Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, how well does the future crimes unit of the United States Government pay?OK.
1. A law concerning assault weopons. You have one in your possesion outside of your home, you are requiered to have a license, same as fully automatic weopons. If you do not have said license, the gun is confiscated and destroyed, you go to jail, and have a felony offense on your record.
2. You have guns in your home of any type, if they are not responsibly stored, and someone takes them and commits a crime, you own that crime.
3. For the mentally ill. We do not wait until they commit a crime. Too late for the victim, too late for the mentally ill person. We treat them early on, irregardless of their ability to pay. Far less costly than the price we have paid this week for untreated mental illness.
The militia was GWs thing. He didn't want a standing Army, but that's what we got anyway. And and Air Force and a Marine Corp and a Navy and a Coast Guard. So much for his grand plan...
AIDS kills many more in America each year than semi-automatic rifles.
You are trying to ban the wrong activity.
The militia was GWs thing. He didn't want a standing Army, but that's what we got anyway. And and Air Force and a Marine Corp and a Navy and a Coast Guard. So much for his grand plan...
AIDS kills many more in America each year than semi-automatic rifles.
You are trying to ban the wrong activity.
How many innocent people does it kill?
Answer the question or stfu.You aren't bright, but then again, you are a liberal.
But I am here to help.
Here is an analogy for you to help you understand the Second Amendment:
'A well-equipped carpentry being necessary to build quality housing, the right to own hammers shall not be infringed. '
You are most welcome!
I did answer it.
Once you figure it out, you will see I have killed your thread.
LOL
Answer the question or stfu.
I did answer it.
Once you figure it out, you will see I have killed your thread.
LOL
I noticed you went from "well regulated" to "well equipped" why is that?
I did answer it.
Once you figure it out, you will see I have killed your thread.
LOL
I noticed you went from "well regulated" to "well equipped" why is that?
Slight distinction without a difference.
The right shall not be infringed - regardless of how you wish to interpret the 'why'.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.
Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.
So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?
It is a Constitutional right.
Read it sometime.
What features make a gun into an assault weapon?
Some assault weapon features, like pistol grips, second handgrips, or barrel shrouds, make the gun easier to hold with two hands. This allows the shooter to spray an area with bullets without taking careful aim, and to control the gun without getting burned as the barrel heats up. Others, like detachable magazines, make it easier to maintain a high rate of fire for an extended period of time. Still others, like flash suppressors, allow the shooter to conceal his position. These features, most of which were specifically designed for the military, are unnecessary for hunting or target shooting.
What is the federal assault weapon ban?
In 1994, after a string of mass killings committed by criminals with assault weapons, Congress passed a law banning certain assault weapons. The 1994 law named 19 specific models, and also banned "copies or duplicates" of those models. In addition, the law outlawed guns that have two or more specified assault weapon features. Guns that were legally possessed before the effective date of the law remain legal.
What is the "sunset clause"?
The 1994 assault weapons ban included a "sunset clause" providing that the law would be automatically repealed on September 13, 2004. President Bush professed support for renewing the ban, but refused to lobby Congress to pass new legislation. When Congress failed to act to extend the ban, assault weapons again became legal under the provisons of federal law.
During the time of the 1994-2004 ban, I heard that criminals were still able to commit crimes with assault weapons. How was that possible?
The 1994 law includes several loopholes that unscrupulous gun makers and dealers exploited to continue making and selling assault weapons that Congress intended to ban. As a result, many assault weapons remained available.
Some gun companies made inconsequential design changes (like moving a screw or replacing a flash suppressor with a "muzzle brake") and gave the gun a new name. The new name got the gun off of the prohibited list, and the minor change arguably put it out of reach of the law's "copies or duplicates" language. For example, the banned TEC-9 became the legal AB-10.
