Firearms are different than anything else. They are the only tangible thing mentioned in the bill of rights, everything else is concepts about behavior. There is nothing to base how or what we do with them since there is nothing else like them. So we are pretty much making it up as we go along. Pro gun people think they should be given the benefit of the doubt, and assumed responsible until proven different. I disagree, because of how dangerous firearms are, responsibility must be determined before you get one, not after. Privacy doesn't apply because of the same reason, if something happens we need to know what type of firearms you have to keep first responders safe.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The federal dept. of Justice allows or prohibits firearms. They have outlawed fully automatic machine guns, tanks and rockets, etc. They draw the line between those weapons of war and a simple bolt action .22. cal. which is legal. They can draw that line anywhere they want at any time.
It doesn't matter what the gun nuts think.
dare2dream
Level 7
July 2, 2018
0
You are a good man to debate these points. I personally think they misread the 2nd amendment. I absolutely do not know how they think it means the average citizen can have an arsenal. Wouldn't we translate militia into military? Can you explain
AmelieMatisse
Level 8
July 2, 2018
0
If the intent was for everybody to have guns the 2nd would simply say "The right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed" The fact that it says anything else shows that some limitations were intended, it just would have been nice if they had been a little more specific about what they had in mind.
This is wha chief justice warren thinks
@chaoticmind You're not really saying you know more about law than a chief justice of the Supreme Court.
@chaoticmind There are limitations, the supreme court says so
in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
@MikeFlora thank you for the explanation
Recent Visitors 26
Photos 509 More
Posted by DruviusMake it make sense.
Posted by FrostyJim...what a sad situation.
Posted by ButtercupI doubt she said it buts it's cute.
Posted by Smurfing101
Posted by DruviusAh yes, modern America.
Posted by Tejas
Posted by SwitchcraftSandy Hook 13th sad anniversary - 12/14/12
Posted by SwitchcraftSandy Hook 13th sad anniversary - 12/14/12
Posted by MoravianSad but true.
Posted by DruviusAlways loved this one.
Posted by TejasAnti trump pistol. Do you have mixed feelings about it?
Posted by TejasLook at this scary gun!
Posted by Tejas
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.