Second amendment is not immune to those restrictions. Using a gun while committing a crime grants a harsher punishment than committing the same crime without a gun.
What laws restrict what religion you choose to practice? What laws prevent you from speaking at all? Saying that I can not buy a specific type of gun is not the same as fire in a theater. It is more like telling the Boston Globe that they can't buy that super high end press because they don't need to print that many papers.
The laws against human sacrifices restrict my ability to practice the ancient Aztec religion because that religion mandates human sacrifices.
Actually, saying you can't buy a certain type of gun isn't at all like saying the Globe can't buy a high end press because they don't need to print that many papers.
Also, I'm not talking about preventing you from owning a certain type of gun -- I'm iffy on the subject of banning particular types of gun for various reasons. However, much like you can't use certain speech if you're likely to cause violence with it, you shouldn't be allowed to purchase any type of gun if you're likely to cause violence with it due to a violent criminal history or a mental disorder.
So, secondary argument then! Should first amendment advocates demand the same unilateral and extreme latitude that second amendment people do? Slander, libel, child porn, copyright infringement ahoy!
Those are things you do with speech. Restricting someone from owning guns is more akin to restricting access to paper, pens, phones and the internet.
No one is asking that we make murder, assault or even threatening folks legal. At least no more than you have fringe nutbags who demand the rights you mentioned above. Those are things you do with speech.
There would be so much less arguing about gun control in this thread if the government just destroyed all the guns and then we all forgot they ever existed and just went on living happily.
There would be so much less arguing about gun control in this thread if the government just destroyed all the guns and then we all forgot they ever existed and just went on living happily.
There would be so much less arguing about gun control in this thread if the government just destroyed all the guns and then we all forgot they ever existed and just went on living happily.
There would also be less argument in this thread if the government just destroyed all the computers. Or if we all had government provided blowjob robots.
Assembly laws? Laws as to where you can congregate and use your free speech rights? Sounds like laws telling where you can and can not use your legal guns?
Guys when the founding fathers wrote the first amendment they only had hand-moveable type presses and the only religions were different flavors of Christianity so clearly we have to stick with old printing presses and Christianity.
Those limits are based on the venue. You can only fit so many people into a physical location before you have too many people. Should we just require gun owners to have a set amount of secure space for their guns?
It's still examples of prior limits on places you can assemble as well as what kind of assembly it is and how many people can attend and what certifications you need and I'm sure they can deny ones they feel might endanger the public.
Those limits are based on the venue. You can only fit so many people into a physical location before you have too many people. Should we just require gun owners to have a set amount of secure space for their guns?
Not a bad idea since the Sandy Hook shooter used firearms owned by another member of his household.
Guys when the founding fathers wrote the first amendment they only had hand-moveable type presses and the only religions were different flavors of Christianity so clearly we have to stick with old printing presses and Christianity.
Yeah, because Judaism and Islam aren't real religions.
And let's be realistic about the context of the second amendment; it was written at a time when military technology and tradition was not so highly specialized and separate from local militias. A militia at the time could in fact fight off the military, which is why England had disarmed the colonists.
Now, we have organizations that provide for the common defense. The situations that created a need to own guns aren't as much the case today.
The third amendment is similarly antiquated. I guarantee you could eliminate it and experience no change to your life.
Also, rounding up and destroying firearms is a time/place/manner restriction if the sale of less-lethal weaopons is allowed. It does, after all, say "arms," and we have a great diversity of armament today.
Those are things you do with speech. Restricting someone from owning guns is more akin to restricting access to paper, pens, phones and the internet.
We have laws that do precisely that, often as part of a criminal penalty for crimes committed via those means. Don't believe me? Talk to Kevin Mitnick. Therefore, laws preventing convicted criminals from acquiring guns should be considered okay as well.
Assembly laws? Laws as to where you can congregate and use your free speech rights? Sounds like laws telling where you can and can not use your legal guns?
Actually, the courts have ruled that laws saying you need to acquire a permit to have an assembly are okay, provided the requirements to obtain that permit are not onerous.
Those limits are based on the venue. You can only fit so many people into a physical location before you have too many people. Should we just require gun owners to have a set amount of secure space for their guns?
Not a bad idea since the Sandy Hook shooter used firearms owned by another member of his household.
Here in NY we just made it mandatory that a firearms be kept secured if you live in the same residence as someone who cant own a gun. That might be sufficient.
@ Dragonmaster Lou: Just so you know, I am very much for laws preventing criminals and the mentally unwell from acquiring firearms. I don't personally know anyone who feel otherwise, and believe me:I know some gun nuts.
You can't just strike an amendment though, you have to have another amendment that nullifies the one. Just like you can't take away a right.
That's true. That's how they got rid of prohibition.
Anyway I think we need to do like Switzerland anyway and give every able-bodied man and woman a military firearm and tell them they're the militia.
Of course, they reason why they can do that in Switzerland is due to compulsory military service. Everyone in Switzerland is required by law to serve in the armed forces at some point in their lives. I'll bet some of the same gun nuts who want everyone carrying guns would be screaming bloody murder if everyone also had to serve in the Army.
Here in NY we just made it mandatory that a firearms be kept secured if you live in the same residence as someone who cant own a gun. That might be sufficient.
That would need to be paired with laws saying you're liable in some fashion for any crimes caused using your guns if they were found to be insufficiently secured. I'm assuming the NY law states this, but I don't know and wanted to clarify.
