Gun controll - Can someone put a bullet in this thing?

[Howdyphillip]

That's a mighty broad definition of "infringe."

Would you agree then, that using that definition, there can no no laws, none at all, governing the right to keep and bear arms? Your definition will mean a free-for-all on all weapons, to all people. Any law that you can think of, I can use that definition to argue that it's "encroaching" or "affecting" my right to keep and bear arms.

Is this what you support? That there are no laws at all in terms of regulating the keeping and using of firearms that you will support?

Because if not, then you're not arguing in good faith.

I know this is a completely radical position, but you have pretty much nailed my thoughts of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Under law, there should be no infringement on the right to bear arms.

I would favor a constitutional change that would be more reflective of the times. This is the place to enact registration, weapon limitations, and laws about upkeep and training for conditions on ownership. Being that it would take a 3/4 majority to change, you would also have federal law that wouldn't be as affected by the anti-gun movement, and be more reflective of what the US wants to do as a society as well.

[TerraPrime]

I know this is a completely radical position, but you have pretty much nailed my thoughts of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Under law, there should be no infringement on the right to bear arms.

I would favor a constitutional change that would be more reflective of the times. This is the place to enact registration, weapon limitations, and laws about upkeep and training for conditions on ownership. Being that it would take a 3/4 majority to change, you would also have federal law that wouldn't be as affected by the anti-gun movement, and be more reflective of what the US wants to do as a society as well.

Okay, I can respect that position, actually.

I, too, support no restrictions on any firearms to anyone. Although, in my mind, registration is not a form of restriction. Anyone can own any gun, as long as they register. Because I would also like to see severe penalty to any gun owners whose firearms caused any harm to people in situations other than self defense.

You didn't know your gun was stolen and it was used in an armed robbery? 10 years for you. Oh, the gun was fired and killed the shop owner? 30 to life.

Your son took the gun and opened fire at school? You go to jail, as if you had fired those shots.

Your four-year old son just shot himself to death using your gun? I'm trribly sorry. Now please follow me to your cell.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So it's paranoid to think a controversial 5-4 decision on a hot button political issue could be reversed by a change in Court membership? Been known to happen....

Remember Citizens United? Reversed a prior Supreme Court ruling less than two decades old, and another one less than one decade old.

Then there's the gay sodomy case, Bowers v. Hardwick, effectively reversed less than two decades later by Lawrence v. Kansas. All because of shifts in political sentiment, not any actual change to the Constitution.

So yeah, given the apparent consensus that the country as awhile is moving the the left on gun control, and the individual right to keep and bear arms only survived by a single vote, I'd say that right will remain extremely vulnerable for the foreseeable future.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just had an idea regarding the future of Heller, and the prior discussion with RK about the Militia Clause that would enable states to constitutionally ignore a reversal of Heller.

What if a state passed a law codifying the existence of the unorganized militia as all non-felons 18 or older? The law states that members of the militia are subject to call up at the discretion of the governor, will be required to furnish their own weapons, and are therefore authorized to maintain such weapons in their homes. That's the concept, subject to tweaks.

Even if Heller was reversed, and there was no longer an individual right but only a "militia" right, I think there would be a very strong constitutional argument that the Feds could not lawfully disarm the state militia, which is what they'd be doing if federal restrictions on ownership exceeded what a state wanted its citizens to have.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Just had an idea regarding the future of Heller, and the prior discussion with RK about the Militia Clause that would enable states to constitutionally ignore a reversal of Heller.

What if a state passed a law codifying the existence of the unorganized militia as all non-felons 18 or older? The law states that members of the militia are subject to call up at the discretion of the governor, will be required to furnish their own weapons, and are therefore authorized to maintain such weapons in their homes. That's the concept, subject to tweaks.

Even if Heller was reversed, and there was no longer an individual right but only a "militia" right, I think there would be a very strong constitutional argument that the Feds could not lawfully disarm the state militia, which is what they'd be doing if federal restrictions on ownership exceeded what a state wanted its citizens to have.

