Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Good thing I have made absolutely zero post concerning cars. But does it really matter?
It was never re-interpreted. It was spelled out for those who keep thinking it actually means "Bear Arms" and want to do away with it:
Well if we re add the part about "militia" one could have argued (at least historically) that gun ownership was for the benefit these militias and thus society. But those days seem to be gone from both the perspective of the value of such a militia of everyday citizens with common firearms and the reading of the second amendment in recent decision.
if a "well regulated militia" still mattered, requiring that militia to be insured would seem to be a pretty reasonable regulation.
You have us confused with another country. In this country necessities are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process, etc. The three items you mention are not in the list.
What fee? the only ones we have are for concealed carry. Open carry carries no fees.
Constitutional rights are not necessarily necessities. You're conflating two entirely different concepts. The Constitution never even mentions food. That doesn't mean it isn't a necessity.
It's irrelevant that your particular state does not currently choose to have a fee for open carry. Other states have fees to get licensed and those have been held to be Constitutional.
if the Democrats could repeal the 2nd they would - I think everyone knows that. If they could ban most guns they would. Democrats are the force behind almost every gun infringement and law.
The rights granted by the second amendment were expanded in 2008 by the Heller Supreme Court decision. And they have been further expanded in a few others. Now I can understand the argument that the Supreme Court simply asserted principles that were always in the meaning that for the previous 130 years or so were mistakingly interpreted. But it is not really disputable that the application of the second amendment has changed in 2008. And that change has been an expansion in its application, not a suppression.
And again, what if there ends up being no insurance available? The blue team will try like hell to make the standards for such insurance so tight that you may get no takers. This would essentially ban guns in this locale.
I think you drastically underestimate how many Ds own guns and wouldn't support a repeal of the 2nd. This sounds like gun lobby scare tactics.
a car isn't a Constitutional Right
when you vote Republican, you're voting for business, you're voting strong military, border control, big oil and many other things right ?
I was just looking it up and coming back in. I know, polls and all, but one of the first is this: LINK
To be honest, I don't even consider guns when voting, but your point is taken.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t costs associated with it. I don’t expect the government to give out guns for free.
I can see this too. I know not every issue fits neatly into a box. But most folks I know would be fine with putting "much more strict gun control" in the Democratic "box". And for sure, whether that's "anti-gun" is another discussion.
and as I label Democrats as anti-gun I also label Republicans as what they are
I don't think it's that. I think it's most people vote for the things they feel are important to them.
I don't hear Dem politicians bring up guns in their campaign promises very much, or at least it's not the cornerstone of their platforms. I can't recall a single Dem running for office promising to take peoples' guns, but I hear it constantly in right-wing media that the Dems are going to take your guns.
what's important to them also means there are things not important to them
Look at every anti-gun piece of legislation passed in the last 10 years, see if Democrats are not 99% behind all of them if not 100%
You inferred he wanted to take all the guns from all the people, not just a limited assault weapon ban, (was done once before and was quite effective in reducing deaths from assault weapons)
You must not have read what you posted. He calls for banning the sale of assault rifles. He also calls for a gun buyback program so that owners of assault rifles can either sell them back to the government or they can register them if they don’t want to sell them. That isn’t “taking peoples guns”
This is a valid argument. There are several instances of legislatures creating a system that assumed insurers would enter a market and provide for at least an alternate insurance to what existed, but once the law went into place the insurers declined to take on the risks.
The 2012 program netted 5,500 guns and was deemed a success. Do you have some facts to back up your claim?
you can't define "assault weapon" .... because they're only defines by the words Democrats use to write these bills
77% of Republicans favor more stringent gun laws. Almost the same percentage of active gun owners do as well,
Name every piece of federal legislation that confiscated a single gun. Why do you continue to make this false claim?
what is an "assault rifle" ?
link please - but I've asked for links on your other comments and you refuse to give them so ....
every gun owner I know loves gun buy backs
I've posted them, go back and look please and them remove your accusations of "false claims" please
My point is that the claim that's being made that "Democrats want to take your guns" or that this is solely a "left" issue is false. The vast majority of Americans are sick of gun violence. A small minority, led by the lobbying arm of the NRA, opposes all gun control of any kind, regardless of how sensible it is. That opposition is generally based on outright falsehoods.
