I absolutely support the right of felons to vote (odd that you would bring that non-sequitur up), and I do think that someone who has served their time should have the same access to guns to protect themselves as any other legal citizen would have.
Does being a felon make you bullet proof? The argument is always made that you need a gun to defend yourself. Why does a felon no longer have the right to self defense?
I think it depends on the felony. I don’t believe that people with a history of violence should be permitted to own guns. Nonviolent offenses, maybe. Burglary is pushing it, it demonstrates a lack of respect for physical property rights and other peoples’ physical space. One incident 15 years ago and a clean record since - I guess that person can be trusted with a firearm. In and out of prison for a string of ongoing burglaries, no way. Growing weed or selling it, no violent crimes…no problem with that person owning a gun. Being convicted of drug trafficking as part of an organized group that uses strong-arm intimidation or is involved in gang violence…dubious. It’s probably something that should be decided on an individual basis…I’m not sure there’s a one-size-for-all way to implement it.
Way off topic here, but I think that the entire point of a judicial system should be to make a best effort to return someone who has strayed from the path of responsible citizenry to that path. To rehabilitate should be the primary focus of criminal justice, with punishment as a deterrent only enough to “keep people honest”.
If someone has repented of their mistakes, paid for their crimes, and rejoined society, then they should have all the same privileges of anyone else in that society. If society allows and even encourages the ownership and use of firearms, then they should be allowed to participate in that aspect of society.
Obviously, people on parole or probation are still being tested out in how they will reintegrate, so there is little need to be giving them temptations and force multipliers that may decrease their chances of successful assimilation, as well as make any recidivistic activity much more costly.
No.
Those 19 million people have demonstrated they have problems following the rules of society. I don’t have a problem with restricting their rights for the safety of the rest of us.
You want a gun? OK. Don’t commit a felony.
You mean, don’t get caught, arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted for committing a felony. Many people commit many, many felonies in their lives that they are never even indicted for, much less lose their rights for.
Also, don’t get targeted by the police, who will frame you for a felony in order to close their cases.
Don’t be the subject of any sort of misidentification. Certainly do not make any issues with a cop if you are being subject to misidentification.
But, if you want to threaten your family, your work, your school, your ex’s, go right ahead, there is no due process that will take your guns away from you.
Many of those 19 million people would like to be reintegrated into society. They have admitted their mistakes, repented their sins, and paid for their crimes. To then say, “Nope, not enough, nothing that you ever do will ever allow us to forgive you and rejoin society.” is to make trying to reintegrate into society entirely fruitless, why would or should someone work towards a goal that they are not allowed to achieve?
Many of these people are people that made a mistake in their teens, and are now, 20+ years later, adults with a completely different perspective. To continue to hold them to account, and never allow them to move forward, is , IMHO, not just cruel and inhumane to the felon, but is also counterproductive to society. Is it better to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year to house someone in prison, or to have them working in a productive job? Unless you personally profit off of the prison system, the latter should always be preferable.
Yet, for some reason, we refuse to take the rational approach, and value punishment over practicality. We prefer to see someone suffer their entire lives for a mistake they made than to see them overcome the obstacles and succeed. Part of it is human nature, in that we judge our lot in life by the suffering of others, and we can feel better about ourselves when we can point to someone else out there that has it worse than we do, but, that’s a part of human nature that we should overcome, not embrace.
IMHO, nearly everyone in jail is there either because society failed them in the first place, or they have mental health issues that society has failed to address and help with. It failed to give them a viable legal alternative to misery, poverty, and physical vulnerability, so they used illegal means to secure themselves. It is noble to believe that you would starve, that you would allow and watch your family to starve, while never, ever, ever stealing a loaf of bread, but that’s not how people work. Survival is a pretty high priority, and when one’s survival is threatened, the laws of man seem petty and puny.
