5 Reforms To Gun Laws That Would Actually Make A Difference

[Tom B]

No. This country operated for more than 200 years under the premise private gun ownership was states issue.

This was not a clarification, this was a landmark decision. If you read the ruling you will see that.

I have read the ruling. Of course it was a landmark decision. What Supreme Court ruling (or the constitution) said that the states gave individuals the RIGHT to bear arms (for 200 years)?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Ok, but guns have to be registered. Registering the gun doesn't stop people to own guns. Certain state laws that prevent concealed carry - those are unconstitutional, I will agree.

I have to disagree here. We have a system now where there are federal background checks before buying a gun from a dealer. I think the dealer has to keep a record but there is no federal registration. The only real purpose of a list of gunowners is to be able to round them or their guns up. Or expose their addresses to criminals.

 

[Spike Trader]

''Registering the gun doesn't stop people to own guns''


That has to be the most ignorant comment I've ever read.

 

[UsualName]

I have read the ruling. Of course it was a landmark decision. What Supreme Court ruling (or the constitution) said that the states gave individuals the RIGHT to bear arms (for 200 years)?

That would be the tenth amendment.

 

[Tom B]

That would be the tenth amendment.

That is wrong. Are you joking? Watch the first couple of minutes.

 

[UsualName]

That is wrong. Are you joking? Watch the first couple of minutes.

You might be flying by the seat of your pants on this, but I’m not.

The 14th amendment aspect was settled in a subsequent case, McDonald v. Chicago. This was another landmark decision, not a clarification.

 

[UsualName]

If you do any research at the time the right to keep and own guns was explicit in state constitutions. Similar explicit language was offered for the constitution but was rejected. The federal government at the time was not concerned with private ownership, but ownership for the purpose of protecting the country. The founders were leery of having a standing army, that didn’t last long, so they decided on citizen militias for protection. Thus, the right to bear arms for the purpose of militias.

 

[Tom B]

If you do any research at the time the right to keep and own guns was explicit in state constitutions. Similar explicit language was offered for the constitution but was rejected. The federal government at the time was not concerned with private ownership, but ownership for the purpose of protecting the country. The founders were leery of having a standing army, that didn’t last long, so they decided on citizen militias for protection. Thus, the right to bear arms for the purpose of militias.

The individual right to bear arms is explicit in the 2nd amendment. You moved on to the 14th amendment without covering the 10th amendment that you brought up.

 

[UsualName]

The individual right to bear arms is explicit in the 2nd amendment.

No. The best textual argument you have is the second amendment is written in an ambiguous way.

This is too painful for me. Let me make your argument for you. You should be arguing private ownership of guns for personal use is IMPLIED in the second amendment and the Heller case affirmed an unrecognized constitutional right.

 

[Tom B]

No. The best textual argument you have is the second amendment is written in an ambiguous way.

This is too painful for me. Let me make your argument for you. You should be arguing private ownership of guns for personal use is IMPLIED in the second amendment and the Heller case affirmed an unrecognized constitutional right.

I have been.
Individual = private right / use.