10-08-2015, 02:39 PM
(10-08-2015, 02:19 PM)username Wrote:(10-08-2015, 11:04 AM)F.U. Wrote:(10-08-2015, 10:55 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:(10-08-2015, 09:28 AM)F.U. Wrote: My question was are you OK with certain types of firearms being taken away, Your answer is yes, as stated above.
I am not Ok with that. If it ever is attempted they will get none of mine.
As I've posted many times, I'd rather try better regulation of the process, screening and enforcement, as opposed to restrictions and bans.
But, the NRA, its owned politicians, and gun enthusiast extremists, like you, aren't rational or strategic. Rather than consider even such administrative regulations to increase public safety, you instead resist any change whatsoever in order to maximize profits (NRA) and maintain your personal gratification/convenience - using ignorant fear-based arguments and false rhetoric.
So, while it's not my preference, it won't bother me if the feared "slippery slope!!!" is avoided and the law jumps straight to restricting and banning some types of firearms. That too would be wholly in line with a well-regulated right to bear arms, per the Second Amendment. At this point, I'd be okay with that too.
Well regulated was not referring to the type of firearm. It was in reference to the person/militia.
15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.
While it doesn't exactly pertain to our discussion right now I also found # 14 interesting.
(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
The first thing that popped in to my head reading #14 was George Zimmerman. *shudders*
I never thought of that user. However I am good with that. Gotta keep those hoodie wearing skittle eating thugs in check somehow.