Apologies for messing that up. Only paragraphs one and four in the quote box were from ElvisL1ves’ original post. Paragraphs two and three were my reply to his statements in the first quoted paragraph.
To add: yes, the “gun control” that gets discussed in these forums, stuff like background checks, and gun-safety training, and banning AR-15s and the like, ain’t gonna cut it in this country. These things may save a few lives, but in the long run aren’t going to solve the problem. We as a society have proven, at least for the moment, that we cannot handle guns in an appropriate way. Yes, I am aware that this is a case of others ruining it for the rest of us (okay, not me, I’m not a gun owner). But at this point, I want to ask gun owners, especially those who own guns for protection: why does your right to live in a society which allows you to own many guns because you think it makes you safer supersede my right to live in a society where I think most guns should be banned, because I think it makes me safer? This is not a 2nd amendment question, as I am well aware of its existence. It is a moral question.
How about this? We’ve tried it “your” way for century upon century. How about we try it my way for a 100 years, and see which way worked out best?
You know Cruikshank, a SCOTUS case from 1876, has been cited at least twice in this thread but you seem to repeatedly ignore its existence.
Besides it’s widely known among legal scholars that the Court has dodged cases throughout its existence and even left circuit splits in place. It’s appellate jurisdiction is completely discretional and it takes full advantage. Plus you always need a sufficient number of Justices to vote to grant certiorari.
Also:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Blackstone’s Commentaries
St. George Tucker (1803)
It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.
*A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations *
Thomas Cooley (1868)
The NRA was founded in 1871 so how did that work again?
We have- in Chicago, DC and San francisco (which last got blocked before it really took effect).
So, it’s just your idea that this would happen. So, let’s try a experiment that would cost 100’s of billions, triple the prison population, and require ten times more cops. Yeah, because a guy on a message board thinks it would work. And maybe homicides with other weapons would increase as much. Who knows?
But here’s a PRO Gun law cite, that shows:*First, let’s look at the relationship between gun laws and violence in general. It is possible to have a violent society without guns. Prime evidence of that is the former Soviet Union and its successor states such as Russia, which despite stringent gun control laws, posted murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms – they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].
On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, have a history of low murder rates. According to a 2014 United Nations report, Germany’s murder rate of 0.8 killings per 100,000 inhabitants was identical to Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare source: UNODOC, Kates and Mauser…The only clear message in this complex issue is that violent crime overall does not increase with the availability of guns, but gun-related violence does sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo].*
and that’s a site that wants less guns and more gun laws.
And here’s a site that shows that more guns do not equal more crime:
You know others think if we had more executions that would cut the crime rate also.
*According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s…The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization. *
Well, because 'your way" means getting rid of a Constitutional Right, and would cost 100’s of billions, triple the prison population, and require ten times more cops.
Our way- means violent crime keeps going down. But yeah, once in a while there is a horrible tragedy.
I’m just reading this thread, but I’d like to know why this hasn’t been answered.
I dont need or want one, why?
A lot of weasel words in this. Why are you only concerned about homicides which involve guns? Would it be better if they were stabbed or strangled?
Your last sentence is a completely recursive argument. If I could ban all televisions and the law worked and televisions were actually destroyed, then I could definitely reduce the number of heart attacks caused solely by inactive people, which inactivity was sitting in front of televisions all day.
None of which addresses the OP as to why the 2nd Amendment is the bastard child of the Bill of Rights. Even if tomorrow we all realized that free speech was a bad thing, you still cannot restrict it without an amendment to the Constitution.
Here’s the question that has been asked before, and you are refusing (for good reason, I bet) to answer.
Why is it OK for the government to effectively ban military grade weapons from the people?
ETA: I respect the fact that you don’t want one, but it’s been suggested to me that the fact that I don’t want something isn’t justification to deny everyone else the right to own it.
DirkHardly, why the hell are you blathering on about a right to self defense in a discussion about rules of grammar?
