The power to ban firearms...?

[Little-Acorn]

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

The Framers knew this, of course, when they wrote the 2nd amendment. And they still decided to make it a flat ban against government having ANY say in whether you or I could keep and bear arms.

And it's the Law of the Land, so your frantic diversions about grenades are useless.

It has long been true that we are far safer with all law-abiding citizens (including a few crazies) having access to guns, than we would be if government had any say in deciding whether each of us could own and carry a gun.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Framers knew this, of course, when they wrote the 2nd amendment. And they still decided to make it a flat ban against government having ANY say in whether you or I could keep and bear arms.

And it's the Law of the Land, so your frantic diversions about grenades are useless.

It has long been true that we are far safer with all law-abiding citizens (including a few crazies) having access to guns, than we would be if government had any say in deciding whether each of us could own and carry a gun.

You should have said Stalin and Mao and disarmed Jews under Hitler to drive the point home. Add Pol Pot and Castro to the list.

 

[westwall]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

Yes, it is that simple. Of course RPG's and grenades are called ORDNANCE and EXPLOSIVE DEVICES so are not covered by the 2nd. However, there is the history of the Ancient and Honorable Company of Artillery which supports the idea that cannons and other ordnance might be?

An interesting conundrum.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A militia Company should be free to maintain artillery and other crew weapons such as rpgs and grenades. An individual should not. Towns after all owned cannon in the revolutionary war as I recall.

The 2nd clearly covers individual firearms not ordnance and not crew served weapons. It does not cover artillery either.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

In your trunk? Why not?...OK just kidding.
As with any right, we recognize rights are not absolute. For example the 'fire in a crowded movie theater' when no fire exists. Yes, that is free speech but it is outrageous to the public.
Government has the duty and by Constitutional word, the authority to 'promote the general welfare'...That in and of itself the ability to regulate.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

In your trunk? Why not?...OK just kidding.
As with any right, we recognize rights are not absolute. For example the 'fire in a crowded movie theater' when no fire exists. Yes, that is free speech but it is outrageous to the public.
Government has the duty and by Constitutional word, the authority to 'promote the general welfare'...That in and of itself the ability to regulate.

The real test of these stupid remarks is the following:

Would a Jury of your peers unanimously convict you for "Yelling 'fire' in a theater" or defend your "right to free speech?" Obviously, the Jury would convict you, because that does not fall under free speech, and the People, via the Jury, have decided that.

The same thing applies to hand grenades. If someone was being tried for driving with explosives on the highway, would a Jury acquit them under the 2nd Amendment? Or would the Jury convict him, because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to such a scenario (and thus the law is constitutional). You can bet your ass the Jury would convict in this scenario as well.

As Thomas Jefferson said:​

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We as a people need to decide these questions.

And we do, with a 3/4 vote of the states, after Congress (or a Constitutional Convention) proposes an amendment.

The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so.

No, it is an ENDURING document, meant to be left alone except when 2/3 of each house of Congress (or a ConCon) proposes and 3/4 of the states ratifies an amendment.

And when that heavy a majority does not exist, the Constitution is meant to be LEFT AS THE FRAMERS WROTE AND INTENDED IT, WITHOUT CHANGE.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

In your trunk? Why not?...OK just kidding.
As with any right, we recognize rights are not absolute. For example the 'fire in a crowded movie theater' when no fire exists. Yes, that is free speech but it is outrageous to the public.

I see you do not undertand the issue here.

Falsely yelling in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st because it places people in clear present and immediate danger of harm. This cannot be said for simple ownership/possession of any find of firearm, and so the fact that the rights protected by the 1st may be so lilimted does not in any way mean that the 2nd may be so limited.

Government has the duty and by Constitutional word, the authority to 'promote the general welfare'...That in and of itself the ability to regulate.

The preamble confers no power to the federal government.

 

[Kosh]

Obama has a pen and he is not afraid to use it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Obama has a pen and he is not afraid to use it.

He has seemed reluctant to tackle opposing the 2nd amendment. And many of his fans thought he would be doing more to restrict guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obama has a pen and he is not afraid to use it.

He has seemed reluctant to tackle opposing the 2nd amendment. And many of his fans thought he would be doing more to restrict guns.

He knows he would lose both in Congress and in the Courts. There is no law for him to exploit. No way for him to force private sales to be background checked and no way for him to ban firearms of any type.

Signing Statements have to reflect a current law that he claims he is clarifying for the executive. No law exists that will allow him to clarify bans or background checks on sales not already subject to background checks.

He could try and define who is not allowed to own firearms but he would lose there as well, the law is specific as to requirements to lose ones rights, he can not with a signing statement add any new classes procedures or requirements.

he could make clear a requirement for States to report those adjudged mentally incompetent to the Federal Government. Since that is a Federal law.

He is stuck on firearms.

 

[eagle1462010]

They will go for the back door legal option again. Outside the normal channels of creating law..............

Set it up for a Supreme Decision on a State or local issue and then try to ram it up all our butts through the courts..........The EPA does it on a regular basis.............as what is happening in Same Sex marriage............If they get a Supreme Decision on a smaller issue they will use it to try across the board bans..............