So long as society puts people in the position of having to make the decision as to whether to starve with honor, or thrive in crime, I don’t feel as though we can really persecute those who choose the latter, it’s too much like entrapment to me, YMMV. We certainly can discourage their activities, even with some level of punishment for the harm they cause to society, but the focus should not be on making ourselves feel better because we are punishing a criminal, but to make society better by helping this person no longer be a criminal, and learning from this person as to how to prevent others from being in the same situation that turned him towards crime.
For those with mental health problems, we should be addressing those mental health problems, rather than simply punishing the people with those mental health problems and thinking that if you punish someone enough for having a mental health problem, they will be cured.
People who have not been a part of the criminal justice system have never been evaluated or adjudicated for their fitness for carrying lethal weapons, and we use that very criteria, that there has never been a reason to judge their mental fitness, for allowing them to carry. I would argue that someone who has had contact with the judicial system, has been helped and rehabilitated, and has been judged to be fit to reenter society would probably be more responsible with a weapon than someone who simply hasn’t been caught yet.
So, IMHO, so long as someone has completed the terms of probation or parole, they should have the same rights as anyone else, including the rights to vote or to own and carry a gun.
The whole allowing felons to vote or own guns is a bit of a hijack, why not someone start a new thread on it, please?
The voting half I would agree, though it constitutes a very small portion of the argument (which it seems you brought into the thread). The right to own and purchase a gun, as a felon has to do everything with this thread, as we are exploring what you consider to be reasonable exceptions to the clear wording of the second saying “shall not be infringed.”
Often when I say anything about controlling guns, it comes back “What does ‘Shall not be infringed’ mean to you?” as if that is an argument.
So, if the amendment says, “Shall not be infringed”, and that is a valid argument to shut down any gun control discussion, then why does “Shall not be infringed” not apply to people who have made mistakes and involvement in the legal system. Why does it not apply to automatic weapons, or even tanks and fighter jets?
The point of the “hijack”, is that it is not as simple as some gun advocates would like it to be. It is to ask for some level of consistency and integrity in the debate.
Shall I assume that you will no longer use “shall not be infringed” as a response or justification, and that if one of your fellow gun advocates does so, you will shut them down? If so, then this tangent has served its purpose, and does not need to go further.
If not, then you need to explain, in detail, when “shall not be infringed” applies, and when it does not, and justify your answer, in your own words not with an appeal to an authority like SCOTUS, when the entire point of the discussion is that some of us feel that SCOTUS got a few things wrong.
I can’t remember ever using that argument. I agree with SCOTUS in that no rights are absolute.
No, I will not shut them down, as indeed it is part of the law and a part that the Supreme Court considers very carefully.
And I don’t think SCOTUS got anything wrong. Their opinion was a careful measured response to a series of idiotic useless near total gun bannings in a few cities.
Your argument is very weak and can be turned around by asking: *“Do you agree that Kiddie Porn should be banned? Or Libel Laws or Copyright laws? If not, then of course you agree that the 1st Ad can be infringed, and therefore you can no longer defend the Right to free speech or free press!” *So you may think this is a “gotcha” but it is not. It is weak sauce.
No right is absolute.
And like I said, even tho they are stupid and useless, Assault weapon bans appear to be Constitutional. But far reaching, near total guns bans, such as Chicago and DC are most certainly not.
I don’t know if you have used that argument or not, but it has been shoved in my face on these boards by gun advocates before. But, if you agree that no rights are absolute, then why do you consider these rights to be absolute. You are the one who says that 2A would need to be repealed, and all guns confiscated, in order to make any difference in gun violence.
Good to know that your allies will continue to make the argument that gun rights are absolute, then.
And I do think that SCOTUS got it wrong. I think it was an overreach of power that prevents states and communities from having any control over the way guns are owned and carried within their borders. It was an activist, decision, motivated to make republicans happy.
No, my argument is not weak. My argument is the same one that you are making. However, you then turn around, and hide behind the protections of the amendment, as though it were an absolute.
To use the analogy that you just made, it would be like you justify your yelling fire in a crowded theater based on 1A being an absolute right, but then also agreeing that 1A was not an absolute right, and that there were acceptable limitations on it.
