An odd logical curlicue. You expect that because such weapons are well suited to a militia, the Supremes must find them kosher, because of the stated need for a “well-regulated militia”. OK, sorta kinda.
But what about the “well-regulated” part? Who commands this militia, what is their training? Why would they be so trained, seeing as we already have a National Guard. Got guns, uniforms, everything. Should we expect something equally disciplined and hierarchical as the National Guard, or were you thinking something more improvisational?
Or does one simply pick up a copy of Suggested Guidelines for the Well Regulated Milita at the same Wal-Mart that serves as an armory?
Go ask the Supremes, or read Heller and Miller, or just one of the thousands of threads on interpreting the 2nd. You can find the term well regulated referring to being well equipped. You can find that the.militia refers to all able bodies men ( now expanded to women I would assume).
Until then, this Court seems to have recognized the Right to Bear Arms. After that, it is all in the application.
Someone brought up an interesting point, which is that frequently discussions of this sort have been in the context of people making ridiculous claims about how Obama was going to grab your guns blah blah blah… so saying “no he isn’t, that’s ridiculous” could easily be misstated to some extent into perhaps going too far in the “Democrats don’t care about gun control” direction. That said, the extent to which those overstatements might now have been proven wrong is vastly overshadowed by the extent to which the initial alarmist claims were wrong. The fact that Obama spent his entire first term, with absolutely no guarantee that he’d be reelected, NOT doing anything about gun control, is pretty strong evidence that in fact gun control was just not a high priority for him.
Hmmm. You may have a point. If the point is to turn out the base, there certainly seems to be an energized element that supports an AWB. I’ll be the first to admit that Newton changed the conversation, for me at least.
Your what? Is that a scientology thing? You do realize that a shitload of those 30,000 gun deaths every year are children right?
Its too late if you wait until they are about to pass a bill. When you hear a hurricane is coming, do you run to the store and clean out the shelves when it starts raining? Well neither does anyone else.
I can’t find ammo anywhere except the range and they are frequently out of some of the less common rounds like the 357 sig. I am seriously thinking about reloading if I can get my wife to go along with bringing explosives into the house.
Thats all you need. I have absolutely no practical use for half my guns but I enjoy shooting all of them.
Is that what happened during the last assault weapons ban?
Gun stores were basically sold out by new years.
What I don’t get is people who already have an AR and and AK buying a second AR and AK during the buying frenzy. Did they think they were going to turn a profit on a $3000 AR?
You know my theory. The second amendment was primarily a safeguard of the states against a tyranny from the center. This mean that you cannot ban anything at the federal level and you can only ban things at the state level if both the federal government and state agrees.
Now the supreme court has reached into the penumbra and pulled out a personal right to bear arms but it has not entertained a challenge to the states rights against the federal government. I would have thought that some state somewhere would have challenged the last AWB but if they did it this time around, it seems like there is at least some chance that SCOTUS would rule that an ineffective ban would not be constitutional against the states desire that their citizens have access to these weapons.
And yet, without this supernatural gift, the Republican proved over and over again the last election cycle that the electorate recoils at many of their closely held beliefs abort abortion, “givers and takers” and immigration, to name just a few non-gun related issues. I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of the electorate to understand which party harbors beliefs antithetical to the mood of the nation. It would behoove the Republicans to take this to heart, given the thrashing they took at a time when they should have easily gained in the Senate and taken the presidency back.
While it’s been said before in this thread, I find it counterintuitive to state that the Senate Democrats’ failure to pass gun control legislation shows that they intend to pass gun control legislation.
It seems that, if anything, the fact that Congress can’t pass the most basic of gun control legislation in spite of numerous massacres, including one that killed 26 people, most of them young children, shows that it is a dead issue. The gun manufacturers have won this one.
And if I owned a gun, I’d leave it behind when I went on vacation. It’s hard to get into that properly relaxed frame of mind if you’re vacationing somewhere where you feel you ought to have a gun along.
True enough – the rhetoric about Obama being a gun confiscator was ridiculously overblown – a lie, in every practical sense.
Notice that I do not respond to this by demanding specific examples of specific politicians saying Obama was going to grab all my guns.
Why? Because I recognize that that was absolutely the KIND of commentary going around, and it would be dishonest to deny its existence, no matter how much success I might get by demanding to see a majority of current legislators’ comments before accepting it.
Bad comparison. I would not make the statement that any Republican Senators said Obama was going to grab everyone’s guns. I doubt that is true, even though it may have been a common refrain among certain parts of the electorate. Now, it may be that “Democrats generally want expansive 2nd amendment rights” may have been “the kind of commentary going around” among some regular folks (although I’d be surprised if it was), it wasn’t the kind of thing Democratic Senators, generally, were saying or implying.
And that is what you have been claiming.
When I vote for Democrats, I generally assume I am going to get more, not less, gun control legislation. I don’t think they are going to “grab our guns”, but I do expect things that are, you know, in their party platform.
Boehner cannot even endorse a position he actually supports; a position that has the support of more than 90% of the population. When he made the mistake of endorsing it he had to walk it back. The only reason he would have done so would be pressure from the NRA and their entrenched position in Washington politics.
These things don’t fail because they are stupid meaningless laws. They fail because people who are beholden to this group don’t have the balls to voice their own opinion, even when their own position is shared by literally nearly everyone and his brother.
Your noble adherence to strict standards of candor and straightforward honesty is a beacon to us all.
And I would be remiss if I failed to mention the educational value of your postings. Until you clarified the question, I had no idea that “no support” meant precisely the same thing as “not enough support to pass”. I have no doubt that many of us look forward to the day when English teachers and dictionaries gratefully acknowledge your creative and imaginative approach.
Mathematicians, too! Bricker has just created a wonderful new branch of mathematics where all numbers in the [0,60) half-open interval are equivalent. There are surely many insightful new theorems to be proven.
