"THE PEOPLE""Well-regulated militia..."
"THE PEOPLE""Well-regulated militia..."
Can you expand on that. I'm not seeing an actual argument there. Just a statement.It's hard - if not impossible - to determine the true intent of the mentally ill.
A ban on the firearm itself? No. A ban on the 33-round mag for that Glock? Essentially, yes. No civilian "needs" a 33-round magazine. Now, I realize there are shooting competitions that use high-cap mags, so their use would be limited to proper ranges.
The goal is MINIMIZING lethality. We'll never eliminate it, as you noted with your "almost 100% survivable" statement. As to "why not", because most people wouldn't support it. The majority DO support things like universal background checks and "No Fly - No Buy", yet the GOP ignores their concerns out of hand.
A ban on the firearm itself? No. A ban on the 33-round mag for that Glock? Essentially, yes. No civilian "needs" a 33-round magazine....
The majority DO support things like universal background checks and "No Fly - No Buy"...
Wonder what the young Pitt would have to say about gun violence in Pittsburgh or Philly?
There is no way to proactively limit subsets of 1A rights in the same way you want to limit subsets of 2A rights, unless someone invents some kind of device that makes communication impossible if you're going to use it for harm.
Well then, that clearly means we should do it. I mean, due process is sooooooo overrated.
Please indicate what due process was used to put people ON the list. Infants have been on that list.
So your solution is to ban anything that no one "needs" that could potentially be used to harm people. Is that what you're saying?
Who decides need? Many people have asked. You've not really given an answer for that.
None. That's kinda the point of why, ya know, it's a bad idea.
Let me ask y'all a question, have you guys gotten anywhere since this thread started?
Let me ask y'all a question, have you guys gotten anywhere since this thread started?
not a sarcastic question, but a way to challenge your thinking perhaps
"No way"? Really? Just impossible? We've already put limits on the manufacture and distribution of firearms. We can certainly put limits on mag capacity. Would that stop 100% of illegal usage? No, but then speed limits don't stop speeders. So, why have speed limits?
As for examples, see PRIOR RESTRAINT.
...Give out classified info and see what happens.
And yet I hear no demand to throw out the "No Fly" list from this forum. Why is that?
The No Fly list and the Patriot Act are both wrong and illegal. No, I don't even slight care if any court upheld any part of either.
Let me ask y'all a question, have you guys gotten anywhere since this thread started?
not a sarcastic question, but a way to challenge your thinking perhaps
There have been a number of people that have spoken out against that list and the terrorist watch list on this forum. It is a farce and there is no due process involved.And yet I hear no demand to throw out the "No Fly" list from this forum. Why is that?
If people want to remove the 2nd Amendment they should go through the process of doing so.That would be like asking if Northern Ireland Protestants and Catholics have gotten anywhere since 1971, or Sunni vs. Shia since the 7th century. There are those who see ANY limit - no matter how reasonable or popular - as unacceptable. I doubt anything will change their minds.
OTOH, there's a lot less violence in Northern Ireland. Also, alcohol was banned under the Constitution at one time, and done so by the will of the people.
The Bill of Rights isn't written in stone; the 1st Amendment could be eliminated by a subsequent Amendment, just as the 18th was eliminated by the 21st.