Why can you not accept that there are acceptable limitations to 2A?
Exactly, now you are getting it. Including the right to own and carry guns.
So, a partial gun ban is fine, but a “near total” gun ban is not. Can you tell me where that line is? (By the way, federal has “farther reach” than Chicago and DC.)
Somehow, given the makeup of the current court, I would bet that if the 1994 AWB were passed again, it would be overturned.
You obviously are not reading my posts. I do NOT say that gun rights are absolute.
I completely support this statement by SCOTUS "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
But yes, in order to make any significant difference in violent crime, guns laws would have to be so strong that they violate the 2nd Ad, and even then I am not convinced there would be any significant reduction after a adjustment period.
I do not claim the 2nd Ad rights are absolute.
Do you claim 1st ad rights are absolute?
Aagin, I do accept limitations on the 2nd Ad, as mentioned above.
I didnt say “fine”- I said appears to be Constitutional. Assault weapon bans are useless but they appear to be Constitutional.
If the laws inhibit a normal person from owning common guns for hunting, target, collecting, hobbys, and of course self defense- then they go too far.
SF, Chicago & DC went too far.
Please provide a cite for this claim of highly lopsided justice that you claim.
No, not every one gets caught. Not every one convicted it guilty. No one is claiming the system is perfect, that’s why there are appeals, commutations, pardons, etc. The question is whether or not there is an intolerable level of error. That discussion would have to begin with some evidence of what the error rate is.
Actually, there is - it is also an offense to threaten people with bodily harm or death.
I’m not opposed to restoring full civil rights to former felons - after a suitably long period of good behavior demonstrating that they can behave and stay out of trouble.
How long that should be is debatable, but do not straw-man me into an extreme position I do not hold.
Restriction of civil rights does not require the person in question to be in prison. That’s sort of the point of parole and probation - the person is not imprisoned but is restricted and living under conditions to continue to be outside confinement. Such people very much can have jobs and be part of their community. That doesn’t mean they should own guns as well.
That’s your opinion.
On the other hand, plenty of “white collar criminals” have gone to jail without having the excuse of poverty or mental health problems - Bernie Madoff anyone? Martha Stewart? (Although I find her conviction somewhat questionable. Neither of them were stealing loaves of bread to feed a starving family.
I agree, we should do more to address poverty and mental health problems, but not everyone in prison is there due to being poor and/or crazy.
I’m on record as being in favor of screening and licensing of gun owners at least as strict as what we impose for automobiles. I’d be open to something more stringent.
If someone has a condition or problem that renders them unfit to safely operate a vehicle we don’t give them a driver’s license. If someone has a condition or problem that renders them unfit to responsibly own and carry firearms they should not have them.
I’d be open to allowing actual prisoners the right to vote (but not carry a gun while in prison, obviously).
I am reading your posts. You on the one hand say that the rights are not absolute, but on the other hand, you say that those rights are protected. I am just trying to see where you have chosen to draw that line.
I disagree that gun laws need to be all that strong. However, if you have already decided that any gun laws that reduce gun violence must violate 2A, then you have already made the tautological decision not to support any laws that would reduce gun violence.
But you do claim that they would impede any attempt at limiting a person’s ability to get a gun.
No, and it puzzles me why you would think so.
But you do not accept other limitations on 2A, which are interpreted based on the exact same wording. It either says “shall not be infringed”, and therefore, gun rights may not be infringed, or it suggests that we limit the infringements as much as possible, in which case, reasonable infringements to advance public policy and safety are acceptable.
We are just deciding what infringements should be considered acceptable. In that discussion, any talk of 2A protection or SCOTUS decisions are the actual hijack.
In your opinion, they are useless, sure. I mean, you have the support of the beltway sniper on your side, who, after the AR-15 was banned, bought instead, an MX-15, a gun that had just enough changed to it to make it legal.
