Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Proposed Gun Control Legislation Does Not Violate Second Amendment - Say 52 US Law Profs


Wetcoaster

Recommended Posts

There is an obvious compromise, but how does one compromise when Feinstein outright declares she's writing up an assault weapon ban legislation? There is no compromising with those who are determined to unjustifiably chip away at, or eliminate a very explicit right.

Republicans have their problems in other areas (particularly on the first amendment and fourth amendment) but as far as the gun debate is concerned, they clearly have a more vested interest in protecting it, so despite not supporting Republicans, hell, nor the NRA, at very least they are doing their part in preserving a right. Once the discussion veers off from the second amendment, you'll find me likely more to disagree with both of them, if not outright condemn their views. Despite the ACLU's clearly liberal policy, while I don't support them in any way, nor do I support Democrats, in all likelihood I would probably wind up siding with them (well, those for example who actually voted against retroactive immunity for AT&T, or voted against the PATRIOT Act) on first and fourth amendment issues.

There is a logical medium, which is why I voted for Gary Johnson. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last comment on this. I find that both of the groups, whether pro gun or anti gun have a little trouble with the Second Amendment and the context in which it was added to the Bill of Rights. While I agree that the pro-gunners are trying to preserve a basic right, they are also attempting to skew it so it fits their agenda. The anti-gunners take it to the other extreme. If both of them would take the time to comprehend the actual language of the second amendment, which clearly states that a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not specify individuals having the right to possess firearms at all...it actually doesn't mention the individual at all. As you are aware I hope, this amendment was added immediately following the battle for independence from Great Britain. I think we're relatively safe enough from invasion that ordinary citizens don't need to arm themselves with high-powered weaponry. That's just my interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

These people are pretty radically anti-gun. Well...they claim that they are only anti gun violence but some statements made by Sarah Brady lead me to deduce that she's got an agenda almost as fanatical as the NRA does pro-gun. Their website features a counter keeping track of people shot so far this year, and one that keeps track of people shot so far today. That seems pretty nutty to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are certainly entitled to disagree with my assessment if you want, but it's people like her and Senator Feinstein that are actually pushing for more than just an assault weapons ban...because once they ban the assault weapons and are successful at getting them removed, then precedent is set..and who's to say they don't try to take away the rest of them? Hypothetically. I am actually sick of discussing guns...I've had enough for about the next three years in the last two months here on CDC and I actually live in the US where all this crap is going on. I'll never own a weapon in my life. Violence only begets more violence..however..I'm not going to tell someone they can't own a firearm for protection, and truthfully, as long as the assault weapon violence doesn't affect me personally...I could really give a crap whether anyone has them or not. I'm washing my hands of this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are certainly entitled to disagree with my assessment if you want, but it's people like her and Senator Feinstein that are actually pushing for more than just an assault weapons ban...because once they ban the assault weapons and are successful at getting them removed, then precedent is set..and who's to say they don't try to take away the rest of them? Hypothetically. I am actually sick of discussing guns...I've had enough for about the next three years in the last two months here on CDC and I actually live in the US where all this crap is going on. I'll never own a weapon in my life. Violence only begets more violence..however..I'm not going to tell someone they can't own a firearm for protection, and truthfully, as long as the assault weapon violence doesn't affect me personally...I could really give a crap whether anyone has them or not. I'm washing my hands of this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said it much better than I did in my earlier post. The ban is on assualt weapons will do little to curb gun violence since most gun deaths are caused by handguns.

It is really a slippery slope, what happens if the ban on assault weapons fails to stop gun deaths. Will the banning of all guns be next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "foolish" is....

Is it more foolish to assume that something which has already been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States will hold true moreso than it is to assume that a reasonable level of gun control, aimed at specific types of weapons and ammunition will eventually lead to a complete ban on all guns?

I'm going to go with the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they're taking that stance now, given since the 90's "assault weapon" ban passed, to now, a dramatic increase of Americans have accepted guns in the sense that Heller saw.

They understand marketing, and know calling for outright bans now would be completely ineffective and de-legitimise the clout they've built up on Capitol Hill re-branding themselves as light gun control. During the hippy decades, Americans were far more willing to accept gun control so people like Nelson Shields were more candid, much like The Weather Underground, Black Panther, abortion clinic bombers, Animal Liberation Front, and so on were far more openly "militant" whereas the elements today try to come off as more openly "moderate". They won't make that mistake now, but those vested in second amendment rights know the gimmick already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. The Brady campaign is using creative "marketing" to disguise their true agenda. Meanwhile your quoting of a dead guy who made a statement over 36 years ago to support your claim, is nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:

Paul Helmke was the president of the Brady campaign from 2006 to 2011:

More propaganda, I suppose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. The Brady campaign is using creative "marketing" to disguise their true agenda. Meanwhile your quoting of a dead guy who made a statement over 36 years ago to support your claim, is nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:

Paul Helmke was the president of the Brady campaign from 2006 to 2011:

More propaganda, I suppose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one must allow Charles Krauthammer to think and speak for them, one don's the apparel of a shill .. register all guns and hold the owners of said guns responsible for all unlawful acts committed with said weapon .. voila .. end of problem ..

No-one in their right mind would have guns laying around unsecured if they were to be held accountable for said weapons ..

Where would this go against the 2nd Amendment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Until held unconstitutional".... So you're saying "yes" even though you must realize that the question referred to exactly that; The fact that the banning of handguns has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.?

Sounds awfully disingenuous to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...