Sometimes these threads can cause spirited dialog which will on occasion cause a mod to lock the thread...Why would this get locked? He’s right, you know.
Sometimes these threads can cause spirited dialog which will on occasion cause a mod to lock the thread...Why would this get locked? He’s right, you know.
Agree 100% - if someone cannot be trusted with a gun, then why were they released in the first place?
I'm not interested in cracking open the constitution for any more amendments. I don't see that going our way. That said, we should continue to strike down the unconstitutional laws out there now, and there should be challenges up front on the constitutional nature of laws being passed. It's ridiculous that we have to claw back rights and go through years of process to get back our rights when unconstitutional laws are passed or "rules" put in place by congress or even worse by agencies with no constitutional standing to do so.Agree 100% - if someone cannot be trusted with a gun, then why were they released in the first place?
I would also say that there is broad enough support that an amendment addressing gun ownership and possession by individuals with certain mental issues such as schizophrenia and psychosis could easily pass with overwhelming consensus.
And hot red heads!There are three groups that I don't think should have access to firearms:
1. Violent felons
2. Unsupervised children
3. Those who are mentally deranged.
This is a good question that I don't hear discussed very often. What is the limit, if any, on the 2A?
One of many definitions for "bear" is "to move while holding up and supporting (something)"
Does that mean the 2A only covers arms that can be carried by a person (thus eliminating nukes and artillery)?
I live rural. What if my neighbor bought a 155mm Howitzer and left it loaded and pointed at the nearest town or high school? What if there was no fence or security around it? Would that be OK?
Public servants don't have power over other citizens. Some just don't listen.Yes, and every capable citizen should be expected to have an adequate arm and show a minimum level of marksmanship.
And those who have power over others, hate that very possibility. For if those with power do not have superiority of arms, they would dare to be a citizen and not a subject.
I am a citizen.
This is also addressed in the constitution. It's not going to happen over a weak .223 weeble wabble launcher or 2 inches of barrel.How can this be changed?
Recidivism rate info is very interesting...A counter argument is that the recidivism rate for violent felons is around 60% where the conviction rate for the general public is less than 1% There is variance in the data by source but you get the point.
Yes, there are a lot of people with prior convictions that should be allowed to posses and can't. That should be fixed but that notwithstanding why would we allow a person with a 60% chance of committing violence have a firearm? We can say they should have been locked up longer or we need better filters for approving early release but that isn't the case today. This would be a very tough sell to the voting public.
Of course many practical people understand that it doesn't matter. Violent felons will find a way to get access to a firearm but that isn't a persuasive argument.
Yes, a tough sell to the public indeed. By extension, shouldn't it be easy to sell the idea of properly classifying prohibited persons through the amendment process?
It is absolutely rediculous that the legality of bump stocks, solvent traps, pistol braces, and FRTs is even a topic for discussion.
Why would we want an infringement of any kind put into an amendment to the constitution? Is that what you are suggesting?Recidivism rate info is very interesting...
Yes, a tough sell to the public indeed. By extension, shouldn't it be easy to sell the idea of properly classifying prohibited persons through the amendment process?
Absolutely not. I suppose other than to rant, my original intent was that the narrative surrounding legislative powers has been hijacked (republicans guilty as well) and most Americans have been duped into believing as much.Why would we want an infringement of any kind put into an amendment to the constitution? Is that what you are suggesting?
Of course it is. Once again you are punishing people for what others may do. You aren't stopping anyone from possessing a gun, let alone from using one to commit a crime. You are merely punishing that 40% that will never commit another crime.Of course many practical people understand that it doesn't matter. Violent felons will find a way to get access to a firearm but that isn't a persuasive argument.
For much, if not most, of gun owners in America, this is correct. It's a tool they have no intention to ever use outside a range.But these are just range toys and serve no practical purpose. Thus, it's not a big deal. Read it here on ingo.
So who gets to decide who the crazies are?Crazies not allowed to possess guns seems reasonable. But what if they're cured via therapy? Would that be akin to felons getting full rights restored once free? How easy might it be for anti-gunners employed by .gov to get more and more people classified as too crazy for guns? So many nuances once looking at individual cases. If recidivism rate is a concern, why release them, after all they are most likely to once again harm the public. If good enough for release, good enough for full rights. The 2a has been so damaged that society is debating grips, braces, thumbholes and round counts. There's been no official amendments to the 2a, but it's surely been changed from it's original intent.