Gun Control

[Nym90]

I think there is a lot of unfounded mass hysteria surrounding the gun issue. No one's guns are going to be taken away. I agree completely, MarkDel, if someone was coming to take my guns away, I'd stand and fight with all the strength I could muster. But there is no way in hell that is going to happen in America. I am highly suspicious of the "domino theory" in general (the idea that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, the "slippery slope", etc.). I think that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things that has no bearing in reality.

I don't see any reason why a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose. If it does, it should absolutely be legal, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't. People often mention the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but there are a lot of weapons that 99.9% of us would agree aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment...it's perfectly Constiututional to ban nuclear weapons, Sherman tanks, hand grenades, etc. So there is obviously not an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms, since almost everyone would agree that nuclear bombs should not be legal for the average citizen to own. It's just a matter of where you draw the line, there clearly is no absolute right.

[Nym90]

I think there is a lot of unfounded mass hysteria surrounding the gun issue. No one's guns are going to be taken away. I agree completely, MarkDel, if someone was coming to take my guns away, I'd stand and fight with all the strength I could muster. But there is no way in hell that is going to happen in America. I am highly suspicious of the "domino theory" in general (the idea that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, the "slippery slope", etc.). I think that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things that has no bearing in reality.

I don't see any reason why a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose. If it does, it should absolutely be legal, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't. People often mention the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but there are a lot of weapons that 99.9% of us would agree aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment...it's perfectly Constiututional to ban nuclear weapons, Sherman tanks, hand grenades, etc. So there is obviously not an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms, since almost everyone would agree that nuclear bombs should not be legal for the average citizen to own. It's just a matter of where you draw the line, there clearly is no absolute right.

Nym90,

They came for people's guns in England not all that long ago. And you may feel my overall point is simplistic, but imagine a Democratic President from a major Northeastern City who has strong support in Congress...say Charles Schumer, who is one of the biggest enemies of the 2nd Amendment. If you don't think that the extreme left of the Democratic Party wouldn't OUTLAW all handguns and order their confiscation, then you haven't been listening to them very well over the years. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO GET A GUN PERMIT IN NEW YORK CITY OR WASHINGTON, DC??? You cannot get one at all without showing cause to a local magistrate that you need it specifically because you carry large sums of money, and the vast majority of all permit applications are turned down for unknown reasons. If these people had their way, all handguns would be BANNED...listen to them...take them at their word!

Well, again I disagree about the amount, extent, and prominence of extremism in the Democratic party. It's not the first time though for us to disagree on that, and it won't be the last.

I agree with Nation, if anyone tried to seriously ban guns like that it would never get through. And even if it did, they would have their a**ses handed to them on a silver platter in the next election and the law overturned. America would never ever stand for the banning of guns.

[Nym90]

Are laws against private ownership of nuclear weapons, hand grenades, tanks, etc. unconstutitional?

[Nym90]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't specifically guarantee the right to own guns though, it says to bear arms, which would seem to include all weapons, of which these are.

Very rich people could afford them.

If you believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms, than these laws would have to be unconstitutional. Most people would agree that these are reasonable restrictions, just like the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee an absolute right to free speech either (you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because lying isn't protected by the 1st Amendment).

Well, if the government were going to use nukes on us, we'd need them for self-defense. If defending yourself against the government is a priority, I'd think you'd want to have the same things they have. Plus, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about protecting people's rights for self-defense purposes.

My point is that while I do believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment and it should definitely remain, it clearly only guarantees a well-regulated right to own a firearm.