We need to clean America of the guns !

[Bob Blaylock]

When that’s all the police and military are allowed to carry, we will agree.

I won't agree.

Whatever restrictions you put on law-abiding citizens, on police, or on military, criminals will not obey those restrictions.

I cannot agree with insuring that criminals are able to be better armed than police or soldiers or ordinary law-abiding citizens. I want the good guys—all good guys—to be at least as well-armed as the bad guys.

Beside, do you really want to put our military up against that of any hostile foreign nation, with inferior arms to what that other nation is giving its military?

 

[fncceo]

the States have rights to regulate what they feel is safe and what is not in their own states.

Except where it violates The Constitution.

Any attempt to restrict the 2nd Amendment, Federal or State, would have to survive a Supreme Court challenge.

The 2A is a restriction in itself. It restricts the Feds. The courts have allowed the implication at State Level for "REASONABLE" gun regulations. And since it's the State, County or Municipal that is making that "REASONABLE" determination then it has no effect on the 2A. That's the law. No amount of fruitcakiness from you can change that.

Reasonable is a sliding scale. There have been various gun control measures passed by states, counties, and cities, all of which seemed 'reasonable' to the responsible legislatures, that have been challenged before the Supreme Court and struck down.

All laws, from municipal to federal must pass a Supreme Court challenge if it comes up.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Since the 2A was a limit places primarily on the Federal Government, the States have rights to regulate what they feel is safe and what is not in their own states. And the courts have the right to rule on those state regulations. You don't like the regulations in the state you live in, get them changed.

See the Tenth Amendment.

There are powers/rights belonging to the federal government, there are powers/rights belonging to the states,and there are powers/rights belonging to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms, as affirmed in the Second Amendment, belong?

Does the Second Amendment speak of a right of the states to keep and bear arms? If so, then the states do indeed, as you say, have the authority to control this right.

Out of all the Bill of Rights, only the First Amendment is written in a way that suggests that it applies only to the federal government, and not to equally to state and local governments.

So, does the State of California, or the City of Sacramento, in which I live, have the power to tell me what church I may or may not belong to, or what opinions I may or may not express? Oddly, I think that was actually the original intent; I think they imagined that people of similar religious and moral viewpoints would gather together in communities with like-minded people, and wanted to allow communities up to the state-level to establish rules based on their commonly-held values. It didn't workout that way and under incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all levels of government are required to uphold the rights in the First Amendment.

Most of the remainder of the Bill of Rights speaks of rights that belong,not to the federal government, not to the states, not to any part of government at all, but to the people. The Second Amendment is most explicit on this point, in identifying the right which it affirms as belonging to the people. This means that no part of any level of government has any authority whatsoever to violate any of these rights, and never did, even before incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Markle]

You even attacked me last month when Israel killed an autistic and unarmed kid

Quasar44, do you believe Darius Sessoms was scared that it was illegal for him to possess a firearm?

HOMICIDE
Published 7 hours ago
North Carolina boy Cannon Hinnant, 5, laid to rest after senseless murder: You 'can't imagine what it's like'
'[You] can't imagine what it's like to hold your son in your arms with a gunshot wound to the head'
By Robert Gearty | Fox News
[...[

Darius Sessoms, 25, has been charged with walking up to the boy late Sunday afternoon and shooting him in the head at point-blank range, according to police and witnesses. Cannon was killed as he rode a bike in his father’s front yard in Wilson. The boy's two sisters, 7 and 8 years old, were with him when he was shot, according to reports.

North Carolina boy Cannon Hinnant, 5, laid to rest after senseless murder: You 'can't imagine what it's like'

Family and friends gathered Thursday to lay to rest a little North Carolina boy who always had a smile on his face--as the motive for his senseless murder over the weekend remained a mystery.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Except where it violates The Constitution.

Any attempt to restrict the 2nd Amendment, Federal or State, would have to survive a Supreme Court challenge.