So, it would be great if some of you gun advocates could assist us in coming up with legislation that your fellow gun owners and manufacturers won’t just find a loophole for, if you feel that the laws that we pass are so useless.
Ah, so we have to define what a normal person is. You have yourself said that someone who buys a gun with the intent to sell it to eligible people is a criminal. So, we can ban sales to criminals who will sell the gun that they buy to another criminal, right?
If someone wants to buy a gun because they are going to shoot up a school, well, that’s not a normal person, so we should ban sales to that person, as well.
If someone wants a gun to threaten or worse to their domestic partner, that’s not a normal person, so we can ban sales to them, too.
How would you suggest we discriminate against these people who are not normal, and doesn’t plan to use it for any of the tasks that you consider to be acceptable?
They went too far, but where exactly is the line? If they had been a bit more lenient, would the have been okay, or was their entire approach of having the temerity of trying to limit how guns are owned and carried withing their jurisdiction to be “too far?”
If we limit the guns in circulation, then we are not inhibiting access to common guns, just as a ban on automatics does not inhibit a normal person from owning common guns. Same as the AWB, it did not inhibit the common person from owning normal guns. However, since the AR-15 is much more popular than it was before the AWB, would it now be considered a common gun, and therefore, make such an AWB as was passed in 1994 unconstitutional?
In order to that, I’d have to claim to be aware of felonious activity that has not been prosecuted, and I’m certainly not doing that on an open forum.
Suffice to say, it is unlikely that you manage to get through your life without committing at least one act that a motivated prosecutor could not turn into a felony conviction.
The error rate for false convictions is higher than it should be. The error rate for never even knowing that a crime was committed is much higher, and obviously, uncitable.
Only if you follow due process. If you just say that your boyfriend threatened you, they can’t take away the gun, even just for a day or two. You have to swear out an official complaint and have a protective order made against him, or have him charged and convicted of domestic abuse.
There is no middle ground, no cooling off, no ability to just make sure that he doesn’t have access to guns for a bit. We saw this failure in the florida school shooting, and now I see this failure manifest when students are charged with felonies for saying something that, while inappropriate and possibly worrying, should just be to keep an eye on them and keep them away from guns, not necessarily destroy their lives over stupid remarks. But, that is the only way to limit their access to guns.
It is not a strawman, you said “You want a gun? OK. Don’t commit a felony.”, I took that as an absolute, as there were no qualifiers or any kind of softening of the statement. If you are adding nuance at this time, I welcome that.
Right, and as I said, it should be based on when they have completed their parole or probation. If someone is still on probation, then that specifically means that you don’t entirely trust them yet. If someone is off of probation, then that means that you feel that they are no more likely than the general population to commit a crime or violent act.
Yes it is. There are many out there who are of the opinion that society has no influence over people’s actions, and that mental health problems can be cured with enough punishment. They would see a cage full of animals who are there because they deserve to be there. In my opinion, many of them deserve second chances.
Now, we are talking again about these felonies that are not caught and prosecuted. For every bernie, there are hundreds of people out there ripping off their investors and never getting caught. Martha Stewart was a bit of a different situation. I wasn’t entirely against her paying for what she should have known was a crime, but I was against her being just about the only person who went to jail over it, and I was even more against her going to jail, when a few years later, the punishment for crashing our economy was a bonus.
Also, Bernie had mental health problems. He was greedy and sociopathic. Unfortunately, in certain positions in our society, you are rewarded for those traits, rather than discouraged from having them. I hope that he gets the help he needs in prison, so that he can return to society as a changed and rehabilitated (if a bit old) man.
As I said, nearly everyone. At a best guess, I’d say upwards of 90%.
Complete agreement here. I just do feel that felons should have the same rights to go through a screening process. You should not be punished for mistakes you have made up for.
Many countries do allow prisoners the right to vote, and I am for that. Any time you prevent a population from voting, you further marginalize them, and make it harder for them to see themselves as citizens. Not allowing a population to vote also increases you ability to marginalie them, as it’s not like they are going to vote against you. I think that prisoners being allowed to vote would actually make quite a number of improvements in our criminal justice system.