In note of that, I believe gun control is the ability to hit what I'm aiming at.

Finally, a little experiment. Place a gun in the chair by the door fully loaded. When it jumps up by itself and shoots someone let me know.

 

[History]

Well like they say..

The great thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it won't need to be used until they try to take it away..

 

[FA_Q2]

I think most people are fine with making things like Grenades/RPG/fully automatic weapons illegal for the general population. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The conversation President Obama started was banning a type of semi-automatic RIFLE, which (to me at least) is totally unnecessary.

Rifles - as a whole group - account for maybe 300 homicides/year. AR-15's? Maybe 15 people/year. In a country of 300 MILLION people that is an extremely, extremely small number. The man is playing political games and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

You want to make an impact on gun violence? Start figuring out ways to help educate youngsters in the inner cities and make sure they complete high school and go to college. Now that is something I can stand behind.

Quit wasting your time dude on this AR-15 thing. It's a political talking point designed to get folks exactly like yourself all wound up. Don't be a dupe.

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

A car is not a protected right – owning a gun is. Therefore, your correlation is completely off.

Further, you cannot show where having such a requirement would have any positive effect whatsoever. You cannot limit a right simply because you want it limited. You need to show real safety advantages which you cannot.

 

[eagle1462010]

Those preaching banning guns have no concept of Freedom as they want to punish the innocent for the acts of the guilty....................

Has that gun sitting on the chair got up and shot anyone by itself yet.............

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obama has a pen and he is not afraid to use it.

He has seemed reluctant to tackle opposing the 2nd amendment. And many of his fans thought he would be doing more to restrict guns.

He clearly WANTS to, but He knows it is a political un-reality.

Needl;ess to say, as soon as another bundle of kids dies by some loon using an 'assault weapon', He'll be among the first to use thwie blood to push His agenda.

 

[bucs90]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

In your trunk? Why not?...OK just kidding.
As with any right, we recognize rights are not absolute. For example the 'fire in a crowded movie theater' when no fire exists. Yes, that is free speech but it is outrageous to the public.
Government has the duty and by Constitutional word, the authority to 'promote the general welfare'...That in and of itself the ability to regulate.

The real test of these stupid remarks is the following:

Would a Jury of your peers unanimously convict you for "Yelling 'fire' in a theater" or defend your "right to free speech?" Obviously, the Jury would convict you, because that does not fall under free speech, and the People, via the Jury, have decided that.

The same thing applies to hand grenades. If someone was being tried for driving with explosives on the highway, would a Jury acquit them under the 2nd Amendment? Or would the Jury convict him, because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to such a scenario (and thus the law is constitutional). You can bet your ass the Jury would convict in this scenario as well.

As Thomas Jefferson said:​

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

All you'd need is 1 crazy, whackjob right winger on that jury.......like say SC state Sen Lee Bright (R), or the many like him, who think ALL weapons are covered under "arms" in the 2nd Amendment.

And those types are multiplying as their side gets more bizarre, crazy, and desperate.

SO, if I used a hand grenade to defend myself.....and 12 jurors had to convict me of weapons law violations.......all I need is 1 crazy right wing Tea Party type on the jury.

 

[bucs90]

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

A car is not a protected right – owning a gun is. Therefore, your correlation is completely off.

Further, you cannot show where having such a requirement would have any positive effect whatsoever. You cannot limit a right simply because you want it limited. You need to show real safety advantages which you cannot.

I disagree. People have always had a right to travel. We never needed a license to travel. We once did it by horse. Then cars got invented. THEN....after cars were invented....the concept of a driver's license was invented.

Why? Because they saw that people were using a dangerous tool to travel.

Just like we have a right to self defense and "arms". But when "arms" because very dangerous....the government must regulate them.

Just like they did when they realized humanity's new mode of travel, the car, was dangerous.

 

[Iceweasel]

I disagree. People have always had a right to travel. We never needed a license to travel. We once did it by horse. Then cars got invented. THEN....after cars were invented....the concept of a driver's license was invented.

Why? Because they saw that people were using a dangerous tool to travel.

Just like we have a right to self defense and "arms". But when "arms" because very dangerous....the government must regulate them.

Just like they did when they realized humanity's new mode of travel, the car, was dangerous.

Absolutely stunning hypothesis. Guns were always dangerous, that's why people had them. The right to travel does not mean the right to travel any way you want. There is no right to drive, it's a priviledge granted by the state with rules and regulations to insure people know how to occupy the roads with other motorists.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

A car is not a protected right – owning a gun is. Therefore, your correlation is completely off.

Further, you cannot show where having such a requirement would have any positive effect whatsoever. You cannot limit a right simply because you want it limited. You need to show real safety advantages which you cannot.

I disagree. People have always had a right to travel. We never needed a license to travel. We once did it by horse. Then cars got invented. THEN....after cars were invented....the concept of a driver's license was invented.

Why? Because they saw that people were using a dangerous tool to travel.

Just like we have a right to self defense and "arms". But when "arms" because very dangerous....the government must regulate them.

Just like they did when they realized humanity's new mode of travel, the car, was dangerous.

Do they regulate your travel? Or do they only regulate your car when you use it on public roads?