If not for corruption, the only way that any such restriction could ever stand would be for the Constitution to be amended, to overturn and supersede the Second Amendment. Any other way of undermining or otherwise trying to get around the Second Amendment is just plain illegal.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

the States have rights to regulate what they feel is safe and what is not in their own states.

Except where it violates The Constitution.

Any attempt to restrict the 2nd Amendment, Federal or State, would have to survive a Supreme Court challenge.

The 2A is a restriction in itself. It restricts the Feds. The courts have allowed the implication at State Level for "REASONABLE" gun regulations. And since it's the State, County or Municipal that is making that "REASONABLE" determination then it has no effect on the 2A. That's the law. No amount of fruitcakiness from you can change that.

Reasonable is a sliding scale. There have been various gun control measures passed by states, counties, and cities, all of which seemed 'reasonable' to the responsible legislatures, that have been challenged before the Supreme Court and struck down.

All laws, from municipal to federal must pass a Supreme Court challenge if it comes up.

And when worded correctly, the courts let them stand. Colorado was one of the first to stand toe to toe with the NRA and others in federal court. The ONLY thing that was bounced was the 10 round limit on the mags which the Colorado Legislation quickly changed while the court was in session. It was changed to 15 and it was approved. Heller V D.C. is the ONLY case the modern Supreme Court has ruled on and there has been numerous lower federal court rulings from that. The Supreme Court avoids a 2nd amendment case like the black plague. I think the reason for this is that the Supreme Court understands that this is, largely a States Rights issue.

 

[Markle]

My views are a compromise
We need basic guns for only home defense

Our Second Amendment says nothing about what we NEED. It addresses our RIGHTS.

In my long life, I have owned a LOT of things I did not NEED. I owned them because I WANTED them.

 

[Markle]

Any Assault Style Long gun should be banned

You only need a shotgun and revolver for home defense!!
Get rid of big mags and pistols
Concealed guns must be illegal as well

This is the most violent nation in the history of the modern world

You left out other classes of guns like hunting rifles like the Remington 700. I doubt you can talk almost anyone to banning that one.

Now, let's take a look at the legal definition of the civilian use of the term Assault Rifle. There isn't one. If you use the term Assault Rifle in your ban law it will get bounced by just about every level of State and Federal Court in the land. Assault Rifle is a Military Term and applies to one specific type of weapon only. Here is the definition of the Assault Rifle. Or at least my definition. It was also Stoners definition that started all this.

Any weapon that is designed to use in a firefight where it can do the maximum rate of fire, be light in weight, have one hand changing of mags, can be easily maintained, operated with very little training. It must be able to have the highest number of ammo. It must have a high rate of cyclic rate. At one time, it was thought to have to also be fully automatic but that's not the case anymore. IT needs to be able to be used in short and medium range. No specific caliber but you can pretty well rule out most 30 cals unless it has a light powder load behind it. It must be designed where every feature is for war with nothing for cosmetics.

Even though our Modern Hunting Rifles first saw action in war, they no longer can be used for war realistically with the exception of the bolt action sniper rifles in the 308 and larger calibers. But those are spec ops only and very rare do you see them on the battle field so we won't even discuss them nor do we even need to try and ban them. They are Hunting Rifles. The Courts won't even consider even a minor ban on those.

Handguns. Heller V D.C brought into the term "Reasonable". I know it doesn't specifically say that but that's the meaning. You have the right as per the 2nd Amendment to have a reasonable handgun in your home for obvious reasons. The courts have pretty much decided that the mag capacity of 15 rounds is reasonable but limiting it to 10 is unreasonable. A State can make it 30 rounds if it wants but never less than 15. I have one that hold 8 and the other holds 9 but one is a 45 cal so you can only have so many without have a mag that jams and the other is a pocket 9mm which can only hold 9 and still stay small. Both are considered "Reasonable" by law.

Now, about your banning concealed weapons. I agree that unlicensed individuals should never be allowed to carry concealed weapons of any kind. The reason for that is, the number of wrongful shootings by people that are licensed to carry concealed weapons is almost zero. These are the safest gun carriers by far.

