Indeed it is disingenuous.
The 2nd Amendment is all they’ve got.
There have been a few out-of-USA Dopers in this thread and to the last there is a distinctive sense of surprise at how we do things here. IMHO it does not make any citizens of any other nation less civilized or less in control, for the fact that gun laws are severe and unforgiving outside of the USA.
To my point of view, it makes them eminently more civilized.
That is an absolute, utter piece of bollocks, with all due respect.
Most state constitutions grant at least as clear, yet often a more explicit right to private gun wonership than that in the federal constitution.
To claim that the Second Amendment is “all they’ve got” is just factually incorrect.
And on second thought, to add, many states have decisions explicity interpreting the state constitutional provision to defend private ownership of firearms.
I don’t think statements like that help your case. You’re fighting against their weakest argument while ignoring their strongest ones. That could explain, at least in part, why your side isn’t making much headway in the society as a whole. Other people are hearing the arguments about self-defense, deterence, and so forth even if you aren’t. Ignoring them just makes them easier for other people to hear.
I see signs in yards, on windows and on bumpers about having a weapon or some such but I do not see signs about not having firearms in ones home or car.
I carried two weapons concealed on my person, a .25 automatic and a ‘blackjack’ to high school my entire junior year. I never shot anyone or let anyone know I had them. :: shrug :::: Catholic High School with mean nuns…
I have a CC permit and carry a weapon now. Never have shot anyone as a civilian either. Military does not count.
It is not about weapons, it is about the people and their attitudes. Look to the failing quality of home training for the the birth to kindergarten group. That is where the problem is and we have created it.
YMMV
-cough- Not for nothing, but if your location I.D. is true then your state of all states doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on this month in terms of how excellent the state statutes are regarding handgun ownership, does it? The very fact of the weakness of the Virginia law and inability of gun shop owners in Virginia to enforce the statutes only strengthens my statement.
States can pass laws all they want that seem to supercede the 2nd Amendment but in truth, if the SCOTUS banned privately owned handguns and that portion of the 2nd Amendment and the interpretations applying to it were repealed, individual states would be helpless before that.
I should live to see such a day.
What on earth does this have to do with whether there is a constitutional right in many states to private ownership of guns? You really seem to be jumping around here. You may not like the right, but it is there in the majority of states, and trying to claim that it is only based on the second amendment is, well, simply ignorant.
I don’t think you understand the way the law works in America at all. Constitutions set limits on legislative action. If the Second Amendment were to be “repealed” and SCOTUS bans privately own handguns, it would have no effect whatsoever on state laws that are based on state constitutional rights. A state cannot offer fewer rights than those guaranteed by the federal constitution, but they are fully within their rights to offer more. You really need to learn a bit of constitutional law.
I think sometimes people are confused by the notion of a “federal” government. They think it feeds from the top down. But federal and federation come from the same root. A federal government is just a federation of sovereign states.
One slight correction… I talked about a state being within its rights. States don’t have rights, they have powers. So I should have said it is within a state’s powers to include rights in the state’s constitution for the citizens of that state over and above those listed in the federal constitution.