Boatswain2PA
VIP Member
- May 3, 2013
- 417
- 83
- 80
...He responded to that and said it was sloppy and ill considered....
I know. I was asking him why he thought your response was sloppy/ill considered.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about NOT letting 10 year old's run around armed either. Or the insane, etc. It was left up to the state since it isn't spelled out and you won't find much support in letting either of those examples be armed. So the state clearly can play a role and like I said (earlier yesterday) shall issue doesn't violate the Constitution.
If one wants to argue that no state should regulate firearms at all, you will get nothing but laughs from left, right and center with zero chance of getting closer to your goal.
No sane person wants unfettered access to nuclear weapons by crazy people. Likewise no sane person wants to confiscate every gun in America (yes, there are lots of insane leftists in this country who want exactly that!).
We have lots of great, common sense federal gun control laws. We have restrictions on who can own weapons (prohibited persons), and we have restrictions on the type of weapons people can own (Title II weapons).
I think it is well within state's rights to pursue further restrictions if that is what those state legislator's want. Of course, if they are going against what their constituents want then they may want to look at the recall efforts in Colorado.