Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

are you trying to pretend that "the right of the people" doesn't implicate individuals

 

yep at the federal level it violates two amendments clearly and one by implication

 

I think it’s because they look at gun control as a slippery slope which in my opinion it has been. When I grew up there was no gun registration, no background checks, no waiting period, no nothing. The only gun control law on the books was that one had to have a federal permit to own a machine gun. Yet in that decade, the 1950’s there was only one mass shooting. That was done by a Puerto Rician nationalist group. Today, we’d call that a terrorist attack.


https://history.house.gov/Oral-History/Events/1954-Shooting/


When I turned 12 or 13 my dad gave me a .410, I’d ride my bike into town to the Western Auto and buy shells for it. No question asked. Since then, we’ve had tons of gun control laws passed. That constitutes the slippery slope. Instead of trying to find the cause or reason why mass shooting has soared since then, it seems like the only answer to many, maybe most is to take all guns away. We’ve heard just this last law and no more too many times.


Now this doesn’t mean some gun control is needed along with trying to find out the reason why so many mass shootings have occurred recently. To me, gun control is a band aid approach when we should be delving deep into our society to find out where we went wrong. From 28 mass shootings from 1900-1970 to hundreds since 1970. Why? Does anyone care? It seems they don’t. Remember we had the Al Capone gangster era in which gangsters added more than their share to the 28 mass shootings. Why is it everyone, at least it seems everyone is too afraid to go searching for the cause of mass shooting. Perhaps no one cares. If they did, we’d be looking for the cause or reasons right now. We’re not. No, it goes back to that slippery slope. Failed promises, broken agreements, a total lack of trust.


Mark my word, if one is successful in taking all guns, the killings will go on by other means. There’s been plenty of knife attacks in the news these days, that’s another means. We had bombs, arson and chemical attacks. One needs to find out why someone would go out and kill people for what seems no good reason. Killing for killing’s sake. I suppose a lot of folks, gun control folks will think I’m all wet. Here’s the thing to remember, most mass shootings pre-1970 were familicides or felony related crimes. Mostly the shooter knew his victims. Since 1970 most mass shootings were in public places against innocent bystanders, his victims were unknown by the shooter.

 

The AR 15s started hitting the civilian market during the middle of the Vietnam war. I first saw a real M16 when the race riots were raging after Dr King was murdered. A grade school friend was the son of a very wealth well connected home builder. We were at his house and we commented about the riots-and his father noted-don't worry boys, we have protection. He walked back in a hall way, opened a closet and came back with what turned out to be a real M16. He said he had to pay 200 more for the rifle-the semi auto ones didn't require that extra 200 but the shop where he got the M16 had some ARs. for the FIRST THIRTY years that these rifles were on the market, there was no mass shootings with them and almost no murders. I do remember a case of communist demonstrators in Greensboro 1979 when they attacked klansmen or Nazis and several communists were killed-and one of the shooters had an AR-IIRC all were acquitted because we discussed the shootings in my first year criminal law class. There was debate on whether the shootings were self defense. No one made much of the fact an AR 15 was used in at least one of the killings

 

~ How many people have much use for you ..? There's something to think about...

 

getting a bit touchy aren't you. why don't you tell us what is the underlying natural right upon which the second amendment rests upon.

 

You cited a law friend. Case law regulates statutes. See how that works?

You talk about cases and case related information all the time. Engage with the debate topic or don't, none of us care because you're not attempting good faith. For example: You want to discuss con law but don't want to read the cases.

 

You're talking constitutional law. You can't get away from the cases.

 

OK. Thx?

 

OK, posting the exact words of the 2A is constitutional law. Thx again?

 

This is all great navel gazing. Here's the deal: The document says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. If you'd like to change what it says, there are rules.
Follow the ****ing rules.

 

You're welcome and see how reading didn't hurt you at all? Now read the cases.

 

Not interested in the cases.

They won't change what the words of the 2A says.

edit:
I find them quite boring and my eyes gloss over from all the weird legal wording.

 

They won't, but you should still get an understanding of what the law is.

Into every life a little rain must fall.

 

Where do you see the word individual in the 1st Amendment, either.

 

^^^^
The words of someone not interested in the truth.

 

This gun fight stuff isn't worth it.
Bottom line, guns are never going to be completely banned.
Some arms will be infringed.
Every person has their own line in the sand on where they like the infringements.

 

Us Code -that defines our laws- defines me as the militia. Participation as militia is however voluntary due to nothing being enforced. Therefore participation is my individual choice. For example, no one is forcing me to be armed, even though, as the militia, the authority exists to enforce such regulations on me and rest of the militia. The reason for those regulations not existing, I suspect, is because TPTB only wish to enforce one thing upon the militia, and the constitution forbids it- that the militia disarm and disband. Since that cannot lawfully (or realistically) be enforced, nothing else is enforced either. And so, this 'group' you refer to is a group in name only, as those who are members of it are left to determine what being 'the militia' actually means (down to and inluding nothing) on a completely individividual basis.

Anecdotally, I was voluntarily a part of a 'militia group' that petitioned our governor (whom our state constitution defines as the top of the CoC for the militia in our state) for guidance regarding training, duties, command structure, etc, basically REQUESTING REGULATION, and we recieved no response.

 

I can’t speak for all Americans, only for myself. But no, I’m not frightened I couldn’t pass your requirements for firearm possession in the UK. As a suppressor owner I’ve passed just as stringent requirements multiple times.

The reason I oppose law similar to yours is because firearms are essential tools I use daily in my business and your laws would “ban” those tools.

None of the firearms I routinely use in my business are legal in the UK. In other words they are banned.

Furthermore, the manner in which I use firearms is illegal in the UK, so my use case is “banned” in the UK.

If laws similar to yours were implemented here all the firearms I use daily would be unavailable to me—banned. All I would be left with would be essentially toys with no practical use for me. And those firearms would be illegal to use as I use firearms even if they were practical.

The “regulations” you propose literally ban (or make illegal if you prefer) the firearms I use and ban (make illegal if you prefer) the manner in which I use them.

 

So we have guns with our laws and you think if you had UK laws, guns would be banned? Can you clarify your oxymoron.

Are you saying you, or the people you know, or your employees don't have a safe suitable background to have a gun? Would that mean guns are kept out of unsafe hands?

 

Can you own an AR15 in the UK?
Can you own a Glock 17 in the UK?
No. Those guns are... banned.
If we had your laws here, those guns would be... banned.

 

Fact remains:
If we had your laws here, those guns would be... banned.
Your laws... ban guns.

 

you didn't answer his question. Handguns are banned for almost every private citizen in England. So are magazine fed rifles like the AR 15. I doubt private citizens who aren't well connected or government toadies can carry concealed handguns. In my state of Ohio, I no longer need a permit to carry. I also can carry automatic knives-I believe those are banned by Nanny State England.

 

Is he trying to pretend gun owners have better rights in Nanny State England?