thegreekdog wrote:Juan - do you support the current plan provided by gun control advocates? If so, why? If not, why not?
Depends which advocates. I agree with a whole bunch of ideas, but I don't support the idea of just reinstating the Assault Rifle ban that expired in 2004. To my knowledge, the only plan that has been taken to Congress was that bill submitted/read 5 days ago to ban sales of large clips. I support that, but that bill alone isn't going to do anything to lower the number of fatal shootings. Hypothetically speaking, it should make mass shootings safer, if there is such a thing, but it's not gonna stop a potential shooter.
The Obama administration is also requiring that gun dealers notify the Executive when they sell 2 or more assault-type rifles to a single purchaser in the states along the Mexican border. This is contrary to what I just read that NS wrote, and I'm reading that our American gun manufacturers may sue Obama citing a violation of the Constitution. Luckily this is probably the perfect time for them to sue, if they want public opinion to turn against guns even more.
But I support this requirement as well. These Assault Rifle-style guns aren't typically used in crime here in the US (something like 380 murders a year), but they are trucked over the border and used to kill Mexicans. I believe we ultimately have a duty to our Southern neighbors to not just sit back and watch the violence that we help fuel with our guns and drug appetite. And this requirement seems to me to be the bare minimum of what we can/should do. I'd also like to hear some ideas about how to end those 380 or so American deaths each year as well. As our population continues to grow, I'm afraid that the numbers of shootings are going to increase as well.I also agree with Sym that the language of the 2nd Amendment as written isn't very clear as to where lines are supposed to be drawn.
Does a state armory not mean that the people have arms to bear?
Why would Congress add the phrase "Well-Regulated Militia" if Militia's are irrelevant?
And if a citizen is not a part of a "well-regulated militia," do they have the right to carry a gun, ever?
Did not the battles of Lexington & Concord happen because the British were on route to capture an American armory, but not to take away individual's guns? The British had always permitted Americans to own their own guns, what they did not want to permit was state and local armories. So doesn't it make sense that these State Militia weapon's caches were what Congress was trying to protect?
Did not George Washington himself head an American Army to conquer rural American farmers? Was he trying to attack the security of a free state, or protect it?
Ignore the Supremer Court's split decision of 2008 for a moment. Ask yourself what you think Congress meant in 1779.
As Congress passed it;
"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."
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not a self-defining absolute.
The best example of what I'm trying to say is the first amendment, which states:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And this sounds like a self-defining absolute. But it's not either. You don't have the absolute Freedom to say whatever you want. You cannot defame a person with false slanders, and you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot sell child porn, you cannot threaten to kill someone, you can't blast music at 3AM in a suburb, etc etc.