How to reduce gun deaths in US

[M14 Shooter]

The fastest firing rifle of the time took 15 to 20 seconds to reload so that would mean maximum of getting 4 shots off in a minute. That should be the limit on what today guns offered to civilians should be , that would be in keeping with the original rule , however present day people have distorted it.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

So.... No.

 

[Libby von H]

You mean that legal prohibition didn't stop her? Well the only solution to this is another legal prohibition!

Okay, you sound like Hillary lambasting somebody for not supporting the PERFECT plan.
In the choice between X and not-X ,noting is perfect. nothing

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Meh,
The 2nd Amendment was not about hunting. It was not crafted for self-defense.
The 2nd Amendment had ONE and ONLY one purpose. Defending against government tyranny.

CLEARLY, Americans have absolutely ZERO interest in defending their freedom or America. None.
Therefor, there is no longer a need for the 2nd amendment.

As you older folks die off, the younger generations will seal the deal and eradicate gun ownership.
That's a certainty.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[AZrailwhale]

Meh,
The 2nd Amendment was not about hunting. It was not crafted for self-defense.
The 2nd Amendment had ONE and ONLY one purpose. Defending against government tyranny.

CLEARLY, Americans have absolutely ZERO interest in defending their freedom or America. None.
Therefor, there is no longer a need for the 2nd amendment.

As you older folks die off, the younger generations will seal the deal and eradicate gun ownership.
That's a certainty.

And the government will eradicate their freedom and rights.

 

[LibertyKid]

This is the primary argument. See the below video and a perfect question and end of debate.
If you don't want to watch it, the lady asks, "Can you guarantee that the gov't will never become tyrannical"... the answer is no. Therefore, the people have the right to protect our constitution from an abusive and tyrannical gov't.

 

[woodwork201]

The fastest firing rifle of the time took 15 to 20 seconds to reload so that would mean maximum of getting 4 shots off in a minute. That should be the limit on what today guns offered to civilians should be , that would be in keeping with the original rule , however present day people have distorted it.

Get off the Internet. Now. Turn your phone or computer off. Now. Those are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Toss all your ball-point pens and get a quill and ink. Nothing else is covered by the first Amendment.

 

[woodwork201]

Meh,
The 2nd Amendment was not about hunting. It was not crafted for self-defense.
The 2nd Amendment had ONE and ONLY one purpose. Defending against government tyranny.

CLEARLY, Americans have absolutely ZERO interest in defending their freedom or America. None.
Therefor, there is no longer a need for the 2nd amendment.

As you older folks die off, the younger generations will seal the deal and eradicate gun ownership.
That's a certainty.

No; you completely miss the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It had one purpose only.: to keep the Government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. There is no qualifier there.

You can assume A mischief being addressed from the preamble but you cannot assume it to be all mischiefs. I can't get it pasted into a post here for some reason so I'll just give a link. A general treatise on statutes: their rules of construction, and the proper boundaries of legislation and of judicial interpretation : Dwarris, Fortunatus, Sir, 1786-1860 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Study - don't just read, study, pages 107-110 and 265-269. The latter pages cited incompletely in Heller but both sections - and virtually any 19th century or before book on the law will have some very close variation: a preamble cannot be used to limit the enactment clause. In fact, the preamble or any other thing beyond the enactment clause can only be used for interpreting a statute when the enactment clause is ambiguous - meaning that two different meanings can be taken from the words. The preamble, when used, is interpreted to indicate one mischief that the statute is designed to solve but it is never assumed to be the only mischief and it as assumed that the enactment clause is designed to generally fix other mischiefs besides that mentioned in the preamble.

There is nothing at all ambiguous about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[woodwork201]

Yeah. That doesn't work in real life. If you die, there's a reason. So statistically, the only way to truly track it is by means of death.

Wrong. The reason someone was killed is never a gun or a knife.

Is a woman coming to Biden's open border and raped by the Cartel at knifepoint less raped than a woman coming to Biden's open border and raped by the Cartel at gunpoint?

 

[woodwork201]

I think you are too hung up on the idea that the democrats are communists. They are not, they are totalitarians and a tyranny of the politically or socially acceptable elite is what they are trying to establish.

Hopefully they never get the power to prove one of us right and the other wrong. Either way, it isn't going to turn out well.