One side, huh?
Originally Posted by HorizontalMike View Post
You know Chad, that NOT all of us are stuck on THAT ONE side of the "Right to Bear Arms" debate. Some of us, while on the "other side", STILL LOVE our 2nd Amendment Rights as well.
Well, HorizontalMike, those of us on that ONE SIDE, which is the meaning of "Shall Not Be Infringed", very definitely have a bone to pick with all of you not on that side, since the universal background checks will just form a de facto national registration, where you will be subjected to multiple liability lawsuits should any of your guns be stolen and used illegally - maybe you SHOULD be on that ONE SIDE.
FYI, here's my take on that 'one side':
1. Since provisions were already made for state militias in the body of the Constitution, the argument that the second amendment in the Bill of Rights only applies to the States forming militias is void. The Founders were not idiots, and simply repeated the Constitutional provisions for Militias. The nation would not have been formed by the ratification of the Constitution if the BOR was not produced, as it represented concerns NOT covered by the Constitution.
2. The second amendment's phrasing instead refers to the ability of the states to have a ready pool of armed citizens (well-regulated, i.e. well trained) for induction to their respective militias, and requires weapons of militiary utility.
3. As such, any arguments for extraordinary classifications for semiautomatic weapons of any sort are also void, as the militaries of virtually every nation are either semiautomatic or select-fire (choose between semiautomatic or automatic/burst modes).
4. Semiautomatic weapons most like their military counterparts are the most appropriate to provide such self-training opportunites for civilian militia candidates, as it makes these candidates much more ready to be absorbed into militia and federal military units. Likewise, any ammunition capacities or magazine capacities issued by the military should also be legal for civilian use.
5. There are few self-defense situations that civilian law enforcement can be confronted with that individual citizens cannot. In addition, law enforcement personnel have many more resources, such as communications, and the presence of addtional armed personnel, than individual citizens. Therefore, restrictions of weapon types or styles can not be allowed, with the possible exception of crowd control modifications (automatic fire, grenades, gas grenades). In other words, any discussion of "need" for a certain weapon is only defined by the degree of a situation, not the frequency. Many more civilians are threatened by violence than civilian law enforcement at any given time. This also means that gun permits or licences only issued for officially recognized "need" are unconstitutional, and exceptions for weapon possession for retired law enforcement personnel are suspect under the 14th amendment.
6. Citizens with disabilities (arthritis, neck/shoulder/hand, and others) may find anything other than semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines are virtually impossible to manipulate in stressful self-defense situations, if not completely impossible, so to restrict such weapons also discriminates against those with disabilities.
7. As of the latest data, there are fewer than 300 deaths/year that could have resulted from so-called "assault weapons" - a term that is itself quite arbitrary and capricious, and any restrictions or special classifications based on this term are also arbitrary and capricious, especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of gun murders in the U.S. are committed by convicted felons, a class already barred from possessing weapons. In fact, a very tiny percentage of such persons are ever prosecuted for this transgression. It seems that any serious effort in reducing gun murders should focus on increasing these prosecutions, and establishing constitutionally sound "stop and frisk" routines for convicted felons.
8. The proposals to make semiautomatic weapons (and their magazines) subject to NFA regulations are revealed above to be arbitrary and capricious. In addition, this effort should recall the unconstitutional internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II, in that both a) are founded on an exaggerated sense of 'public safety' and b) would require the relinquishment of personal property by government fiat.
9. On a more personal note, I feel that any government in the U.S. has no more 'right' to know how many weapons a person has than it has a right to know which races/issues a citizen voted on in any election, or to know which weapons a citizen possesses than to know exactly how that citizen voted. Extending that, I feel that anyone not legally able to possess a firearm should not be able to vote (or hold office), and vice versa.
Done! Everyone needs to do this.
