I would love to own a tank. 
Actually…can’t one own a tank? I thought I remembered seeing something on Discovery or TLC or something like that about a guy that collects old WWII vintage tanks.
-XT
What’s the contradiction? I don’t favor prohibition. I do favor more responsible controls.
The 2nd Amendment is unque in that it arguably specifies a collective. The other Amendments don’t don’t that.
You first.
[/QUOTE]
Me first what? I haven’t even said what my opinion is on whether the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, much less confused that opinion for settled law.
For the record, I think it was probably intended to apply to inviduals…but that’s just my opinion. The Supreme Court has yet to back me up on that.
This opinion has plenty of distinguished company:
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991
And of course the Supreme Court in 1939
Here are the court decisions supporting the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment. The lone renegade decision in the opposing viewpoint is US v Emerson. Since that decision, two federal courts, one a higher Circuit Court, have upheld the militia interpretation. (Gillespie v Indianapolis)
If got bad news for you: your freedom of speech is restricted. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a movie theater (unless there’s actually a fire). You can’t make slanderous claims about someone (at least not without risking a successful lawsuit against you). And so on and so forth.
In fact, every right is subject to some reasonable restrictions. In my opinion, reasonable restrictions on gun ownership would include prohibiting gun ownership by felons and minors, issuing licenses to own/carry firearms, requiring background checks, mandatory gun-safety courses, etc. Many of these restrictions are already in place, but in some places the restrictions are (in my opinion) too loose, while in others they may be too tight.
Some gun control advocates may secretly (or not so secretly) support gun prohibition (I’ll admit I once did myself, in the “everything is black-or-white” phase of my youth), but many just support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
Who here is disputing Miller?
We can’t get rid of the people but we can make more responsible laws regarding how guns are bought and sold.
Legally, yes.
I wasn’t born yet. I’m glad it was repealed. While it was in effect it was the law, though.
SCOTUS has yet to render a clear interpretation of the right bear arms one way or the other, so it can hardly REintepret something it has interpreted a first time. having said that, my personal opinion is the the amendment was intended to apply to individuals so an intepretation in favor of militias is the one that would be less appealing to me. My response would not be “I guess they’re right,” but “I guess that’s the law.” Whether I agree with it or not is beside the point. I think I’m being misunderstood in this thread. I am not personally trying to make an argument one way or the other regarding the interpretation of the amendment, I am only trying to make the point that it is legally incorrect to blithely make statements that the right of individuals to bear arms is a matter of settled Constitutional law, At this point, it’s still unresolved.
Once again, I’m not saying that the Court’s decisions are necessarily RIGHT, just that they are the LAW. As it stands, the Supreme Court has not yet made a definitive ruling on who the Amendment applies to. That is my only point. It is not correct to state that individuals have a clear LEGAL right to own guns. It’s still an open question. Those who declare this “right” with such confidence are confusing their opinions for the law. I agree with their opinions but I also understand it’s not quite the law.
Ok…fair enough DtC. At least you are consistant and I can definitely respect that.
-XT
Anyone who maintains that there is an individual right to gun ownership.
. . . were smart and evacuated and are watching the mess on CNN from your sister’s house. My brother-in-law watches Fox News, so I’ll be at your sister’s place too. Any need for guns at your sister’s?
Japan allows no private ownership of hand guns and heavily restricts shot guns and rifles. The angry crowd coming your way. . . doesn’t because they don’t do things like that here, anyway, but even if they did, they wouldn’t be armed with guns.
A few outlaws have guns here, and every couple of years an innocent person get shot by mistake, but there’s no need to for a gun to defend yourself.
Even in NO, it would have been more effective to have more national guard / police stopping the gangs than to try to out gun gungs yourself.
It would be nice to turn the clock back and remove all guns from America but since there’s no wagic wands, I prefer gun controls.
I see it this way: Gun ownership is made illegal for a private citizen.
Good guy and bad guy give up weapons
Bad guy buys them illegally and pays more probably
Bad guy attacks you brandishing a gun, rifle or what have you.
Bad guy wins because Good guy has no similar weaponry.What does this have to do with gun control? Gun control is not synonymous with prohibition or seizure.
Do you really think those who passed such a law were under the impression that hoods and rufniks would line up to turn in their guns? No, really: do you? And has it occured to you that the point of such a law was to keep guns from falling into the hands of criminals in the course of break-ins, muggings and car thefts?
The same principle applies. Gun control comes in all degrees. Guns can be limited to one per household or none. The Bad guy will still be able to illegally obtain guns of all kinds on the black market where the good guy is no longer playing on level ground.
I don’t suspect they really anticipated anything to happen. I would guess that the measure was put in place for use in future criminal prosecution of gun crimes.
But to your second point…there are already guns in the hands of criminals. In fact most gun owners residing in DC are committing a criminal act. Passing the law did not remove any guns from their hands, only from the hands of those conscientious enough to obey. And if a criminal element wanted to break into a home to steal a gun, they could drive 1/2 mile out of the no-gun utopia of DC into Virginia, where guns are readliy available to private citizens. The criminal hellbent on stealing a gun does so in VA and Mr. Lawabider remains unarmed in DC.
I see your point, but it only works on paper.
You have a very limited and draconian view of gun control. How about enforcing responsible gun ownership? Register and track all guns from the point of manufacture, through all sales, public and private, including gun shows and swap meets. It’s not that difficult, no more so than what we do with our automobiles. If a gun is stolen, it must be promptly reported, or the owner is liable a firearm offense. If a crime is committed with a gun, it makes finding and prosecuting the criminal easier. Gun owners and manufacturers should be more responsible for what happens with their weapons, and the law should enforce that.
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer The angry crowd coming your way. . . doesn’t because they don’t do things like that here[/QUOTE]
I am not doubting this, but what happened after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed? Was there looting or civil unrest?
I am asking because I don’t know, not to be facetious.
So even though you realize that the intended result was not criminals lining up to hand their guns in, you deride the law because it didn’t have that result?
As you said, it wasn’t supposed to.
Maybe. There’s always a way around most prohibitions whatever they may be. But the law does prevent guns from being stolen in a city with a large amount of crime, making the problem worse.
My point was that you’re mocking a law for not having results that were never expected in the first place, which doesn’t make much sense.
Good guy and bad guy both have guns.
Bad guy attacks you brandishing a gun, rifle or what have you.
Bad guy shoots you because he sees you going for your gun.
Register all the guns you want from manufacturer to sales. The bad guy will still have UNregisted guns to use at will. You are making it more difficult for the good guy to have a gun while the bad guy has a field day.
Lastly you should know by now that bureauracracy can’t even handle the registration of sex offenders much less their current habitat.
I disagree. Registration will control access to guns, though not immediately, but over time there with be fewer guns available to criminals.
I disagree. This approach does nothing to make the legal purchase of a gun so difficult that anyone who wants one couldn’t buy it.
I disagree. If we can successfully register our vehicles (and we do), we can register our guns.