The 2nd Amendment Appreciation Thread.

[4Corners]

I support a citizen's right to bear arms. What I don't understand is, why is any attempt at enacting sensible gun legislation seen as an affront to gun rights?

Exactly.....

[The Big Dunn]

They aren't. Assault rifles have been banned for decades.

I know there's a conscious effort to "play dumb", though. We've covered the fact that the AR-15 differs from the M16/M4 assault rifles mechanically while sharing their chassis.

Anti-gun people know that if they ban the AR-15 using its scary visual appearance, they will open the way to ban the vast majority of firearms on the market, sans bolt actions/muzzle loaders.

The rest of the country sees what they're attempting, outrage results and the push back in the opposite direction, blocking all types of regulation. You guys kind of dig your own grave with your constant attempts to be "sneaky".

Carnivore, yesterday I asked you 2 questions and you said you didn't read my posts despite being someone that responds to alexkid. that you responded to this tells me you are full of sh-t.

[Enayze]

I support a citizen's right to bear arms. What I don't understand is, why is any attempt at enacting sensible gun legislation seen as an affront to gun rights?

What do you define as sensible gun legislation?

[BostonGuy]

What do you define as sensible gun legislation?

Universal background checks, close the gun show/private sales loophole, restricting access to people on the FBI watch list.

[Enayze]

Universal background checks, close the gun show/private sales loophole, restricting access to people on the FBI watch list.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Monaco Slim]

I came here to support my fellow AMERICANS, we're all AMERICANS, WHITE AMERICANS, WHITE PICKET FENCES, POLO SHIRTS, KHAKI PANTS, WOOL JUMPERS, COUNTRY CLUBS! GOLF CLUBS!

[ShoulderRoll]

It's:

"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."

Militia: " a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/militia

This is one of those moments where upbringing, geography, etc will really polarize people.

To some, that's the most beautiful and epitomizing part of the US political system; the final provision for citizens to resist unfair governance if all others are violated.

Others, probably ones who grew up in front of a television/horror movies, or that journalist who fired a gun for the first time at age 50 and "bruised his soul" will look at it and just faint.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That seems pretty clear.

[Zaroku]

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

2nd Amendment Annotations
Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3
However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.
In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.
The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.
- See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amen....t7lXW4Lf.dpuf

[Zaroku]

Universal background checks, close the gun show/private sales loophole, restricting access to people on the FBI watch list.

The cost of guns would increase greatly. I would sell off a few of mine that I bought at gun shows in the mid 80's. In Mexico guns cost a lot.

[BostonGuy]

The cost of guns would increase greatly. I would sell off a few of mine that I bought at gun shows in the mid 80's. In Mexico guns cost a lot.

The cost of human life is more than worth it.