Now let's talk about banning specific weapons. The State, County and Municipals CAN ban specific weapons but they have to be very specific in how they word it. If they use the term Assault Rifles and even talk about their general operation then that also grabs some fine hunting rifles as well that really make lousy Military Rifles. But if they are specific then it can be found legal. Instead of using the term Assault Rifle when you mean the AR-15/AK-47, be specific and use the phrase, "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones". That's legal and will stand in court. But to harp on Assault Rifles will fail in almost every court.

I am mixed on whether a ban on the AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones is necessary. What is needed is the breakup of the Cult that goes with them. In Colorado, through creative laws, we didn't ban the AR, we broke the Cult. Oh, we still have a few that are still living the cult but it's no longer as prevalent. And there are fewer ARs in homes these days. Not fewer AR but just fewer in homes. You can still walk into any Gun or Pawn Shop and buy them in about 10 minutes if you have the cash and can pass the basic background check, just fewer and fewer people are doing it today. But try and find a decent Model 700 308 on the shelf. It wasn't the laws that changed, it was the Community.

This is ludicrous.

It''s the law. You want it changed, get the laws changed and the almost ALL the Judges replaced. Or you can move to Yemen which is the only country on the face of the Earth with zero Gun Regulations. And you see how that is working out for them.

Changing Laws does not change the Constitution.
No matter what Laws are passed, it is the US Constitution that determines what laws can and cannot do.
No US Court has the authority to change the 2nd Amendment.

No court has the right to change the intent of the Constitution. Not even the Supreme Court.
That they have is a testament to the willingness of corrupt people to ignore the Constitution

Since the 2A was a limit places primarily on the Federal Government, the States have rights to regulate what they feel is safe and what is not in their own states. And the courts have the right to rule on those state regulations. You don't like the regulations in the state you live in, get them changed.

Yes, the states have many rights not available to the Federal Government. They do not have the right to overrule the U.S. Constitution or Federal Law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think the reason for this is that the Supreme Court understands that this is, largely a States Rights issue.

No, the Second Amendment is absolutely not a states' rights issue. It is a PEOPLE'S rights issue. It explicitly identifies the right which it affirms as belonging to THE PEOPLE, and forbids it from being infringed. Nothing in it suggests that any part of any level of government has the authority to infringe this right; it is absolutely clear that no part of any level of government has this authority.

 

[RightNorLeft]

Give it up liberals, in the last 3 months 25.7% of all households with guns bought their guns...Gun Shops are out of all the most popular handguns and you cant find the most popular calibre ammunition.

There are more guns in this country than there are people and you are NEVER going to get them

 

[Markle]

It'd be entertaining to see her try.

Actually it is Beto O'Rourke that Joe Biden has promised the job of confiscating our guns.

Joe Biden promises to put Beto O’Rourke in charge of gun control
By Mark Moore
March 3, 2020 | 4:01pm
[...[
“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.”

U

Visit the post for more.

nypost.com

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Since the 2A was a limit places primarily on the Federal Government, the States have rights to regulate what they feel is safe and what is not in their own states. And the courts have the right to rule on those state regulations. You don't like the regulations in the state you live in, get them changed.

See the Tenth Amendment.

There are powers/rights belonging to the federal government, there are powers/rights belonging to the states,and there are powers/rights belonging to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms, as affirmed in the Second Amendment, belong?

Does the Second Amendment speak of a right of the states to keep and bear arms? If so, then the states do indeed, as you say, have the authority to control this right.

Out of all the Bill of Rights, only the First Amendment is written in a way that suggests that it applies only to the federal government, and not to equally to state and local governments.

So, does the State of California, or the City of Sacramento, in which I live, have the power to tell me what church I may or may not belong to, or what opinions I may or may not express? Oddly, I think that was actually the original intent; I think they imagined that people of similar religious and moral viewpoints would gather together in communities with like-minded people, and wanted to allow communities up to the state-level to establish rules based on their commonly-held values. It didn't workout that way and under incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all levels of government are required to uphold the rights in the First Amendment.

