I for one am glad to see the legislation shot down. It's not common sense and it won't stop a criminal from using a gun while breaking the law. All it does is give the government more control over gun buyers and open the door to taking those guns away from law-abiding citizens.
I applaud the senate for not enacting this obviously knee-jerk legislation.
Any gun owner is law abiding right up to the point he shoots someone in the face. Law abiding has absolutely nothing to do with it. Can't you think for yourself what is good vs. bad instead of referring to laws?
Party game: substitute "any gun owner" and "shoots someone in the face".
This argument can be used against anything: Any man is law abiding until the point he starts beating his wife. Therefore we should have surveillance cameras in all houses...
Errr, you do know that every able bodied citizen and those who have declared an intention to become one, aged 17 to 44, is already by law a member of the "unorganized militia"? That basic definition, with suitable updates (nowadays men and women are read where "men" is stated), has held since the very first Congress which also passed the Bill of Rights.
Also, the Supreme Court, 9 to 0, agreed that the dependent clause was irrelevant, and that the "individual" vs. "collective" interpretation was correct. They of course disagreed on what rights it confers, but the collective interpretation is as dead as can be (a terrible outcome from the millions of dollars the Joyce Foundation invested into trying to establish it).
Guns are just a too powerful political tool to be given up lightly, especially since the whole thing is kind of backed by the US constitution unlike religion, pro-life, anti-marriage equality, immigration, ...
Comments
I for one am glad to see the legislation shot down. It's not common sense and it won't stop a criminal from using a gun while breaking the law. All it does is give the government more control over gun buyers and open the door to taking those guns away from law-abiding citizens.
I applaud the senate for not enacting this obviously knee-jerk legislation.
When logic prevails, we all win.
Any gun owner is law abiding right up to the point he shoots someone in the face. Law abiding has absolutely nothing to do with it. Can't you think for yourself what is good vs. bad instead of referring to laws?
Party game: substitute "any gun owner" and "shoots someone in the face".
This argument can be used against anything: Any man is law abiding until the point he starts beating his wife. Therefore we should have surveillance cameras in all houses...
Just because someone else decides to become a criminal doesn't mean I should have my Constitutionally protected right infringed.
You have the Constitutional right to join a well-regulated militia.
Errr, you do know that every able bodied citizen and those who have declared an intention to become one, aged 17 to 44, is already by law a member of the "unorganized militia"? That basic definition, with suitable updates (nowadays men and women are read where "men" is stated), has held since the very first Congress which also passed the Bill of Rights.
Also, the Supreme Court, 9 to 0, agreed that the dependent clause was irrelevant, and that the "individual" vs. "collective" interpretation was correct. They of course disagreed on what rights it confers, but the collective interpretation is as dead as can be (a terrible outcome from the millions of dollars the Joyce Foundation invested into trying to establish it).
Guns are just a too powerful political tool to be given up lightly, especially since the whole thing is kind of backed by the US constitution unlike religion, pro-life, anti-marriage equality, immigration, ...
Divide ut regnes.