Also, some gun companies copied assault weapons that were originally made by other manufacturers. For example, Bushmaster's XM15 was a copy of the banned Colt AR-15, with one minor design change. Functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin, the XM15, like innumerable other AR-15 variants, remained legal. The DC-area sniper allegedly used a new Bushmaster XM15 to shoot 13 victims, killing 10.
Finally, because the 1994 law allowed the continued ownership and sale of "pre-ban" assault weapons, those weapons remained available.
I don't know how you know. I do know that if we as a society institutionalize children (and that's part of what school is) we have an obligation to make them safe.how do you do that Ravi?.....how do you know who is going to lose it?.....one of the guys who went out and shot his fellow Postal Employees was said to be one of the nicer people in that office......while some who you think are going to lose it someday never do.....
i agree.....but a Teacher or a Janitor could have gone nuts and done the same thing.....some people who you think are nuts and you keep your eye them never go off....and then the one who everyone thinks is great.....goes nuts....some of these shooters in the past have been described by those who knew them as....nice people....would never have thought this would happen with them.....
AIDS kills many more in America each year than semi-automatic rifles.
You are trying to ban the wrong activity.
How many innocent people does it kill?
15K a year in the USA alone.
And don't EVEN get me started on super-sized sugary drinks.
There oughta be a law.
Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.
So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?
Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.
So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?
It is a Constitutional right.
Read it sometime.
I've read it. Show me where these two were part of a well regulated militia securing the state.
You aren't bright, but then again, you are a liberal.
But I am here to help.
Here is an analogy for you to help you understand the Second Amendment:
'A well-equipped carpentry being necessary to build quality housing, the right to own hammers shall not be infringed. '
You are most welcome!
Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.
So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?
Because the Constitution gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people. I understand conditions have changed, but the Constitution has not. Until such time as it is, that is the law of the land.
That being said, there is no way for the government to make life safe. It can certainly take away your freedoms, but life is and always will be an iffy proposition. So you can live in an unsafe world with limited control over your life or you can live in an unsafe world with many controls over your life.
Certainly the shooter and his mother were neither well regulated nor part of a militia contributing to the security of a free state.
So what's up with that? Why did they have access to such guns? And why doesn't the State do anything to protect the lives of children at the mercy of whack jobs?
Because the Constitution gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people. I understand conditions have changed, but the Constitution has not. Until such time as it is, that is the law of the land.
That being said, there is no way for the government to make life safe. It can certainly take away your freedoms, but life is and always will be an iffy proposition. So you can live in an unsafe world with limited control over your life or you can live in an unsafe world with many controls over your life.
Ah, but the second does mention the well regulated militia and the security of the state. So where does that come into the equation? This woman and her son do not fall under those categories.
IF the government agrees to grant us our "inalienable" rights they have a duty to protect us from ourselves as well. Or at least protect the members of our society that cannot consent, i.e. those under 18.
But there is a PURPOSE for the second amendment to exist:Because the Constitution gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people. I understand conditions have changed, but the Constitution has not. Until such time as it is, that is the law of the land.
That being said, there is no way for the government to make life safe. It can certainly take away your freedoms, but life is and always will be an iffy proposition. So you can live in an unsafe world with limited control over your life or you can live in an unsafe world with many controls over your life.
Ah, but the second does mention the well regulated militia and the security of the state. So where does that come into the equation? This woman and her son do not fall under those categories.
IF the government agrees to grant us our "inalienable" rights they have a duty to protect us from ourselves as well. Or at least protect the members of our society that cannot consent, i.e. those under 18.
There is nothing in the second amendment which says you have to be an official member of a militia. The intent of the militia at the time was to simply call upon the citizenry in a time of need, thus the citizens needed to be armed. As I said, the change in conditions does not change the fact that the Consitution has not changed.
There is no way to protect us from ourselves. That is what people seem to have difficulty understanding. You are always in harm's way from the moment of conception and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The only way you can be safe from others is to never come in contact with others. So your choice is to be unsafe and free or unsafe and not free. Which do you prefer?
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