Note that I said in “this country”, not “in parts of the country”. It does no good to have very strict gun control in just a city. Surely this is self-evident.
Are you implying that if we did get rid of 95% of the guns, that homicides would NOT decrease?
Please explain why this is so. Or is it just your idea that this would happen? The “guy on a message board” comment is just silly.
If we can figure out how these countries do this, I’m all for it. I am not saying strict gun control is the only answer.
As I said, I am aware of the 2nd amendment. So I ask this of you again, and anyone else who want to answer it:
I’m not only concerned about homicides with guns. Why are you changing the subject?
Yet again, someone who doesn’t want to say that banning whole swaths of guns, 95% in my example, would greatly reduce homicides. Let me ask again: do you think this would happen or not?
To reiterate, I am not raising this as a constitutional issue. I am raising it as a moral issue.
That’s a pretty easy answer.
My right to own something doesn’t infringe on your right to want it gone … but when you turn it around utoh!
Your right to not want me to have something does indeed infringe on me
That’s pretty much an excuse for you to be able to own any damn thing you want. Any. Damn. Thing.
And that would be fine, except way too many of your fellow citizens are showing themselves unable or unwilling to use the “something” responsibly, so it’s their fault if you lose access to the shiny shooty-bangy thing.
Sure that’s true. Somewhat tautological though. If we also were able to get rid of gravity, then injuries from falling from a great height would be greatly reduced too. Did you think this was some kind of clever line of argument? This however:
There is no evidence to support this.
Because you don’t have a right to live in a society where you think most guns should be banned. Oh, you’re not talking about the law or reality, but your own personal morality. In that case, I don’t subscribe to your system of morality because I think it’s bad. Nor do a sufficient number of people to enact your version of society in the US. Feel free to try it your way, when you get the votes.
This is answered by Heller. Have you read it?
This is answered by Heller, have your read it? And really, I don’t think it’s okay to ban military grade weapons from the people. But that needs to be built up to at SCOTUS, give it time 
I answered that fully in post #139. Paragraphs 2 and 3 mistakenly appear in the quote box because of a coding error on my part but it’s all right there.
Why do you think that grammar construction is either the only consideration when courts interpret the law or is somehow dispositive? (Once again see post #139)
Why do you think that given the rules of grammar that your interpretation of the significance of the prefatory clause with relation to the operative clause is the correct one?
Why do you have such unwavering faith in your skills at legal analysis when you possess exactly zero of the relevant qualifications?
Why do you continually ignore facts that completely undermine your version of what you believe to be true?
Do you have a response to post #143 or are you going to keep repeating the false claim that the NRA rewrote history with their gunpowder-fueled time machine?
First of all, at the time of Miller shotguns like the the one in question were in use by the military:
…advocates frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns (with 20 inch barrels) have been commonly used in warfare, and the statement made by the judges indicates that they were not made aware of this.[8] Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for judges to know otherwise. Two of the justices involved in the decision had prior military experience, Justice Black as a Captain in the field artillery during World War I and Justice Frankfurter as a Major in the Army legal service; however, there is no way to know if they were personally aware of the use of shotguns by American troops. During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.[9]
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
And in our adversarial system one side fails to show up and present any evidence whatsoever and you hand-wave it away as “excuses, excuses”? That’s just some razor-sharp logic there. Seems like another case of you ignoring facts inconvenient to your position.
Building on the reasoning and holding in Heller one could argue that grenade-launchers are not standard issue weapons, at least not in any military I’m aware of. And I would have no problem with the upper-limit of gun ownership in the US being restricted to arms that are standard issue in the military or at least bear a “reasonable relationship.”
The Swiss have a modern militia where members keep their weapons in their home (or have the option to do so). Grenade-launchers are not standard issue in the Swiss military either and as far as I know would not be included in the weapons Swiss militia members keep in their homes as part of their service.