@ Dragonmaster Lou. Just so you know. I am very much for laws preventing criminals and the mentally unwell from acquiring firearms. I don't personally know anyone who feel otherwise, and believe me:I know some gun nuts.
That's exactly how I feel as well. I don't own a gun, partially because my spousal overunit doesn't like them and doesn't want me to have one. However, I can see the appeal in at least owning a gun for target shooting and such. Even my wife is okay with me going target shooting (and doing target shooting herself). She just doesn't want a gun in the house.
The problem is that many of these gun nuts consider the ways to implement restrictions on the mentally ill and violent criminals from owning guns consider them to be a violation of their own gun rights. Well, if you don't want background checks when purchasing guns, for example, how the hell are you supposed to keep the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them!?
Am I right in thinking then that there is now law in the US that says to own a gun you have to have a secure place to keep it, ie a lockable gun cabinet or safe.
To be fair, compulsory service may have the effect of limiting our overseas adventures such that we only participate in ones that are truly national security or humanitarian concerns.
To be fair, compulsory service may have the effect of limiting our overseas adventures such that we only participate in ones that are truly national security or humanitarian concerns.
Am I right in thinking then that there is now law in the US that says to own a gun you have to have a secure place to keep it, ie a lockable gun cabinet or safe.
The President is proposing a law that would amount to the same. Some smaller localities have such legislation but it's not wide spread. Requiring firearms be sold with gun locks has a bit more traction.
The problem is that many of these gun nuts consider the ways to implement restrictions on the mentally ill and violent criminals from owning guns consider them to be a violation of their own gun rights. Well, if you don't want background checks when purchasing guns, for example, how the hell are you supposed to keep the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them!?
Most of the folks I hear complaining are about the cost and difficulty of the system, with a few pointing out that the system we have now doesn't have a very good success rate to start with. I'm pretty sure if we had a background check database that was more reliable and easier to use all but a tiny percentage of pro-gun folk would be all right with it.
Most of the folks I hear complaining are about the cost and difficulty of the system, with a few pointing out that the system we have now doesn't have a very good success rate to start with. I'm pretty sure if we had a background check database that was more reliable and easier to use all but a tiny percentage of pro-gun folk would be all right with it.
I've suggested that there is no reason why ATF (for example, and it's probably the best agency to do it) can't set up a website with both desktop and mobile versions so that anyone with an internet connection and a computer or smartphone can perform an on-the-spot background check. We have the technology where such a check can be pretty much done in minutes and cheaply.
While speaking to several former members of the Military they informed me that it is "All those Jock Assholes from High School now have power to bully you and get away with it."
Am I right in thinking then that there is now law in the US that says to own a gun you have to have a secure place to keep it, ie a lockable gun cabinet or safe.
The President is proposing a law that would amount to the same. Some smaller localities have such legislation but it's not wide spread. Requiring firearms be sold with gun locks has a bit more traction.
See this is what I don't get. Do people just leve their guns lying around? A gun lock sounds fine but over here you HAVE to have a secure place to keep your weapon. Why is this not a mandatory thing?
Theres a lot of talk about keeping people with mental illness from buying firearms and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Of course I don't want crazies with guns, but I'm sure there are some people on this forum with some form of mental illness who I would still trust with a gun. Now if certain peoples doctors believe that they should not have a gun, then I'm fine with them not getting one but just to ban anyone with any mental illness from having a gun seems pretty extreme. Also it pisses me off when these people start blaming their medications on the shootings. Like maybe its not the medications that are doing it but the actual things they are treating? Obviously its not that simple, but still.
Yeah. Denying guns specifically to the mentally ill us to deny them a Constitutional right (as the Amendment is currently being interpreted) and deem them second class citizens.
Comments
Actually, saying you can't buy a certain type of gun isn't at all like saying the Globe can't buy a high end press because they don't need to print that many papers.
Also, I'm not talking about preventing you from owning a certain type of gun -- I'm iffy on the subject of banning particular types of gun for various reasons. However, much like you can't use certain speech if you're likely to cause violence with it, you shouldn't be allowed to purchase any type of gun if you're likely to cause violence with it due to a violent criminal history or a mental disorder.
No one is asking that we make murder, assault or even threatening folks legal. At least no more than you have fringe nutbags who demand the rights you mentioned above. Those are things you do with speech.
And let's be realistic about the context of the second amendment; it was written at a time when military technology and tradition was not so highly specialized and separate from local militias. A militia at the time could in fact fight off the military, which is why England had disarmed the colonists.
Now, we have organizations that provide for the common defense. The situations that created a need to own guns aren't as much the case today.
The third amendment is similarly antiquated. I guarantee you could eliminate it and experience no change to your life.
Also, rounding up and destroying firearms is a time/place/manner restriction if the sale of less-lethal weaopons is allowed. It does, after all, say "arms," and we have a great diversity of armament today.
Anyway I think we need to do like Switzerland anyway and give every able-bodied man and woman a military firearm and tell them they're the militia.
@ Dragonmaster Lou: Just so you know, I am very much for laws preventing criminals and the mentally unwell from acquiring firearms. I don't personally know anyone who feel otherwise, and believe me:I know some gun nuts.
The problem is that many of these gun nuts consider the ways to implement restrictions on the mentally ill and violent criminals from owning guns consider them to be a violation of their own gun rights. Well, if you don't want background checks when purchasing guns, for example, how the hell are you supposed to keep the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them!?
To be fair, compulsory service may have the effect of limiting our overseas adventures such that we only participate in ones that are truly national security or humanitarian concerns.