Most of the remainder of the Bill of Rights speaks of rights that belong,not to the federal government, not to the states, not to any part of government at all, but to the people. The Second Amendment is most explicit on this point, in identifying the right which it affirms as belonging to the people. This means that no part of any level of government has any authority whatsoever to violate any of these rights, and never did, even before incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 2A is just too vague. Or at least the last part of it. Let's take a look at the whole thing.

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.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
When the US was formed, it went as far to limit the total number of Army to 75,000. No single state could really come up with more than that but it was deemed that 3 states or more could. And all the weapons would be equal. The States had canons just like the Feds had. In fact, due to most of the canons used in the Revolutionary war being from private individuals and then returned, the States probably had access to more canons than the Feds had. The fear of a Military Despot Federal Regime was driving this. This is why the Confederates actually had an advantage in the first part of the Civil War. The weapons were, more or less, equal.

But during the Civil war, like every other war, an Industrial Revolution was set off. In this case, it was a Firearms Revolution. The Manufacturing advantage the North had had a huge advantage and it just got more important. In the end, Galtins were introduced by the North. And the Hotchiss Canon was introduced where almost any small unit could have a piece of artillery that didn't require a casson wagon to go with it. That little 2 in breech loaded artillery firing grape shot was devistating. If you don't think so, just ask the Soiux. Custer had the choice to take both of these weapons with him and elected not to. Had he done so, it would have been a rout. (side note, there was a massacre but it was the Souix that got massacred. Out of 4000, they lost about 2000 and it was the last major Indian Battle). The Civil War had to relax the first part of the 2A.

After the Civil War, the strength of the Army was put back to 75,000. But the weapons continued to be more and more lethal. Artillery had come into it's own. When the Spanish American War came along, the folly of the locked 75K was noted. The US was ill prepared manpower wise. And another exception had to be made. The National Guard Act of 1898 was passed. It was a temporary act for the Spanish American war only. It Federalized the States Guards with the permission of the States Governors. Most Governors freely gave their permission but not all.

When it was known that WWI was on the cusp, they passed the 1916/17 National Guard Act that still stands today taking the option away from the States Governor concerning Federalizing the States Guard making them the National Guard. There are provision in it for a State to have their own Defense Force or DFS which many of the personnel would be exempt if they don't meet the requirements to be called up for Federal Duty. This stands today without a whole lot of changes.

Because of things like the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (and others) and Posse Comatatis (sp),
There has been limits placed on the President in using the US Military on US Soil. The need of:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, is no longer needed. It's still there but no 3 states has the power to stop the Federal Military if a President were to overthrow the Federal Government except the Military would not follow him to do it. In my own Oath says that I would do my damnedest to prevent it from happening. This is why when President Rump ordered the 82nd to go to DC, they followed his orders by going. When they go there, they followed their own orders and just sat down and could not engage the civilians. They were ordered home by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and that was the end of it. Today's Military cannot be used like it was once used.

Now let's look at the other part.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Are you aware that this was taken almost word for word from the Magna Carta from 1215 and then it was almost word for word from the British Petition of Rights in 1625? There were no firearms in 1215 and very few in 1625. A good well trained group of Longbowmen were much more effective than the early firearms of those days. Since Firearms were not the issue, they used the term "Arms" meaning any weapon of war or conflict from daggers, clubs, swords, pikes, etc.. The common person was allowed to have it all. There came a saying from those days, Swords to Plows. Meaning, the common man, who was short on metals, would take his sword and recast it to something useful like Bits for his Bridles, Stirrups, kitchen utensils and more. About the only thing he kept as a Dagger which was useful to skin animals, self defense and to carve out bowls.

