I believe there’s currently an 18-year waiting period as it is.
I’ve just about had it with all these damn voters killing kids in our schools, churches, and synagogues.
For over two centuries there has not been one right that has been absolutely, unconditionally, free of any limits whatsoever regardless of circumstance. At best, legislatures and courts have said, “oh, THAT is not included in what freedom of (whatever) means” (see: libel; polygamy; sawed off shotguns; etc) or have recognized exigent circumstance - sometimes unjustly, but they have.
Anyway for those two centuries *it was never the general norm everywhere *for everyone to be maximally armed 24/7 everywhere they set step. And that includes what many call the Good Old Days.
OTOH as Chronos mentions it is not an absolute all-or-nothing proposition. (Although at both ends of the spectrum some have given hints of that: at least in the matter of state by state legislation, there are pro-gunners for instance who have advocated total interstate reciprocity which would mean the laws of the least restrictive state would trump everyone else’s, and anti-s have OTOH sought to use federal preemptions whenever they can, and some of their leaders stated they do want total removal of some arms from civilian private hands; some Pro-s who have taken positions that their gun toting overrides a private owner’s entitlement to say what goes inside their property; and so on and so forth. )
No. Velocity said that “people…would have no means of self defense.”
I hear that same phrase said a lot in these kinds of threads, and it’s just wrong. I would prefer the discussion to be free from hyperbole and free from factually incorrect slogans. That’s all.
I mean, it’s literally true that defensive gun use may prevent some crime but it might also be true that gun use that users consider defensive are really just crimes. Research shows that policies intended to promote defensive gun use tend to increase crime. For instance, there is no evidence that stand your ground laws reduce violent crime but there is evidence that they increase homicides.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground/violent-crime.html
Second amendment absolutists should be appalled at the idea of interstate reciprocity for the carrying of firearms. The second amendment was intended to allow states to provide themselves an armed militia. Such a militia is useful for states to resist the power of the federal government or that of other states. The founders would roll over in their graves at the idea that a federal law could empower California to send three million armed troops to Wyoming and Wyoming law could do nothing to stop it.
That’s how it should work, but the progressive left seems to think more like a revolutionary elite. Making decisions based on what the [del]proles[/del] people want is the opposite of their m.o.; in this case, weaning America off the “gun culture” according to some.
And there’s an extreme asymmetry to passing vs. repealing laws, almost a one-way ratchet: once something’s illegal, the law stays on the books by sheer inertia, since government has almost no institutional interest in controlling fewer things. Would marijuana have been made illegal at any time since 1970 if it hadn’t been already?
I think I’m missing something here.
The second amendment is about preserving states’ ability to maintain a militia, right? It’s right in the text.
“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.”
It’s for the prevention of tyranny and all that.
But a new federal law is passed. It says that if any state allows you to carry a weapon in its borders, you can carry that weapon in any other state, regardless of that second state’s laws to the contrary. That’s how reciprocity would work. The state can’t pass a law that prohibits you from carrying that weapon there.
So California passes a law issuing carry permits to members of its militia. It grants two million such permits, buys them guns, and pays them to occupy Wyoming. Wyoming is stuck with two million armed Californians in its borders and it has no legal remedy unless they break some other law.
Do you know which “candidate” has won almost every single Presidential election? I’m speaking of the candidate who beat Reagan in the 1984 “landslide.”
Did.Not.Vote. Did.Not.Vote even edged out LBJ (barely) in the 1964 landslide. American elections are not about changing people’s minds. The people too stupid to pick a Party are going to vote based on hair style, or Facebook jokes.
The reason not to get gun nuts riled up, is NOT the fear that they may stop voting rationally — that’s not an option. It’s the fear they may vote at all.
Many gun lovers have signaled they will commit a felony by lying to the authorities if government exercises its legal right to ban guns. In the Age of Fake Facts, Everybody’s a Constitutional Lawyer. 
Tell me, do you stand under a gold-fringed flag when you lie to the police?
The gun lovers pretend to be about law and order. But then they brag about how they’ll turn felon when Hillary comes for their Gunzzz! Bah!
You’re saying that anything- anything whatsoever- should be obeyed if it somehow gets duly passed as a law?
I believe defensive gun use rarely makes the news but vastly outnumbers offensive uses.
You do not live in such a country. What you describe is in violation of several federal laws.
Or do you mean that they can get away with doing that despite the law against it? Isn’t that one of the main complaints by the pro-gun side? That law abiding citizens will obey the law, but gang members and their girlfriends will continue to own and use guns despite the prohibition?
That is exactly the prohibition (a complete handgun ban) that was at issue in Heller. Four Justices of the Supreme Court believed it to be a proper ban as did Barack Obama and all of those on the left.
Chicago had a similar ban as did many surrounding cities and if not for Heller and McDonald would continue to have those bans.
This is an alternate universe where a handgun ban is just an outrageous idea that hardly anyone proposes. Many did and would continue to do so if not ruled unconstitutional.
Unfortunately this is not necessarily a good thing.
Without gun control, you have offensive gun use.
Here in the UK we have almost zero defensive gun uses. You’re not allowed a handgun and can only have a shotgun for other reasons (e.g. shooting vermin in the country.)
We also have zero school shootings.
This.
In fact, I’ll go one step further and say the current laws are too restrictive when it comes to gun rights. I would love to get rid of NFA 34 and GCA 68, and once again buy a Thompson submachine gun mail-order through Sears.
What would you use it for?
(I’m asking because the thread asks “What downsides do you think restricting guns have?” What are the downsides to you of not being able to order and own a Thompson submachine gun?)
You do seem to have a problem with knives, though.
It would be fun as hell to shoot, although I couldn’t afford to very often.
Downside? Gangsters don’t have them any more is as upside.
If gun nuts want “We obey laws we like and disobey laws we don’t” as their party platform, that’s fine. Whateverness.
But in that case, might it be a teensy bit hypocritical to call their party the Law-and-Order Party?