A great article about the 2nd Amendment.

[GreenDragon]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...amendment.html

[Sher Khan]

Well irrespective of what the writer apparently thinks, the Supreme Court has as recently as 2008 upheld the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment, or conversely the unconstitutionality of banning ownership of guns, in District of Columbia vs Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 2008. As a result, DC had to eliminate their 100% ban on resident gun ownership. Which then unraveled similar laws like Chicago, and elsewhere, including Maryland's notorious limitation on CCP's, (Concealed Carry Permits), which were struck down by a Federal Appeals Court this year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...onstitutional/

[fredtoast]

Reasonable gun owners have no problem with reasonable regulations. Only the nut jobs think that any person is entitled to own an assualt weapon even if he is a convicted felon or mentally ill.

Just try to pass a law that requires private parties to run a background check before selling a weapon to a complete stranger and the nut jobs come out of the woodwork.

Too bad they give rational gun owners a bad name.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Reasonable gun owners have no problem with reasonable regulations. Only the nut jobs think that any person is entitled to own an assualt weapon even if he is a convicted felon or mentally ill.

Just try to pass a law that requires private parties to run a background check before selling a weapon to a complete stranger and the nut jobs come out of the woodwork.

Too bad they give rational gun owners a bad name.

We havent discussed better background checks here yet but i know what you mean... Longer waiting periods and Better checks would be fine.

Or better regulation of who can sell guns etc

[Sher Khan]

I don't have any issue with background checks and infact some states now include statements from the purchaser on their mental status upon penality of a Felony for lying, and medical checks for mental issues, unfortunately not enough of them do that. No issue with gun show background checks either. Nor do I have any issue with restrictions on who can own a firearm like those with criminal backgrounds or psychological issues which make someone a danger to self or others being rejected or denied.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

I don't have any issue with background checks and infact some states now include statements from the purchaser on their mental status upon penality of a Felony for lying, and medical checks for mental issues, unfortunately not enough of them do that. No issue with gun show background checks either. Nor do I have any issue with restrictions on who can own a firearm like those with criminal backgrounds or psychological issues which make someone a danger to self or others being rejected or denied.

Only thing though a background check wont find mental illness if one never seeks treatment for said illness.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

Only thing though a background check wont find mental illness if one never seeks treatment for said illness.

Well nothing is fool proof. I mean, there's still stories that hit the paper where a doctor is found out to either not have a license to practice or the license was revoked in another state, and they just wander over to Missouri or some such to open another office.

[Sher Khan]

Here's an interesting article on the panacea of gun bans. It also offers some intriguing statistics.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...n-america?lite

[fredtoast]

People have to register their cars and boats but not their guns.

The nut jobs are still winning.

[Slappy from New Haven]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

People have to register their cars and boats but not their guns.

The nut jobs are still winning.

It's a double edged sword.

Theoretically i have no issue registering guns however I have an issue, especially with the current political outlook, for the government to have a detailed list of every citizen who owned guns

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

I have an issue, especially with the current political outlook, for the government to have a detailed list of every citizen who owned guns

What is the problem with this? Are you afraid they might use it to "maintain a well armed militia"?

[Slappy from New Haven]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

What is the problem with this? Are you afraid they might use it to "maintain a well armed militia"?

I love how the argument for gun control and it's constitutional ramification have come down to those 5 words.
I just think it is foo hardy as a human to think government would ever legislate anything in the best interest of said people and execute the legislation properly.

Registering a gun would solve nothing. Why not take the revebue it would cost the government to set up the adminstartion of the gun laws and make all schools key card acceesable and expand school police programs to have an officer at every school. It hink as a parent my money would be better spent.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

I love how the argument for gun control and it's constitutional ramification have come down to those 5 words.

Yeah, it is so silly to quote the language of the Constitution when talking about "constitutional ramifications"

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

Registering a gun would solve nothing.

Oh yes it would. It would make every unregistered gun subject to immediate seizure and every person in possession of one subject to arrest. It would have a major deterrent effect for anyone who ever considered taking a gun out of his home.

