if you look at the undercurrent of the anti gun movement concerning the constitution you will see numerous attacks on the document--from attempts to taint the second amendment because (gasp) people who owned slaves were part of the founding fathers to the dishonest nonsense that they cannot understand what the second says (while completely ignoring the tenth amendment and Article One Section Eight). the bottom line is this-gun banners damn well know that their schemes are unconstitutional but they want to pretend the constitution matters not
Well, obviously. But I find it quite fun to watch them dance around trying to explain how thats not the case.
And yet, you imply one here: the paramount issue the founders faced was a standing army, the 2nd was sloppily written as an after though as muskets were not huge death machines then Why do you think the founders would have had a different opinion if the militia had access to AR15s?
thats not a what-if....yes if the powerful weapons now avaiable much more though and wording would have been given IMO
And thus, a what if. Why do you think the founders would have denied potential militiamen and frontier families an AR15?
as a ww2 fan i have read extensively on may different weapons its quite possible any semiautomatic weapon would need to be locked down securely until a militia was called, person defense, hunting weapons fine, maybe no automatic pistols, revolvers only etc
in a secure place in the home unrestricted guns will not last forever, if you think constituion demands it revisit the LBJ tonkin gulf resolution where he did an end run around the declaring war of congress...there is always away, and when enough demand it
lots of safes existed in that period? the reason for the second amendment was to reiterate that the federal government was never given any power over privately owned arms in the hands of private citizens acting in a private capacity
can you prove colonial america had no safes? the reason was bout standing armies, and that disagreement is a large part of the debate
can you prove that the founders views of citizens being armed are consistent with your re-interpretation of the second amendment? how many people do you think had "safes" back then? do you think the founders thought that the federal government had any authority to demand citizens keep firearms locked up?
i dont reinterprt anything and i have said im not a mind reader, if you think your interpretation is the only one i welcome you to the infallible right wing club
well can you find a single shred of evidence in the constitution of an intent by the founders for the federal government to have any control over what arms private citizens could own or use
there is none no one though muskets were agents of mass murder, the conditions of 200 years ago do not apply, they were members of the enlightenment and thought laws should be updated from time to time
only congress shall decrare war....as i sugested LBJ went around that with the tonkin gulf resolution, i simply propose the time will come when too many deaths will activate some similar response to guns
Please describe what you think will happen. The homicide rates for the 70s, 80s and 90s were much higher than they are now. Why didn't we see some response then?
IMO the war on drugs is responsible for the inner city murder rate, simply relaxing prescription drugs control back to pre 1970 levels would reduce crime and murder...i dont know what methods will be used for just guns local gun laws do little good in a nation with super highways
We don't have unrestricted guns now. The constitution demands that any restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms be consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Any position with regard to gun control that ignores the constitution is fully without common sense.
