Gosh. Thanks for telling us that. Several times even.
As has been said, repeating the same thing over and over again does not necessarily make it true.
SCOTUS has interpreted the words of the 2nd amendment to overturn gun laws in DC. I suspect they even saw the word militia (I hear that they are voracious readers). I suspect ‘the right of the people’ was more important in their decision. If you want to repeal the 2nd, go for it.
I’m guessing that SCOTUS doesn’t consider the 2nd amendment a ‘quaint relic’ as you do. And apparently, it did not die ‘long long ago’ (your words).
Still waiting for you suggestion on compromise and what laws you would like to see haymarket
Behold, ladies and gentlemen - haymarketmartyris the face of the gun control movement. This is what anyone who believes in gun rights is up against, demonstrated right here. No understanding of the topic at hand - really, none at all - nothing but run-around arguments and subject-changing when confronted with actual facts, and an appeal to emotion instead of logic. This is the Brady Campaign, this is the Carolyn McCarthys and the Feinsteins and Schumers. This, people, is what is going to beat us in the end if we don’t have people willing to confront them and call them on their “arguments.” Because they will keep trying, and trying, and trying, no matter how silly and weak their position is - and eventually they will just wear the 2nd Amendment down.
Perhaps you misread what I wrote. Perhaps you are intentionally distorting what I wrote. Perhaps you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. Whatever.
What I called a quaint relic that died long ago was the MILITIA. Not the Second Amendment. The MILITIA.
Clear on that now?
I would like - as a compromise - to see the USA look very closely at the way guns are handled in Canada. As a nation and as a culture it is very close to the USA and they do NOT seem to have the problems associated with guns that we have here.
Yeah, I know, what do gun owners get in return. You get to keep the guns agreed upon without worrying about the public someday turning against them and taking even stronger poltical action against them and you. If you want more, maybe we can throw in a nice certificate of appreciation.
That’s a compromise in the same way a bully punches you in the face and says “Hey, maybe I wont kick you in the balls later, loser.”
Historically, by the way, what you say isn’t true.
The same line was touted at the 1934 Selective Fire Registry (not the correct name), saying “They’ll be registered, but at least they wont be banned!”
Guess what, 60 years (and zero crimes committed) later, they were banned.
Well that sort of compromise has fucked us at least three times at the Federal level since the 1930’s. You might be able to understand why we aren’t buying what you want to sell.
NO. I assume - and correct me if I am wrong - that what gun owners want is to continue to own guns for protection, sport and hunting. If that is correct, I am proposing that we take a careful look at a nation like Canada where gun owners can do those things but they do not seem to have some of the problems we do here. If that permits gun owners to achieve their goal of preserving gun ownership - then what is there to complain about.
Could you then provide the definition of the term MILITIA that the Supreme Court laid down for us?
As to the second part, if that is all we are discussing - what is the law today - there is little point in discussing anything beyond a simple recitation of the current law.
Would it do any good to provide cites that show Canadian gun owners DON’T like their system, it has cost billions and has NOT affected crime rates in any meaningful way?
But, economically and socially (from the point of view of social safety nets, which effects poverty lines), Canada is ‘better off’ than the US.
Therefore, when comparing the US and Canada, the USA is a much more ethnically diverse country, with a much larger ‘bottom to top’ income gap.
Those things have been shown to contribute to crime, where as the gun ownership correlation is tenuous if we’re being ridiculously generous. If your end goal is, as you say, to remove or at least reduce crime from society, it makes sense to do it in the most economically efficient way possible – that way the most crime is removed per dollar spent.
In states like Maryland, with Mandatory Pistol Registration, the programs have cost tax payers and gun owners a ridiculous amount of money and shown no results. On the other hand, funding social programs in at-risk neighborhoods and social programs aimed at at-risk groups, have shown a marked decrease in the amount of crime committed by the groups and in the neighborhoods.
So, is your goal to “End crime” or “ban scary things”?
You’ve got to be kidding. You’re holding up freaking Canada as a utopia for gun owners?
You say Canadian gun owners can own firearms for protection.
Name one civilian in Canada who is allowed to carry a firearm for protection, openly or concealed. Name just one.
How about this for compromise which give you something in return.
We are arguing about the eternal question regarding gun ownership - is it a right that applies to all individuals or is it a right that is only in the context of the militia and is subject to severe regulation and even removal for non-militia persons.
