There will be a wide array of guns and knives for people to "ooh" and "ahh" about as the National Rifle Association (NRA) brings Friday and through the weekend at America's Center.
St. Louis is hosting the NRA convention for the second time in five years. In 2007, the city was the beneficiary of an NRA decision to abandon its original host city of Columbus, OH, a retaliation that followed the Columbus City Council's passage of a law banning assault-type weapons. The NRA moved its big confab to St. Louis and liked it so much it came back this year.
So, what restrictions on firearms are acceptable? By its actions, the NRA obviously doesn't like bans on assault weapons, but are there any restrictions the organization will accept?
Short of an all-out ban of firearms, what restrictions would you propose as a possible way to reduce the incidence of gun crimes?
This isn't intended as a "slippery slope" that eventually leads to confiscating guns, but as a well-intentioned dialogue for all sides to determine an appropriate amount of restrictions, if any, on firearms.
What regulations would you suggest or support on firearms? Use the comments section below to weigh in on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban This explains it pretty well. It is this definition that NRA is referring to when they say they are opposed to it, Machine guns have been illegal since 1933 for non FFL dealers. But I would not be opposed to making them legal. You can do a lot more damage with a 50 lb. bag of fertilizer than you can with most guns.
Is it possible that protection of one right, taken to this extreme sacredness, infringes upon other more natural rights?
Just look at the next amendment "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." How the heck does that apply to this day and age? (I'm sure some more constitutional mental gymnastics are forthcoming.) Where is the behemoth lobbying group protecting our 3rd amendment rights? You never know ...the big bad government may be fixin to put soldiers up in your house -got to protect the house.
"Bob", please, cite at least one reputable source for this outrageous claim?
Fact: Obama did sign a bill that allows owners to carry in national parks. That doesn't sound like he's here to take away anybody's guns. In fact, that is a pro-gun stance. Fact: The U.S. has the most permissive gun laws in the world. Fact: In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. I say, restrict the sale of ammunition to registered gun owners so stolen guns cannot be used for illegal activities.
You work. Someone else sits at home. You pay for his/her stuff including the home he sits in. That's just as dumb as worrying about whether or not a soldier might ever ask to seek shelter in your home, but if one does, will you let him/her bring a firearm?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. So this means just about everybody.
http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php Prove there is a large anti-gun group that is selling regulation with fear. I will defend what NRA is doing in the same way the left defends other civil rights when they say "you can't leave civil rights up to the whim of the voters" This means even if a town votes to be say..All white, they can't do that just like you can't be a No Gun town. These rights are protected BEYOND the vote of the people.
http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php prove there is a large anti-gun group that is selling regulation with fear." It's just that the groups you point to have budgets on the order of 1% of The NRA's budget (or less). In my mind, this clearly demonstrates the OPPOSITE of what you state. The fact that their budget is 1/100 of The NRA's proves that they are no match for the big money Washington insiders at NRA. You may be surprised to learn I actually substantially agree with your 2nd point!
You said "So this means just about everybody". Sorry, but it really doesn't! Again, it means exactly what it says, members of "the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and that is it.
Checked out UCR, and no county in northern California had an increase in violent crime over the last decade. In fact, all of them decreased.
Also, we have a natural right to defend ourselves, not a natural right to protect ourselves. There is a clear distinction there that becomes very important in a discussion like this. A natural right to protect yourself is preemptive. A right to defend yourself is reactive. Think of this in terms of nation-states if you want an easy way to see the distinction.
Probably because historically knifes were the weapons of choice for the poor who could not afford firearms.
I've already pointed out the disregarded 3rd amendment by comparison to the 2nd. The 3rd Amendment is archaic and most everybody recognizes this -yet the 2nd amendment gets used to justify people loading up on assault weapons. It's a strange society we live in when multi-billion dollar industry has so much control.
The second clause is broader and is the one that makes otherwise sane people believe that they have an unalienable, and unregulateable, right to own military grade weapons. My position is that if your gun is registered and at the service of the State, then you should be able to have whatever the Army has. The State could also order you to drill once or twice a year, prove that you have a safe place to keep your arms, and if you choose to own a cannon or something like that, a host of other regulations to keep the rest of us safe from the weapon. The amount of regulation should be proportional to the destructive potential of the weapon. Character limits keep me from proposing more detailed regulations but high capactity, high power firearms should be limited to members of the militia. We have the vote and the courts to protect us from the State. The State is there to protect us from each other and from foreigners, and possibly zombies. Gun regulation is right in the State's wheelhouse.
The Bill of Rights was written to protect individual states, and the people within them from the centralized power being created. There would have been no reason to include the right to keep and bare arms in the Bill of Rights, if the rights being protected were the rights of the federal "State," as in the United "State"s. The Bill of Rights was written to express the natural rights of the people--not to grant rights from the fed. government. Remember in the arguments againt the Bill of Rights, many thought the Bill was not needed, because the rights were natural and obvious! If your argument is that it was only the individual State being protected (and not the people of the state), I do not think the Constitution would have said, "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Instead, it would then have said something like, "the right of the States to keep supplies of arms and use them..."
You Imply that this means just about everybody. Sorry, but it really doesn't! Again, it means exactly what it says, members of "the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and that is it.
Yes, we end up with different interpretations from different perspectives. I think it is helpful to read what else those who wrote the Constitution wrote at the time to help me interpret their intended meaning. Since the Bill of Rights purpose was to protect the individual States and the people from too much concentrated central power, I feel that the interpretation should lean toward protecting individual freedoms. We have done this over the years with other rights proclaimed within the Bill of Rights. I believe it is consistent to do so with the 2nd Amendment as well. Yes, just as free speech, there can be limits set. (Yelling Fire! in the theater, etc...) However, denying that the 2nd Amendment rights have anything to do with individual freedoms seems totally squirming and twisting to me. "The right of the People to keep and bare arms" would be a superflous phrase if it had nothing to do with the people.