that really dont seem to know much about Gus except that they want to ban them.
aeromanKC
(3,322 posts)What a brilliant idea to ban assault weapons. I wonder if any other civilized sane country has had that idea..?? I think you may be on to something there.
whopis01
(3,510 posts)I hear that guy is a real jerk.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)As I read this it means the government can call up all gun owners
hack89
(39,171 posts)Militia service has nothing to do with gun ownership. But then it never has through out US history.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)I stated my opinion
militia comes first so the second part relies on the first part
hack89
(39,171 posts)Shouldn't there be plenty of historical examples where laws actually doing that were enacted? When in our history has private gun ownership independent of militia service not been the norm?
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Limits gun ownership to militia members? I thought it protected the right of the people to own firearms.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Without the militia, the "people" have no right to bear arms.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Been saying it for most of my life. SC takes precedence very seriously.
WinstonSmith4740
(3,056 posts)"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."
To me, that means we not only have the right to regulate firearms, we have a constitutional mandate to do so. Others will not see that at all. I personally see absolutely NO reason for military style weapons in the hands of the public, others feel the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from an over reaching government, as opposed to a foreign invader. It's kind of like the old adage about blind men examining an elephant and describing it...one thought it was like a wall, another like a snake, etc.
This works for me:
hack89
(39,171 posts)There are thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The fact that you think they need to be stricter doesn't change that fundamental fact.
IronLionZion
(45,427 posts)back in 1776 there was no standing army. Normal people would be called upon to serve to defend against foreign armies.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Having a gun commits you to be subject to a call-up to defend your country
I do not have a problem with this, do you??
IronLionZion
(45,427 posts)nor would they want to. Military service requires some level of responsibility and discipline.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)And I have no problem using them as cannon fodder.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I have met many gun owners I would not want to serve in the military with. Many.
avebury
(10,952 posts)of age, should be the first to be drafted for a Republican initiated war. Starting with Don Jr. and Eric Trump.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Our laws are 21st century - by definition.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Remember, OP:
If you don't know more about gun models than any gun nut, you have NO IDEA how well they can kill people!
If it were the 80s, you'd have no right to be in favor of banning cigarettes for causing cancer unless you knew every detail of filters, menthols, brands, flavors, and tar variants. After all, you must be an EXPERT to have any valid opinion about how cigarettes/guns KILL PEOPLE.
------------------
That was sarcasm.
We should reject the pro-gun distraction that is often raised, about some detail of some gun model, whenever anyone makes an argument.
Here's all the average American needs to know:
Today's guns can kill a lot of people.
You and I don't want people killed.
Therefore, we want all guns banned, except single-shot hunting rifles.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)It was a serious question about the gun in the poster. I can't identify it.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)It's only the US that is gun-crazy. And we're gun-crazy because we let our politics be overrun by money, and gun manufacturers bought the NRA and the GOP. (And also because the GOP sees gun identity politics as helpful in getting votes for billionaires.)
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)This is what you said and used the pronoun we:
Today's guns can kill a lot of people.
You and I don't want people killed.
Therefore, we want all guns banned, except single-shot hunting rifles.
Who is we, notsosharedvalues?
Fla_Democrat
(2,547 posts)But I may be mistaken.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)It appears to connect the detachable barrel with the rest of the gun which sort of defeats the purpose of a quick change barrel.
mahannah
(893 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)LakeArenal
(28,817 posts)Has an 18th century mind set..
guss
(239 posts)2nd Amendment is Held Close, Do not take my guns away!!
1st Amendment.. now, STFU and never Question the 2nd amendment and anyone who supports it.
Money and power supports one, and Money and Power destroying the other.
colorado_ufo
(5,733 posts)Oh that's right there weren't any cars. Some things that applied then do not apply now and vice versa. It makes no sense not to regulate these high-powered weapons!