Assault weapons ban unconstitutional...

[seer]

I am just glad you weren't there and in charge of the bill of rights, Jim.

that^

[Sparko]

The fact they could not envision what was coming can in fact mean that they did not consider the potential of trying to maintain the rights they proposed in said environments. In fact, that is more likely than the idea they considered all possible scenarios and went forward fully aware of the sort of situations we face today. In fact, I do believe that when Ben Franklin made clear that our system of government was only suitable for a MORAL people, he was getting a glimpse of what we face today - a society where morality has in many ways collapsed. For example, you can't have free access to guns when a significant percentage of the general population has no respect for life or the law, without also reaping carnage on the scale we are seeing.

I am just glad you weren't there and in charge of the bill of rights, Jim.

[oxmixmudd]

One could argue that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the telegraph much less radio, TV, phones, the internet, wifi... when they wrote the First Amendment so free speech only covers what is said to people in your physical presence or written by quill or printed by a hand-powered printing press. After all, such things greatly enable say the widespread dissemination of libelous and slanderous statements. Someone can commit treason, endangering the entire nation by posting highly classified material that can be seen worldwide in an instance.

The fact they could not envision what was coming can in fact mean that they did not consider the potential of trying to maintain the rights they proposed in said environments. In fact, that is more likely than the idea they considered all possible scenarios and went forward fully aware of the sort of situations we face today. In fact, I do believe that when Ben Franklin made clear that our system of government was only suitable for a MORAL people, he was getting a glimpse of what we face today - a society where morality has in many ways collapsed. For example, you can't have free access to guns when a significant percentage of the general population has no respect for life or the law, without also reaping carnage on the scale we are seeing or even beyond.

[Sparko]

It is when people are being gunned down daily by that misuse. Rights can in fact be lost. Just ask any Felon.

When do you suppose the cost in lives lost outweighs the potential benefit of the 2nd Amendment.

and you are advocating taking away the rights of non criminals because of what criminals do. That is like arguing that we remove free speech because people have misused it to defame others, or even start riots or wars.

[oxmixmudd]

Any freedom or right can (and will be) be misused, Jim. That is no reason to eliminate it.

It is when people are being gunned down daily by that misuse. Rights can in fact be lost. Just ask any Felon.

When do you suppose the cost in lives lost outweighs the potential benefit of the 2nd Amendment.

[rogue06]

The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that these arguments could apply to any freedom. The other thing you don't seem to appreciate is that the Second Amendment guarantees us the means to defend every other right. Disarm the citizens, and stripping them of their other rights becomes trivial.

One could argue that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the telegraph much less radio, TV, phones, the internet, wifi... when they wrote the First Amendment so free speech only covers what is said to people in your physical presence or written by quill or printed by a hand-powered printing press. After all, such things greatly enable say the widespread dissemination of libelous and slanderous statements. Someone can commit treason, endangering the entire nation by posting highly classified material that can be seen worldwide in an instance.

[Mountain Man]

Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the text of the amendment. I'm talking about the moral responsibility that is required to have and use a lethal weapon safely. Sure, you can just give guns out willy nilly, but that is morally irresponsible unless the population you give them to knows how to use them has the integrity and character to only use them as can be morally justified.

So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.

I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.

Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.

Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.

The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that these arguments could apply to any freedom. The other thing you don't seem to appreciate is that the Second Amendment guarantees us the means to defend every other right. Disarm the citizens, and stripping them of their other rights becomes trivial.

[rogue06]

I have my eye on a 45cal. derringer. Probably will beak my hand though...

https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-4...ger-perfected/

Looks to be longer than my .38 which has the sort of kick you'd expect

Since you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the second round, a little kick is not really an issue.

[Sparko]

Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the text of the amendment. I'm talking about the moral responsibility that is required to have and use a lethal weapon safely. Sure, you can just give guns out willy nilly, but that is morally irresponsible unless the population you give them to knows how to use them has the integrity and character to only use them as can be morally justified.

So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.

I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.

Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.

Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.

Any freedom or right can (and will be) be misused, Jim. That is no reason to eliminate it.

[oxmixmudd]

It implies no such thing, anymore that the 1st Amendment does.

Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the text of the amendment. I'm talking about the moral responsibility that is required to have and use a lethal weapon safely. Sure, you can just give guns out willy nilly, but that is morally irresponsible unless the population you give them to knows how to use them has the integrity and character to only use them as can be morally justified.

So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.

I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.

Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.

Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.

[seer]

The right to bear arms implies a population with enough integrity and sanity to be able to handle that responsibility. For whatever the reason, we seem to have left that place behind.

It implies no such thing, anymore that the 1st Amendment does.

[oxmixmudd]

If you don't like guns, don't own a gun. Simple.

I like shooting guns. It's great fun, a good skill to have. But I don't own an actual gun for many reasons, not the least of which is that keeping it safe from kids or theft means keeping it locked up in a safe where it would be of no use whatsoever in a home self-defense situation. So the only other reason would be the sport of shooting it, and I just don't really have the time for another hobby.

I'm not hopeful there is any real solution to the crazies our there shooting up people though. The 2nd amendment has allowed so many guns to be out there that reigning them in would be a herculean task. That is why I lamented it has become our curse. There probably isn't a way to stop the carnage. But it would be nice of we tried.

[oxmixmudd]

You do know that most people killed with a firearm are killed with a pistol. Would you ban those too?

It may be necessary - though I'd go for licensing with regular psych evals and certification for use before an out and out ban.

The right to bear arms implies a population with enough integrity and sanity to be able to handle that responsibility. For whatever the reason, we seem to have left that place behind.

[seer]

The closest I have is a .38 derringer. Great pocket pistol.

I have my eye on a 45cal. derringer. Probably will beak my hand though...

https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-4...ger-perfected/

[rogue06]

I have one of those, a 32 cal. made in the 1930s...

The closest I have is a .38 derringer. Great pocket pistol.