It has been rightfully pointed out that a recent Supreme Court ruling came down on the side that gun ownership is an individual right and not tied to any militia membership. So that issue has been decided in favor of the NRA and their supporters …
for now.
And that is subject to change when a future Supreme Court looks at the same issue and give the opposite ruling. Right now we have a rather conservative Supreme Court, perhaps the most conservative in several decades. Their decision in recent gun cases is certainly not shocking given the make up of the court and the fact that conservatives are in the majority.
But what happens when that changes over time - as these things almost always will? I would remind you that in 1942, the Court ruled in Betts v. Brady that a criminal defendant does NOT have a blanket right to a public defender except in special circumstances and in special cases. Just 21 years later, when the composition of the Court had changed ideologically and politically, the ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright the complete opposite. It is no secret that many right to life groups today are hoping to find the ideal test case to bring before the Court to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision which is not even forty years old.
The Court changes. The opinion of the Court on major issues can change with it.
Are all of you willing to risk having your ownership of guns and your claim of gun rights subject to the whim of the Supreme Court who reads the Second Amendment differently that you do?
That can be rectified and your rights strengthened through a new Constitutional Amendment that spells out clearly that an individual has a right to own a gun - and the Amendment can then address and define the specifics of what guns may be owned and sold and how. Guns which are made to hold magazines firing 20, 30 or more shots would be banned.
You give up something and you get something. Compromise.
Just because someone is more conservative than you doesn’t make them ‘conservative’.
To Lenin, Pelosi looks conservative. However, to the majority of Americans, she’s on the far left end of the scale.
To the majority, and I do mean majority, over 60%, view the Right to Keep and bear arms as an individual right. And that number is growing – it hit its lowest (around 55%, I believe) in the '70s. Since then, Pro-gun rights movements have been increasing, and anti-firearm legislation has been increasingly blocked by popular opinion.
Again you show your ignorance about the things you wish to regulate.
I havn’t the time to do that. You can call them at 555-SCOTUS.
Sheessseeee… I have no Idea if that decision interpreted the actuall meaning of MILITIA. But they WHERE smart enough to interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment and overturn DC laws.
GOOD. For right or wrong we can’t have mayors running ruff shod over the constitution.
I’m guessing that you are talking to me here as well. About the second part…
Is this it?
hay Is this what you are refering to? The second part?
Understand that the 2nd amd does not not grant rights. It prevents the federal government from refusing them.
And another amendment can be made to nullify the new one, once again fucking gun owners.
Almost every semi auto pistol or rifle can be made to, or currently can hold more than 20 shots. Banning them all is a ridiculous notion that will serve no purpose. Crime rates will stay the same and then the next thing to be banned is the highly accurate “sniper” rifles and the scatterguns that can throw out .30 cal projectiles as fast as a full-auto gun can.
How about this instead? Nationwide shall issue Concealed Carry with the compromise being that those who wish to do so submit to mandatory training and shooting proficiency tests. That would make anyone caught carrying without a Federal permit guilty of a Federal offense.
If you make an assertion, claim or allegation it is up to you to prove it. I do not do your research to support claims that you make.
todderbob
my goal is not the unrealistic pipe-dream of “ending crime”. I know of nothing that will.
I would simply be happy to see the goal of ending, or at least diminishing, the never ending series of gun massacres that bleed into our national consciousness more often than any rational person wants to see.
So if you could choose between spending X and reducing the total deaths per year by 100, or spending X and reducing the total deaths by year by 1,000, you’d choose the first because it makes you feel better?
Do you know how difficult it is to actually pass a Constitutional Amendment? I guess that could happen. Lots of things could happen. But I would guess the chances of the Supreme Court changing its ideological composition and changing a major ruling are far greater than what you are fearing. But if I could predict the future I would not be typing these words but instead buying winning lottery tickets. I suspect that also applies to everyone else here.
Perhaps that would be part of it. Perhaps. That would be something to look at. Again - predictions and lottery tickets.
So we would increase the number of guns on the street instead of decreasing them? We would increase the number of people carrying concealed weapons? We would allow persons like the next Ft. Hood or columbine killer to walk around every day of the week with a concealed weapon that he has been trained to use effectively?