I told you now thrice- around the same line SCOTUS has drawn.
We have had gun control laws, some rather strong ones. They never had a significant effect on violent crime.
So then, you are Ok with solid restrictions on the 1st Ad, if I think they will make me safer? Like not giving any publicity to terrorist activity, banning all chat groups that attempt to recruit violent activity, and banning the names of any mass shooted from being publicized? Not that I want those things, but they would have greater effect than banning 'assault weapons", so and would reduce mass shootings and terrorist activity, so then you’re Ok with that right?
I have answered this now four times, do you need a fifth?
Reasonable restrictions include "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
Cities dont get to violate the 2nd Ad. Nor is a “approach of having the temerity of trying to limit the First Amendment is allowed within their jurisdiction”.
Like I said, apparently it falls within the Constitution to ban “assault weapons” but not handguns.
And I asked you, thrice now, what your opinion on it is, not what SCOTUS’s opinion is.
Are you saying that if SCOTUS comes out with a new opinion that either strengthens or weakens 2A, then that will now be your benchmark. If so, then simply say, “I agree with whatever SCOTUS says”, and there need be any more discussion.
If your opinion is not based on SCOTUS decisions, then I am curious as to where the line is.
And we have been over why we do not feel as though they were very strong, and therefore, never had a significant effect. As we have repeated endlessly, it doesn’t matter too much what the law in illinois is, when indiana is just a few miles away, with no border control or checkpoint or anything at all, other than a sign to try to stop the guns from coming in.
Not because you have decided this, but because we have decided as a society. IF we decide as a society that some restrictions should be applied to 1A in order to promote public safety, then we can have that discussion and see where we end up.
This is unlike your position on 2A, in which we may not have a discussion at all about controlling guns, without you complaining that we just want to ban guns and lock people up.
Of course, it seems as though you would derail any discussion about 1A, as well, with the same excluded middle accusations you make about 2A.
For some reason, you seem to believe that there is absolutely no room between complete unrestricted and unfettered access to a freedom, and a complete and utter ban of same. I do not know why you refuse to acknowledge that there is plenty of room in the middle. I certainly don’t know why you insist on being a mind reader and being able to tell the motivations of anyone who “claims” to be looking for ways to reduce gun violence.
[quote]
No, I’m good, you agree with whatever SCOTUS says, and have no opinion of your own.
And all of those are being peeled back, one by one. People are fighting against any and all gun legislation, and successfully getting it overturned. They are doing so on the basis of “Shall not be infringed”.
Oregon simply raised the age requirement to purchase a semi-automatic rifle, and the 2A’ers were having none of that, and have already filed suit. I think that it will probably succeed, given the current right leaning activist nature of SCOTUS these days.
I know that you don’t have an opinion, as SCOTUS hasn’t given it to you yet, but do you think that Oregon should have the right to raise the age limit for buying an AR-15, or is that a violation, in your eyes?
I agree that that is how rulings have come down, I do not agree that that is good policy. People complain about how we have a federal government that cannot respond to the needs of states or municipalities, and therefore, feel that states should have more rights. The needs of a rural area are different from the needs of an urban area. If someone wants to carry a gun around in a low populated part of north dakota, who cares, even if he is up to no good, what could he possibly really get into? If someone is carrying a gun on the streets of Chicago, they are actually able to be a threat to a large number of people.
Making cities follow the same laws as rural areas is just stupid. The constitution may be a suicide pact, but 2A is an ignoramus convention. The cities don’t demand that rural areas follow their laws, why should the inverse be true?
“Apparently”? So you don’t agree with, nor really understand why the AWB fell within the Constitution, jus that, since a SCOTUS ruled on it, it “apparently” is constitutional?
If Congress passes another AWB, very similar to 1994’s, and SCOTUS overturns it this time, due to the different ideological makeup of the court, will you suddenly realize that “apparently” it did not fall within the Constitution?
