I agree, the constitution is pretty clear and that is supposed to be the ultimate law here. If there was enough support to get a constitutional amendment passed, that would be one thing, but until that happens it needs to be followed regardless of whether or not it is what's best or what our politicians think is best.
Speaking of banning "assault knives"... that's actually already been done. Back in the 1950's switchblades were banned... and unsurprisingly it's had pretty much no effect on anything. The laws have slowing been getting repealed state by state, but it is still illegal to take them across state lines in most circumstances. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > Your points are largely good ones. > > Requiring a license for guns as we do for handling dangerous chemicals, > driving cars, flying aircraft, etc would not impede on your ability to > defend yourself from wildlife, or criminals, or even to participate in a > militia..... and it would not be a completely crazy thing. Presumably, if > you see a need to have a gun, then you'd get a license. > > With that said, I disagree with all current gun control legislation for > one reason: The constitution says my right to keep and bear arms shall not > be infringed. They get around it with tax laws and interstate commerce > regulations. If it's that easy to circumvent the constitution then why do > we have it? Who says they couldn't put a tax on public gatherings or > regulate the interstate distribution of media? Thereby circumventing the > first amendment without having to challenge it directly. > > IMO any gun control laws that aren't preceded by a constitutional > amendment should never have happened and the supreme court should not have > upheld them. > > > On 10/12/2015 11:39 AM, Dan Petermann wrote: > >> Its is the person, not the gun. >> >> Any number of household chemicals can be used to maim or kill. There are >> gasses, poisons and explosives that can be manufactured from legal to >> purchase chemicals. >> >> The gun gets singled out because it it easy to conceal and has that >> �scary� factor. >> >> Should we outlaw baseball bats? How about knives? Maybe only "assault >> knives�, you know, those scary looking Rambo ones. >> >> Cars are a highly lethal weapon. I could kill more people with a car that >> I ever could hope to with an assault weapon. Football game and an monster >> truck anyone? >> >> Any farmer has the capability to build a bomb like Timothy McVeigh, >> outlaw farmers? >> >> Any mentally ill person (and lets face it, anyone bent on murder is >> mentally ill), will find a way. This is why I have a problem with the >> insanity defense. You are not guilty by reason of insanity, you are guilty, >> but insane. >> >> Almost any object is a potential weapon. >> >> I live in an area where there is dangerous wildlife. Am I to be disarmed >> so I am unable to defend myself? There are grizzly bears, black bears, >> mountain lions, bob cats, wolves, & coyotes, all have been spotted fairly >> close to my house. So, because some people abuse a right, I am to give up >> mine? >> >> Should we abandon the 1st amendment also because someone might yell fire >> in a crowded theater? >> >> Lets control all speech because some people might misuse it. >> >> Hmm, lets see, religion is a major contributor to problems of all kinds, >> lets let the state decide what religion we can be a member of. >> >> Other people call for the whole sale slaughter of others, so lets let the >> government decide what speech is allowable. >> >> I get really offended by what is written in the press so lets control >> that also. >> >> Large groups of people assembled for a specific purpose frightens me so >> lets outlaw that too. >> >> How about the third amendment? Soldiers shouldn�t have to live in >> barracks, lets quarter them in your house. >> >> 4th? That pesky need for warrants, think of how many criminals could be >> put away if it wasn�t for the 4th amendment! >> >> I would go on but I think you get the point. Just because someone might >> get injured, or afraid, or offended, or even have good intentions, it >> doesn�t give them a right to take away my rights. >> >> The right to defend one�s self is the most basic right of all. >> >> >> On Oct 9, 2015, at 10:21 PM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Looking at this with a foreign view I can't understand this "gun love" in >>> US. It is not all about the criminals or idiots. Just look at the >>> statistics for accidents with weapons. The only way to save lifes is to be >>> very restrictive. If someone wants to shoot he can go to a shooting club >>> and leave the weapon there. It is not freedom to have a gun at home. It is >>> silly esp. with kids around. >>> You can't avoid killing with banning weapons but you can reduce it. If I >>> need a weapon I call for police or security. >>> >> >