I like that. I bet if I sent it to my district rep it would be the law in Arizona next year.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes, it is a freaking diabolical way around federal gun laws.

[RaceBannon42]

So what happens to the these unorganized militias when some governor decides to call them up?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Uh....the news reports it? The sun comes up? Someone farts?

[RaceBannon42]

Wouldn't this require every non felon adult to own a gun and be subject to the whim of the governor?

Flooding? Call out the militia to sandbag.

Hurricane? Call out the militia to clean up.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Write into the law that the militia can only be called up to repel invasion of a foreign power?

[Jon Sprunk]

What if a state passed a law codifying the existence of the unorganized militia as all non-felons 18 or older? The law states that members of the militia are subject to call up at the discretion of the governor, will be required to furnish their own weapons, and are therefore authorized to maintain such weapons in their homes. That's the concept, subject to tweaks.

This from a member of the party that claims to be promoting individualism? LOL. Sure, let's just shanghai every non-felon adult into a govt-run militia. Why stop at non-felons? Doesn't that create a two-class society? That provision would probably be struck down. And why stop at 18+ age? Why can't children have the right to protect themselves? The second amendment doesn't mention age. Stop trampling my delinquent child's rights!!!!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Pretty simple. Every adult is considered a member of the militia, but reporting for the calli up either is voluntary, or has no penalty for noncompliance.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Or, you could build other limitations, like Tormunds, into the statute. What makes the NG different is that states accept federal money for it, so that takes it out of the pure militia category.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Heck my limitation would probably make it more likely to pass here in AZ. We don't really have natural disasters as such, but we have a bunch of old republican cranks who are worried about the Mexican hordes poised to stream across the border (probably wearing blue helmets).

[blasted_saber]

As someone from a country which just scrapped a national gun registry, I can speak to the fact that it does NOTHING at all to prevent gun violence. The simple fact is a criminal doesnt give a rats ass if a gun is registered or not. The criminal is not going to register his guns. And then, even if a gun is registered, it still can be used in a crime. A piece of paper stating its ownership doesnt stop the trigger from being pulled.

Its a MASSIVE waste of money, and even up here in Canada we had substantial non-compliance and serious issues with the system.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This from a member of the party that claims to be promoting individualism? LOL. Sure, let's just shanghai every non-felon adult into a govt-run militia. Why stop at non-felons? Doesn't that create a two-class society? That provision would probably be struck down. And why stop at 18+ age? Why can't children have the right to protect themselves? The second amendment doesn't mention age. Stop trampling my delinquent child's rights!!!!

I assume you are aware that all males between 18 and 45 are already members of the militia under federal law that has been in effect for over 100 years,

Right?

[Kouran]

Well looks like Magpull is moving out of Colorado and Colt is looking seriously into leaving Connecticut. I guess that lawmakers just dont give a shit about people who will lose their jobs and the communities that will be effected, not if they get a good photo op out of it.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Colt needs to drum up some consumer support after shitting on the civilian market for years now that FN Herstal has nabbed the DoD contract for the M-4

[Jon Sprunk]

I assume you are aware that all males between 18 and 45 are already members of the militia under federal law that has been in effect for over 100 years,

Right?

And why aren't you up in arms about it? Government overreach! (In case you didn't catch it, my response you quoted was dripping with sarcasm.)

But something you said earlier was very revealing...

...given the apparent consensus that the country as awhile is moving the the left on gun control...

This is what really bothers you, isn't it? That the country is moving forward, and you don't want to be part of it.

[Jon Sprunk]

As someone from a country which just scrapped a national gun registry, I can speak to the fact that it does NOTHING at all to prevent gun violence. The simple fact is a criminal doesnt give a rats ass if a gun is registered or not. The criminal is not going to register his guns. And then, even if a gun is registered, it still can be used in a crime. A piece of paper stating its ownership doesnt stop the trigger from being pulled.

Its a MASSIVE waste of money, and even up here in Canada we had substantial non-compliance and serious issues with the system.

Is that why Canada's gun-murder rate is so much higher than America's?