If the new SCOTUS overturns the automatic weapon ban, and opens up the machine gun registry, will you decide that “apparently” the automatic weapon ban was unconstitutional? If so, is it that it was unconstitutional all along, and you just didn’t know that that was your opinion until SCOTUS changed it for you, or will you say that the constitution changed in the meantime, which is why what was constitutional before is no longer?
Right now, I agree with the current SCOTUS opinion. I dont see what’s wrong with that.
DC, SF and Chicago for all practical purposes banned all handguns and all guns for home defense. Banning all guns? That’s not strong enough? What sort of gun laws do *you *want?
Yes, and as I have said- that’s always the excuse as to why Gun laws don’t work. " Yes, we know the laws didn’t work, that’s just because we haven’t made them strong enough and far reaching enough!" Except- why not- it’s just because gun laws don’t work? Law after law after law fails- and the idea is “Make more!” You know what the definition of insanity is, right?
For now the fifth time, I dont want “complete unrestricted and unfettered access to a freedom” I want reasonable restrictions, along the lines SCOTUS has suggested. Gee, I agree with the fucking Supreme Court, why does that make me the villian? Maybe you are wrong instead?
I do, except for at the current time, I concur with SCOTUS, along with most other legal scholars and legal experts.
No, they are not.
And Oregon’s law was fine and so is the legal challenge, and the Courts will decide which is right. I believe in the law and the courts.
Oddly, You seem to disagree with the Constitution of the United States of America, and i don’t. I have taken an Oath to uphold it, and I will.
Interesting questions and we will see what the Courts say. I believe in following the Law and Upholding the Constitution. But again, assault weapon bans or proliferation have no significant effect on violent crime in America. They can’t.
There is nothing wrong with agreeing with SCOTUS. I didn’t say that there’s anything wrong with agreeing with SCOTUS. You say you agree with the current opinion, I am just curious as to whether that was always the case. Can we just assume that all of your positions are informed by SCOTUS, or that you have opinions of your own, that just seem to coincidentally perfectly align with the current precedents set?
At the same time, do you think that there is anything wrong with disagreeing with SCOTUS? Is that something, that as an American citizen, I have a right to do?
First you say, “for all practical purposes”, which is a weasel way of saying, “not really for all purposes, but for the purposes I wanted”, then you turn that into “Banning all guns.” which is not the same thing.
We’ve discussed on several occasions what gun laws that I would advocate for. But, as you claim that all guns ar the same, and that someone can do with a 6 shot revolver the same thing that they can do with an AR-15, you are not able to acknowledge that different guns have different potential threats to the public.
If I ever agree with you on this assessment, if you ever get me to agree that there is no difference between the threat that different models of guns present to the public, then I will join in the ranks of “Ban all Guns!”, as you will have convinced me that that is the only rational course of action, and that there is no middle ground or compromise that can be found.
Yes, I am aware that you keep repeating that assertion. Repeating it does not make it any truer. Unless you can tell me what actually prevents someone from taking advantage of the weak gun laws in one state to bring guns into a state with stricter gun laws, then your repeated assertion is completely unsubstantiated, and is nothing more than your opinion. A definition of insanity would be to repeat the same unsupported assertion over and over, and thinking that this time, people will believe it.
Well, as that is not a reply to anything in my post, I don’t know what you are going on about. I didn’t say that you want unrestricted access, I said that you keep excluding that middle. You keep claiming that any infringement beyond what is for some reasons perfectly balanced to be exactly in line with your opinion is the same thing as banning.
There are no restrictions that you find to be acceptable. You don’t even find it acceptable to require that people who own guns also own a safe place to put them, out of the reach of children, and out of the hands of criminals. You can’t even bring yourself to consider that it would be a good idea to know who it is that you are selling your gun to.
And when those opinions change, will yours as well?
Gun laws are not overturned based on the second amendment? Okay.
So, you don’t actually have an opinion on it? Will you have an opinion after the courts have decided?
