There is a vast difference in opinions, beliefs and reality.
Many believe because they own guns, they are Pro 2nd. Not true.
If that were the case, owning an oven would make one a chef or owning a pen and paper would make one an author.
There are several people that own guns, collect guns or even shoot guns. Reality shows us that owning a lot of guns does not even make us a honest person. When perps are arrested with guns, they generally have guns that are legal but illegal for them to be in possesion of or else they have guns that are both illegal (sawed off, filed serial numbers etc) and illegal for the perp to own (convicted felon, firearm free zone, etc). Still, there are those that will argue the 2nd covers their right to own those guns and it does not.
The Second Amendment covers much more than just the Right to Keep & Bear Arms. There are limitations to keeping and bearing arms that are in the Federal Law.
These two statements are completely incongruous.
Additionally, what do you mean by "covers much more?" The
2nd is quite terse:
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.
What else does that cover?
I will personally argue for a person to be able to own and carry a firearm in any court in the country unless there is a problem in them doing such. I feel we are protected against registration and having to get permits to carry as well. However some in the various legislatures and courts around the US disagree by way of interpretation. I feel the same way about limitations to what can be owned. While I have owned full auto weapons for many years, I do not feel everyone should be allowed to do such. Had some of the shooters in recent mass shootings been in possession of full auto weapons, think of how many more would have died. The difference between them and myself is a deeper background check that may have uncovered mental illness, depression, threats and the like. I do not feel a person should be able to own a grenade launcher. We get people, both male and female, all the time in domestic violence situations where they only shoot certain persons and then set fire to a home. If they had grenade launchers, the damage they could do would be mind blowing.
Almost all of us own a laser pointer. I own them for court presentations and to mess with my dog's head. Something that simple is causing pilots problems as people are shining them into the cockpits of airplanes and that is blinding pilots at night. Then we have people shooting at planes flying over their hunting lands. When caught, we find these people did not mean harm but were curious if their gun would reach the plane. What would happen if they owned anti air craft guns?
Some countries allow ownership of full auto and large guns by private ownership. There is a difference in culture between them and the US. Most of those countries have a mandatory military service. The youth are taught virtually from birth about guns. Here, John Doe buys his wife a gun for the house, never teaches her or the kids about how to use it, safety or even lets them shoot it. The kids eventually get the gun and a death or injury takes place.
I know of a case that is in the media around here yesterday. Several kids out of school for the holidays were enjoying being out of school and hanging out together. One had a gun, where it came from is still in question, and he was pointing it around those present. Somehow, without altercation between any of those in attendance, the gun went off and a young man was killed. It was an accident but the youth is now charged with manslaughter and another youth is dead. With gun ownerhsip comes responsibility and not all have the responsibility needed.
Should a person with mental problems be allowed to own a gun? What about a convicted felon? A person with drug & alcohol problems? A 14 yr old gang member? A person with a history of domestic violence? How about a blind person?
Yes, convicted felons et al should be able to have guns. If
they can't be trusted with guns, they should be in prison.
Laws proscribing their ownership are dangerous pipedreams.
Some people will argue these people have a Right to Own but the fact is they do not. Law forbids it due to public safety, municipality restrictions and other reasons. I reconstruct crime and accident scenes, many of which are firearm related. Then I have to testify for or against someone as to my findings, law and other aspects.
As stated, I am as Pro Second as they come. Yet there has to be limitations. The Founding Fathers had guns that would kill someone just as dead as the guns of today. Did they envision what may be available 250 yrs later? Did they know of the problems that would be in the US in 250 yrs?
This is stupid wrong. Federalist 29:
"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
It was, and is, intended for the citizens to have EQUAL POWER
to the military.
We are living in a country now with terrorists, not only from other countries but from the US. We are finding that US citizens are taking up arms against the US. We are finding that US citizens are buying arms for terrorist that cannot
legally buy arms. Limitations are needed on what a person can own for the good of the community. And I am not talking about someone owning a Glock 9mm with 10 extra mags. I am talking about someone buying a 15 yr old a AR-15 with 2000 rounds of ammo for the youth and his friends to use unsupervised.
Legal proscriptions against minors are not relevent to the
discussion of firearms law: it is a separate subject. Minors
are treated differently on many legal matters.
Has there been a rash of livestock shootings in your area lately? Now we see gang initiations including the shooting of livestock. It used to require shooting people but the shooters got caught and went to prison. Shooting livestock is a misdemeanor and carries a fine, if caught. Yet the Second is being argued daily in courts around the coutry as protecting the kids ability to own and use these military style weapons.
OOOOOO! Military style !!!
It is not the weapon but the way it is used and most of the way it is used will depend on the person using it and that is where we have to place limitations on the Second.
The Second has limitations and is still viewed with various viewpoints. When I question people witnessing an accident, I get different views and they do not always agree. They all saw the same accident but each saw it differently. The Second is no different.
