06-24-2016, 11:55 AM
(06-24-2016, 07:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Figured I would expand on this a bit. As someone with a concealed carry permit I am able to carry my pistol any way I damn well please in my car in Virginia. Prior to 2010, without a concealed carry permit, I would have been required to keep the pistol and ammunition separate with the pistol locked up and/or out of reach. This is no longer the law, though, thanks to NRA lobbying.
Here is the question I have, though, and that is if violent crime has been on the decline since 1993, a year before the AWB, and firearm ownership has really been on the rise in the past decade, since the sunset of the ban, does that not show that the correlation is not one of causation?
Absolutely, which is why most, if not all, proposed gun control laws are met with derision.
(06-24-2016, 08:44 AM)xxlt Wrote: Sure. I pointed out the opinions that matter most - those of the courts - disagree with my own. I have not researched the opinions of constitutional scholars or linguists, presumably those most likely to study such an issue.
The framers intent for military power rest with the people seems preserved by various elements of our government today - we don't have a "junta" and various civilians exercise considerable control over the military, including the civilian "commander in chief." But it also seems clear, as I stated, the framers wanted that military power resting with the people "well regulated." Arguing against licensing, registrations, minimum standards for arm ownership, and firearms training in the name of the second amendment seems counter to the framers' intent - guaranteeing the preservation of the free state via a well regulated militia. Joe Terrorist, Jane Housewife, and Billy the Lunatic each being able to buy a machine gun and six cases of ammo at 7-11 and go out in the parking lot and start choosing targets seems pretty Un-American to me. How does it serve a well-regulated militia and how does it preserve the free State?
You're getting there, and I don't mean that facetiously, but "the people" in their intent was not a representative of the people such as the CnC, it was the individual citizens. All of the things you mentioned are fine in the abstract but each and every one can be as onerous as the individual crafting them wants them to be. The reason 2A proponents fight most, if not all, proposed restrictions is because they know that the latest demand is not the end of the road. Much like the anti-abortionists the anti-gun crowd is trying to nibble away at gun rights a piece at a time so their true intent isn't apparent until it's too late. I'm sure you're inclined to dismiss this statement as paranoia which I can understand. One need look no further than my own state, CA, to see the exact phenomena in action.
Back in the late 80's early 90's CA banned all magazines with a higher than ten round capacity. At that time they allowed all such mags in the state to be grandfathered in and flat out promised they would not seek to ban them in the future. The CA House just passed a bill banning all magazines higher than ten rounds. In addition they ban the transfer of any firearm without a background check. That sound reasonable? Sure, except transfer as they define it means I can't loan my firearm to a friend or family member for them to take to the range without committing a felony. They also passed a ban on all long guns that can take a detachable magazine of any kind, so pretty much 90% of them. They also want a background check for ammunition purchases and they want to limit how much you can purchase. They also want to ban all internet ammunition purchases.
It's death by a thousand cuts and the ultimate goal is confiscation and disarmament. What does it say about these people that they want to turn my father, a 26 year Army vet who served two tours and change in Vietnam and then worked for Boeing for 24 years, into a felon? The man has never committed a crime in his life but he's not giving up property that's been in his family for generations because some opportunist, pandering asshat legislators want to pretend they just made a difference. Bottom line, gun owners don't trust politicians on this issue and they are right to, just as pro-choice people do and for the exact same reasons.