I’m not sure what this is in reference to, but it is out of line and it is a stupid comment to make.
That I have a difference of opinion as to the most proper and productive interpretation of a constitutional amendment doesn’t mean that I “disagree with the Constitution of the United States of America”, and just because you have “taken an Oath”, doesn’t mean that you will uphold it.
So, once again, you have no opinion on the matter that is not already adjudicated by SCOTUS? If SCOTUS upholds an AWB, you are for it, if the overturn it, then you are against?
And, as you say all the time, there is no specific definition of what an assault weapon is. If we define an assault weapon to be any semi-automatic firearm, then it would have a massive effect on violent crime in america.
I’m gonna be honest. The way that you reply makes it nearly impossible to tell what you are replying to, and makes it take several times as long to parse and try to reply. Is there any way that you could format your posts in such a way to be less confusing?
Like I said my opinions currently align with those of the Supreme Court. You seem to think this is wrong somehow.
Sure, you can disagree,* the Constitution protects your right to do so. *
No, for 'all practical purposes" means exactly that-* for all practical purposes. * In effect guns were banned in those three cities.
A AR15* can *be more dangerous as the rare but well publicized mass shootings have shown. But the simple handgun is used twenty times more for murders. Which then is the greater " potential threats to the public"? Of course various types of guns are different, but the AR15, despite the fact it looks scary and has a high potential, simply is rarely used by criminals in crimes. The FBI statistics bear this out.
So, you apparently want to ban “assault weapons” and apparently that is within the Constitution. But that ban will not and can not and has not have any significant effect on violent crime.
The Law prevents them. Thus, again, gun laws have no significant effect.
I do support the middle, the middle is what SCOTUS has said is legal under the Constitution. I support the Constitution. Do you?
CA requires that very thing, and it has not be successfully challenged in the Courts. It is legal to require that in households with kids that guns be kept locked or in a safe place.
Read what i said again. You said that "And all of those are being peeled back, one by one. People are fighting against any and all gun legislation, and successfully getting it overturned. They are doing so on the basis of “Shall not be infringed” in response to my quote from SOTUS as to what gun laws are constitutional. No* constitutional *gun laws are being overturned by the courts. SCOTUS has given guidelines are to what gun laws are constitutional. Show me ONE gun law that fits within those guidelines that has been overturned by the Supreme Court.
Maybe, I cant predict the future.
For now the sixth time, currently I concur with the Supreme Court. You seem unable to accept that a citizen might just agree with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
No, there are legal definitions on what "assault weapons are, just that they are primarily based on cosmetic features.
All Semi-automatic weapons is not the same as “assault weapons”. Since such a law would be struck down by the Supreme Court, it would have little effect.
I have earlier posted the disasters that would occur if you tried to ban half the gun in the USA, and in the long term, such a ban would have no significant effect on violent crime.
Wow, I missed a lot! Since k9bfriender has pretty much taken care of DrDeth, I’ll stick with this.
There seem to be numerous types of felonies, many of which don’t involve violence. If someone lies to the FBI when they are 18 years old, you feel they shouldn’t be able to own a gun for the rest of their lives? Seems strange to me.
This is a bit of a tautology, innit?
Then you can explain how ownership of certain types of firearms may be heavily restricted and not violate the Constitution, while restriction of other types of firearms does violate the Constitution.
I find no mention in the Constitution of caliber, rate of fire, or length of barrel, so how does one restrict ownership on these grounds without violating the 2nd Amendment?
I mean, looking at rifles:
Full Auto - effectively banned
Semi Auto - OK
Manual Repeating - OK (bolt action, lever action, etc)
From a Constitutional standpoint, why is that acceptable, but the below is not:
Full Auto - effectively banned
Semi Auto - effectively banned
Manual Repeating - OK (bolt action, lever action, etc)
All I did was move the banned line from Full to Semi. I didn’t create a new line, there’s no new concept there in terms of banning guns, I just changed the size of the pool.