3 day, 7 day, etc waiting periods, limits of x amount of firearms within a 30 day period. De facto gun registration in the form of ATF microfilming and digital spreadsheeting, need I go on?
how does that compromise what gun you ended up with anyways?
You almost got it right.
The honor, however, would be directed to the idiots who deny others their Constitutional right to bear arms because they are fwightened by the big, scawy guns. Take Virginia Tech, for example. If someone there had been legally armed and carrying, the result would have been vastly different. Same for the Killeen shootings at the Luby’s Cafeteria in 1991.
And BTW - the recent shooting at Ft. Hood was carried out with a weapon issued to the shooter by the army he was supposedly serving in. I stand to be corrected on that, but I have not heard anything to the contrary.
NFA Act 1934
GCA Act 1968
FOPA 1986
AW BAN 1994
All of these are at the Federal level. This does not even scratch the surface of doings at the state and city level.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iU2FSOlnxfzhAwbNibWTIhohwLVQD9BQ9A2G3
He purchased the firearm legally, in a gun store.
Both of them, one of them was one of those ‘revolver’ guns, you know, the ones that aren’t as dangerous (But actually have more ballistic power).
Two points:[ol][]The militia is simply the people, the mass of the populace, armed with their own privately held weapons. And yes if you want me to cite chapter and verse on why that interpretation is almost certainly the correct one, I’d be happy to devote a thread to it. But for now let’s just say that the “collective” interpretation has been widely discredited, except for gun banners who want an excuse to nullify the 2nd.[]As I believe I mentioned earlier, none of the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are held to be limitless. But neither does that mean that they can be dismissed for trivial reasons. The right of public assembly for example, does not mean that police can’t order an unruly crowd to disperse, or even that cities can’t require parade permits for public demonstrations. But it does mean that the right of assembly is a right, not a privilege the government can bestow or withold at will. It certainly does mean that the government can’t decide that any unauthorized gathering of more than five people can by statute be declared a riot, no matter how convenient that would be for law enforcers.[/ol]
OK, show me what a compromise is. Us pro-gunners will give up the weapon used in the Ft. Hood shooting. You can outright ban it. What are you offering us in exchange?
You presume to know where each and every victim in each of those tragedies felt about gun control? Or are you just cold enough that you figure you might as well claim them for your side, 'cause they can’t very well speak up to disagree with you?
from Lumpy
If that is the way it was in 1789, that is clearly NOT the way it is today. But if we allow you the convenience of defining reality as it was in 1789, then I will take the same convenience. ARMS will be defined by the reality of 1789 as well. So you and every other person has the right to the same weaponry that the militia had in 1789 when you want to use your definition of MILITIA.
from Wikipedia
Thank you for opening that door.
sanity challenged
Y
I have a very strong suspicion that none of them would be willing to give up their life as they did last week so that somebody else can walk into a gun shop and buy such a weapon. I think that is a great deal to ask of anybody.
But like I have said, honor them. They paid the ultimate price so people like Chuck Heston and Wayne La Pierre and the rest of you don’t have to pay any price at all. Such a deal.
No, my friend, thank you for opening that door.
From wikipedia:
* **The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms**.that is certainly how it was back in 1789. So you want to use the definition of MILITIA as it was in 1789 and you want to use the definition of ARMS as it exists in 2009. Hypocrisy raises it ugly head. Lets try to avoid that please.
Not surprising that you ignored the first question. I don’t expect you’re prepared to actually give up any ground, ie, compromise.
Honor them, indeed, by treating them as human beings who had their own thoughts and convictions, rather than merely just defining them as statistics to support your cause. A very large portion of the population is willing to live with the risks necessary to protect our freedom to bear arms. No doubt a good portion of the victims in these tragedies were among them.
Except wikipedia wasn’t around in 1789, that’s todays definition.
Also, you can look up the word in the dictionary:
mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh’ə)
n.
** 1.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.**
2.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
mi⋅li⋅tia
/mɪˈlɪʃə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
Use militia in a Sentence
See web results for militia
See images of militia
–noun
- a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
- a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. - a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Unless you’re saying women shouldn’t be allowed to have firearms? Those aren’t ancient definitions of the word, they’re the ones that are printed in Merriam Websters English Dictionary, 2009 (well, not those, verbatum, but you get the idea)
ETA:
Screw it, we’ll include Websters definition:
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
So, now that every reasonable dictionary has disproven your idea that somehow the term ‘militia’ has drastically changed over the years, and wikipedia has as well, why don’t we move on?
But, even if it didn’t, the amendment doesn’t specify that you have to be enrolled in a militia to bear arms, it says that Militias are necessary to ensure free states, and that because of this, the peoples right to bear arms shouldn’t be infringed.
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.
See, nowhere in there does it say “But you can’t have a gun if you’re not in the militia!”
We are using the 1789 definition of “arms”; as in, “weapons”.
And we do not have anything like that today in American society. Such an entity has been long ago replaced by paid professionals who perform those functions as a job. The concept of militia as it was written and used in the Bill of Rights has not existed for a long long time.
Again, you want the concept as it existed in 1789 for MILITIA but you want the modern development of ARMS as it is in 2009.
A bit of intellectual consistency would be nice.
from Lumpy
And I agree that if you are in the militia you are entitled to the weapons of 1789 just like the Founding Fathers wanted you to have.
I am. I have informed my family and friends on multiple occasions that I find the benefit of being able to own the arms of my choice greatly outweighs the risk that someone could use the same kind of arms to kill me. I believe in this so much that all versions of my will have had the following clause in them:*
I specifically instruct that my personal representative, hereinafter named, that neither my name, likeness, cause of death, nor any of my estate proceeds shall be used to advanced any political causes intended to limit firearm ownership. My personal representative is specifically instructed to take legal action against any individual(s) or organizations which use or attempt to use my name, likeness, cause of death, or estate proceeds to advance a cause which would limit in any way, shape, or form, the legal possession of firearms by American citizens.*
This is verbatim from my current will.
I’ve had this clause in all my wills for over 25 years now. If I change my mind, I’ll take it out. So I don’t need some clueless dolt deciding what my position is after I’m dead!
Your inane nattering about the arms of the 18th century tells me you know as little about them as you do more modern weapons. You are almost certainly picturing them as cartoonish muskets with a bell-shaped muzzle like something from a children’s Thanksgiving pageant.
Tell me, do you believe a muzzle loading weapon from the period is less lethal than a modern gun?
In which case, you doubtless agree that if you want to publish something, you are entitled to a single-sheet screw press just like the Founding Fathers wanted you to have.
Haymarket, I’d really like to see your answer to this. Please show us a good faith compromise.