Don't go blaming guns

[alienlovechild 75]

By very definition of "shall not be infringed" there are no reasonable gun laws.

The 2nd Amendment isn't regarded as an absolute right. There are lawful gun laws upheld throughout the nation which place some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

[natty bumppo 297]

One thing you guys are good at is making straw man arguments.

List some current gun laws that you find reasonable.

Yes.

steven ...do i need to post the pic of you posing with an auto weapon?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the shooter violated some of these but I'm no gun law expert. The second one is interesting. Giffords had to tell people not to bring guns to her event?

Carrying:

•No person shall carry a firearm "concealed on his person." This does not apply to a person in his dwelling, business premises or on real property owned or leased by that person. A handgun carried in a belt holster which is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage is not considered carrying concealed.

•No person shall, unless specifically authorized by law, enter a public establishment or attend a public event carrying a firearm after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event to remove his firearm and place it in the custody of the operator or sponsor. This does not apply to shooting ranges or shooting events, hunting areas or similar locations or activities.

Miscellaneous

•It is unlawful to recklessly handle, display, or discharge a firearm with the intent to disturb the peace and quiet of a neighborhood, family or person.

http://crime.about.c.../gunlaws_az.htm

The gun laws are quite lax here in Arizona. You don't need a permit to conceal a firearm and you can carry them just about anywhere, including bars. There are no limits on magazine capacities. All these allowances have come about within the last decade or so thanks to a strong gun lobby here in Arizona.

Giffords had to ask people not to bring guns to the event because it is legal to do so. But obviously laws don't serve as a deterrent from some people who want to break the law, that doesn't negate the need for such laws. For example, it's unlawful to shoplift, yet many people do it anyway.

Background checks, reasonable waiting periods for purchasing firearms, ammunition and magazine capacity limits, safety locks - these are the kinds of reasonable gun laws that many gun owners not only scoff at, but think are an infringement on their constitutional right to bear arms.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Reading this thread tonight, and soberly thinking of the sentiments within, I cannot help but let my mind wander to what the great Welsh bards had to say on this very topic.

[slim 1,525]

How big a gun can be restricted by government then?

It's up to the government.

Come on, I am waiting to hear whether you really believe what you just stated! You think government should not be allowed to restrict private ownership of heavy artillery? Those are 'guns' after all. What about smaller weapons like 50 caliber machine guns? Do you draw any line?

I think the 2nd Amendment is very clear.

If you look back to colonial times when bayonets were the real weapons of war, bayonets were not restricted. The "crew-served weapons" of the day (cannons, mortars, other field pieces) were not only NOT RESTRICTED but actively distributed among local training bands and militia units by the government. Some were even privately held and the property of individuals or community groups.

I firmly believe if we were to have the same lack of laws today as they had back then we wouldn't see a problem with it. When was the last time you saw a .50cal machine gun used in a crime? NEVER. Why? It's cost-prohibitive. The average citizen can't afford one and those who can make sure they use them for their intended purpose.

Can you imagine the safety and security we'd have in our communities if the government not only armed us with M-240B machine guns but actually trained us to use them in order to keep our communities safe? Imagine how low crime would be when we met on Sunday afternoons to practice marksmanship.

But, alas, we can't even get people to show up to work on time. How can we ever trust them to take charge of crew-served weapons?

The 2nd Amendment isn't regarded as an absolute right. There are lawful gun laws upheld throughout the nation which place some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

Sure. Congress, SCOTUS and states themselves will always pass and repeal laws. Some of them will, no doubt, conflict with others simply based on the sheer number of laws they feel the necessity to pass.

obviously laws don't serve as a deterrent from some people who want to break the law, that doesn't negate the need for such laws. For example, it's unlawful to shoplift, yet many people do it anyway.

So should we ban shoplifting more than 31 items?

Background checks, reasonable waiting periods for purchasing firearms, ammunition and magazine capacity limits, safety locks - these are the kinds of reasonable gun laws that many gun owners not only scoff at, but think are an infringement on their constitutional right to bear arms.

I think outlawing murder is perfectly reasonable. You guys in AZ should do that.

But, like you said above, laws don't serve as a deterrent from some people who want to break the law. So, where does that leave us? Should we make murder more illegal? Would that help?

I know, let's ban using guns in murders!

[james&olya 1,121]

By very definition of "shall not be infringed" there are no reasonable gun laws.

Come on Slim, you made the statement, either affirm it or admit there are reasonable gun laws. Is it reasonable for government to restrict private ownership and use of artillery? What is the size limit for unrestricted gun ownership or is there no size limit?

[alienlovechild 75]

the great Welsh bards had to say on this very topic

Another reason I hate rap. Bad enough it came from America and laughable when you hear it from rap groups abroad.

Many drivebys in Cardiff?

[james&olya 1,121]

Come on Slim, you made the statement, either affirm it or admit there are reasonable gun laws. Is it reasonable for government to restrict private ownership and use of artillery? What is the size limit for unrestricted gun ownership or is there no size limit?

Oh, I see you sort of half-answered while I was posting again. I would still be interested in an explicit yes or no about whether it is reasonable for government to limit the size of guns allowed in private ownership and use. Your ball.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How big a gun can be restricted by government then?

None.

If you understand the 'intent' of the Second Amendment.

[slim 1,525]

Oh, I see you sort of half-answered while I was posting again. I would still be interested in an explicit yes or no about whether it is reasonable for government to limit the size of guns allowed in private ownership and use. Your ball.

Like women tell me all the time - "the size is irrelevant."

None.

If you understand the 'intent' of the Second Amendment.

Somebody gets it!

[james&olya 1,121]

Like women tell me all the time - "the size is irrelevant."

Somebody gets it!

I respect your honesty and consistency but I strenuously disagree with you otherwise. And if you believe women don't find size relevant...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, the Framers of our beloved Constitution intended for us all to carry weapons that can obliterate countless people within seconds of simply aiming and firing the weapon into a crowd, because saying 'no' to such lethality would be a travesty of personal liberty.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes, the Framers of our beloved Constitution intended for us all to carry weapons that can obliterate countless people within seconds of simply aiming and firing the weapon into a crowd, because saying 'no' to such lethality would be a travesty of personal liberty.

It's simple. If 'we the people' don't need them, then the military industrial complex known as the US Government doesn't need them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Gun Regulations

In its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

The Court ruled that the individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.

The Court rejected the gun lobby's "any gun, for anybody, anywhere" agenda. It again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are permissible.

http://www.bradycent...secondamendment

[ready4ONE 5,400]

....

Somebody gets it!

Pssssst! The someone who gets it also clearly indicated a belief we live in a banana republic and if you don't care for a lawmaker it is the lawmakers fault if you shoot them over it.