But even more important it would make every gun traceable to an owner. This means people who own registered guns would be much more careful about letting someone else have access to it or consider sellling it illegally.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

I just think it is foo hardy as a human to think government would ever legislate anything in the best interest of said people and execute the legislation properly.

.

Foolhardy?

Please explain what terrible things have happened since the government required people to regiuster their cars?

Your paranoia is the only thing foolhardy around here.

[Slappy from New Haven]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Yeah, it is so silly to quote the language of the Constitution when talking about "constitutional ramifications"

No it is irresponsible to not put the entire sentence in context, here is the rest of it.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Specifically the Amendment addresses bearing arms for a well armed private militia against governmental Tyranny which the colonists left in England.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme court ruled "the right to bear arms independent of a militia"

You know these things Fred, you just like to argue

[Sher Khan]

Guys, I hate to spoil a good argument but in the interest of a Green Bengals Forum, so we don't waste energy (it sounds good huh?), the Feds cannot require state registration of guns, or form a National gun registration database, and at least six states have outlawed gun registration. I put the link in the other discussion on gun bans as well.

It's also interesting that Connecticut already has a ban on possession of assault guns. Sounds good though huh?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0074.htm

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

No it is irresponsible to not put the entire sentence in context, here is the rest of it.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Specifically the Amendment addresses bearing arms for a well armed private militia against governmental Tyranny which the colonists left in England.

Are you sure it's not in reference to a defense force, seeing as the founding fathers did not want a standing army? Interpretations vary, all I'm saying.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Guys, I hate to spoil a good argument but in the interest of a Green Bengals Forum, so we don't waste energy (it sounds good huh?), the Feds cannot require state registration of guns, or form a National gun registration database, and at least six states have outlawed gun registration. I put the link in the other discussion on gun bans as well.

It's also interesting that Connecticut already has a ban on possession of assault guns. Sounds good though huh?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0074.htm

Interesting, so the the mother was in possession of an illegal assault rifle. That's an interesting twist.

[SunsetBengal]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Oh yes it would. It would make every unregistered gun subject to immediate seizure and every person in possession of one subject to arrest. It would have a major deterrent effect for anyone who ever considered taking a gun out of his home.

But even more important it would make every gun traceable to an owner. This means people who own registered guns would be much more careful about letting someone else have access to it or consider sellling it illegally.

On the bright side, it would put a damper on police using "throw downs".

[Jasonew6]

Let's see what some actual founding fathers had to say about it:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Interesting, so the the mother was in possession of an illegal assault rifle. That's an interesting twist.

Well, perhaps it was purchased prior to 1993 and they had all their paperwork together. But that is what that states own research paper says as of Feb 2011. Funny how none of that has been mentioned on the news that I've heard about. Like the mall in Portland, where an armed citizen facing down the madman there, caused him to run off and shoot himself. Didn't hear about that on the tele news either.

Might cause a drop in ratings. Even a slight nudge of those numbers can cost a network hundreds of millions in advertising dollars. If you can't report the news, make it!

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

Specifically the Amendment addresses bearing arms for a well armed private militia against governmental Tyranny which the colonists left in England.

This is ridiculous. The Constitution was not designed to allow for the government created by the same Constitution to be overthrown. If this were the case they would not have made treason illegal.

The point of a militia was to protect the country from outside forces.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Like the mall in Portland, where an armed citizen facing down the madman there, caused him to run off and shoot himself. Didn't hear about that on the tele news either.

Because it isn't true. Supposedly a guy pulled a gun, but he decideded not to fire and hid instead. The killer didn't even see him.

Seriously, think about it. A guy with a death wish goes on a public shooting spree but backs down when a citizen pulls a gun on him?

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Might cause a drop in ratings. Even a slight nudge of those numbers can cost a network hundreds of millions in advertising dollars. If you can't report the news, make it!

How the hell would any of this cause the ratings to drop?