Outside of some minute things, our Bill of Rights and Constitution were written from those two documents. The problem was, the King during the 1700s didn't think they applied to the Colonies. He would NEVER attempt to do what he was doing to a British Citizen in England. So we used the British Laws meant for the British Citizens in Britain.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Does not say what arms, or how many or what type, how lethal. It was written in a time when the arms of the common man was equal to that of the Military. Even in the Magna Carta times, every citizen had the right to those weapons. Most just chose not to with the possible exception of a dagger or a knife of some kind. The Pictures of all those peasants running around with swords is strictly Movie Fiction.

Weapons have gotten so deadly starting in the Spanish American War that the common person has no need for the more nasty weapons. And probably doesn't have the wisdom to even have them around. It's no longer up to the individual to determine that.; It's up to the Government and the Courts to determine that. What the 2nd A does is keeps the Feds out of it. It limits the Feds on everything other than the really, really nasty weapons. And it opens the door to allowing "Reasonable" Firearms to be determined by the States.

You can agree or disagree with this but that's just the way it is.

 

[Oldestyle]

Any Assault Style Long gun should be banned

You only need a shotgun and revolver for home defense!!
Get rid of big mags and pistols
Concealed guns must be illegal as well

This is the most violent nation in the history of the modern world

If you really want to take guns out of the hands of violent people...then it might be time to make "Stop and frisk" part of policing again! If your only goal is to take them out of the hands of law abiding people who now need them more than ever with the anarchy that's taking place in our streets...then by all means start banning things!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I think the reason for this is that the Supreme Court understands that this is, largely a States Rights issue.

No, the Second Amendment is absolutely not a states' rights issue. It is a PEOPLE'S rights issue. It explicitly identifies the right which it affirms as belonging to THE PEOPLE, and forbids it from being infringed. Nothing in it suggests that any part of any level of government has the authority to infringe this right; it is absolutely clear that no part of any level of government has this authority.

And the legislation and the Courts disagree with you. But you have the right to express your opinion but you are required to live within the law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The 2A is just too vague. Or at least the last part of it. Let's take a look at the whole thing.

But you have the right to express your opinion but you are required to live within the law.

The Second Amendment IS the law; and it is only “vague” to lawless filth such as yourself who do not want to obey it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The 2A is just too vague. Or at least the last part of it. Let's take a look at the whole thing.

But you have the right to express your opinion but you are required to live within the law.

The Second Amendment IS the law; and it is only “vague” to lawless filth such as yourself who do not want to obey it.

Does that mean you run a closet arms dealership out of your Garage?

 

[Jarlaxle]

It''s the law. You want it changed, get the laws changed and the almost ALL the Judges replaced. Or you can move to Yemen which is the only country on the face of the Earth with zero Gun Regulations. And you see how that is working out for them.

Boy, you're so full of shit your breath stinks.

 

[westwall]

Yeah. Quasar44, doesn't understand that the Second Amendment of our "Bill of Rights" had nothing to do with hunting, sport shooting, or home defense, but rather it was placed there so that private citizens could rise up with their weapons and fight against a tyrannical government, whether that tyrannical government was a foreign one, or our own.

Gives me a warm fuzzy when someone gets it right.

Right? While the government has increased it's firepower a million times greater than when the Constitution was enacted, the left wants to keep scaling our weapons back exponentially. F22's and smart bombs for the Govt......vs......spit ball straws for The People

Tell that to the Taliban.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The 2A is just too vague. Or at least the last part of it. Let's take a look at the whole thing.

But you have the right to express your opinion but you are required to live within the law.

The Second Amendment IS the law; and it is only “vague” to lawless filth such as yourself who do not want to obey it.

Does that mean you run a closet arms dealership out of your Garage?

Are you on some sort of drugs?

 

[westwall]

Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver

Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.

I said just shotguns and revolvers only

Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:

• owns no firearms
• owns only a small caliber revolver
• owns only a shotgun
• owns both a revolver and a shotgun
• owns more than two of each
• owns a semi-automatic pistol
• owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
• owns a bolt action hunting rifle
• owns a lever action rifle
• owns a semi-automatic rifle
• owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
• owns several of each of the above
• owns a gun store

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.

Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip

Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.