Why Restricting Guns & Magazines in NOT the Answer

True, but for some rights (trial by jury for example), you look to what your rights would have been in London in 1789. If you apply that analysis here, you have the right to own a musket. While it is true that you could read it to say that you have a right to the most advanced weaponry available, you have to balance that right against the Constitutional provision that Congress may make laws that affect the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry. Certainly restricting firearms that can kill so many so quickly would fall under that category.

 

You're on the losing end if you feel the need to argue that you need high capacity mags for self defense. If you need 30 rounds to fend off a person or group of people, then something very very bad is likely going to happen to an innocent person besides yourself.

The likely hood that you are going to be in an altercation that you will need a gun is very slight. And only a fraction of that will a gun yield good results. And a further fraction of that will you ever need high cap mags. Again, bad argument for self defense.

If you want high cap magazines because its bad ass and you don't want to have to buy a bunch of extra mags and constantly have to reload your mags while practicing, then that is perfectly fine by me. Couple that with high cap mag ban would be pretty ineffective, then I totally agree with you.

Sometimes it seems some of these over zealous 'self defense' individuals are looking for a reason to get in an altercation.

 

We don't blame society for the technology that enables more efficient murder. Watching movies and listening to foul music doesn't enable you to kill little kids in classrooms, guns like those do. That's not wasted rhetoric, that's a straight line to what happens when people can buy semi-auto weapons at wal-mart.

 

Using your reading you only have the right to an all white, all male jury under Article III section 2 of the constitution, because a jury at that time consisted only of white males. You have the right to travel between the states, but only by horse or on sailing ships. You have freedom of speech, but that extends no further than print, because there was no electronic communication. That is going to be rough, because the 4th amendment did not prevent the government from intercepting your emails or tapping your phone.

 

Actually, the analysis of trial by jury isn't my reading, it is the law as interpreted by the Courts. See United States v. Wonson.

You use some pretty extreme examples, but the point also remains that the Framers of the Cnstitution never envisioned weapons capable of killing a few dozen people in roughly a minute.

By your analysis, there should be no line and I should be able to have nuclear weapons or sarin gas. This is clearly not a reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the line is somewhere and we have to decide where it is drawn. If a person cannot wait for a background check to get a gun or simply has to have an AR 15 with a 90 round magazine, they are exactly the person whose gun ownership worries me.

 

Except that in the case of Jared Loughner he was only stopped when his high capacity magazine ran out and had to reload.

 

I think this would be a broad assumption. First, they had weapons that could kill multiple people at once. Regardless of the difficulty to get these weapons, such of cannons, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the 2nd amendment didn't specify any sort of weapons either way. They also choose to make this right very difficult to molest, thus making it one of our constitutional amendments.

I don't view the Founders as demigods, but I also don't view them as short sighted dolts like our current politicians. These were individuals who were educated and had no interest in putting their brain-washed party lines on the table. That said, I am sure the thought of a semi-automatic weapon wouldn't seemed too far fetch to them.

Bringing up the argument of WMD's and nukes in regards to the 2nd amendment only shows the person has lost sight of the argument and Constitutional rights. Our Bill of Rights are not indefinite and forever extending. At least 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states feel WMD's should be banned. Quit bringing up WMD's into the gun rights argument.

 

You are making the assumption that, in 1789, the Framers foresaw AR15s, 90 round magazines, and Uzis and were ok with everybody having one. Yet you claim that I am the one making broad assumptions. How delightfully odd.

You reference the votes that would be necessary to amend the Constitution in regards to WMDs, yet you fail to specifically cite any such amendment. Then you command me to not mention WMDs in a weapons debate. Nice try. It is germane to a discussion on legal weapons just as the inability to buy hand grenades or land mines. The fact is that not all weapons are legal. Once you accept that there is a line, the question is where to draw that line Constitutionally.

If you need a90 round AR15 for sport or protection, I suggest that you seriously examine your life to determine exactly how you got there.

 

The Second Amendment does specifically say "well regulated" so whether they specify the type of weapon or not doesn't matter as it does show that regulation that would include type of arms is not forbidden by the Constitution.

So while Heller might not allow the banning of private ownership of firearms altogether I don't think there would be any constitutional issue with banning high capacity magazines or semi-automatics.

 

This is why compromise only leads to Hell. Registration leads to inspection leads to confiscation.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html#.USB_y90J9Bo.facebook

 

So you espouse a modern interpretation? this is highly interesting. I bet you can guess why.

 

Good point out. This is the slippery slope and what makes any talk of compromise suspect.

 

If you ban semi-automatic weapons, you will ban the majority of handguns that are sold today, regardless of magazine capacity.

My S&W 9mm with an 8 round magazine is a semi-automatic. In fact, any gun which uses a magazine is a semi-automatic.

 

Uncle Joe wants people to buy shotguns

 

Missouri GOP Rep. Turns the Tables on Dems: Introduces Bill That Makes Proposing Gun Control Laws a Felony

 

That guy should be kicked in the crotch with an steel-toed boot.

 

"You remember uncle Joe
He was the one afraid to cut the cake
Who wants to tell poor aunt Sarah
Joe's run off to fire lake"

 

I am not saying that all semi-automatics should be banned but just pointing out that the 2nd Amendment doesn't prevent regulations including bans on type of guns. We already ban fully automatic guns so the fact is that already happens.

 

This may not even matter in this particular debate, but the nation has changed. The Majority of Americans don't own guns. They are gunless. The majority of Americans don't go hunting. Most of Americans live in cities.

So most of Americans won't be directly affected by what happens.

 

Yay! Majority of Americans aren't gay. Lets ban gays since the minority doesn't count.