House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53165422]Do the poor not get to drive because they have to get licenses, let alone having to buy the car itself? Nah. We haven't even discussed the pricing of the licenses, they could be literally $200 for a handgun license, but you are instead assuming that it's an unaffordable amount. At some point, by the way, you have to pay money for a gun.[/QUOTE] if you don't think there are people who can't afford to drive then you've lived the most privileged life of any one I've ever encountered.

[QUOTE=butre;53165409]in other words, the poor don't deserve to defend themselves[/QUOTE] The poor don't get to exercise their constitutional right to [I]vote[/I] because of restrictive voter ID systems, but that doesn't seem to bother you (or the GOP) one fucking bit. I think voting rights are maybe just [I]a tiny bit[/I] more of a fundamental aspect of the constitution of our nation than gun ownership. A firearm is as much a prerequisite for self-defense as a private plane is a prerequisite for travel.

why do you think public transportation exists? it's not the gas costs, or the cost of the vehicle. your bus fare covers that. it's because some people can't afford the licensing and registration, can't afford the space to put it, can't afford to get ticketed for parking in the street instead of storing it safely in a garage that they don't have, etc

[QUOTE=butre;53165443]if you don't think there are people who can't afford to drive then you've lived the most privileged life of any one I've ever encountered.[/QUOTE] It's not because of the license though, it's because cars, repairs, and insurance are expensive as fuck. I'm just saying, it's not like licensing for cars make them much more expensive than they already are, and the same goes for guns.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53165450]The poor don't get to exercise their constitutional right to [I]vote[/I] because of restrictive voter ID systems, but that doesn't seem to bother you (or the GOP) one fucking bit. I think voting rights are maybe just [I]a tiny bit[/I] more of a fundamental aspect of the constitution of our nation than gun ownership. A firearm is as much a prerequisite for self-defense as a private plane is a prerequisite for travel.[/QUOTE] no, I dislike that too. you can't just say "this isn't wrong because something else is wrong too". like imagine if someone went and killed someone and said "but ted bundy did it too!"

[QUOTE=butre;53165409]in other words, the poor don't deserve to defend themselves[/QUOTE] As far as I can tell, the license doesn't cost money to get. And the safety classes shouldn't cost anything either. What keeps poor people from buying guns in this case besides the pricetag of the gun itself?

[QUOTE=butre;53165460]no, I dislike that too. you can't just say "this isn't wrong because something else is wrong too". like imagine if someone went and killed someone and said "but ted bundy did it too!"[/QUOTE] You're arguing against restrictive licensing systems because they'd prevent the poor from exercising their constitutional rights. I don't care if you dislike it, I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. I'm not saying "this isn't wrong because something else is wrong too" - I'm saying that your argument is shit. Why is it okay to support restrictive licensing for voter identification licensing, which is also a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, but [I]not[/I] okay to do that for gun ownership? You can't pick and choose - is it or is it not okay for licensing systems to prevent the disadvantaged and poor from expressing their constitutional rights? I, along with the rest of the fucking world, don't view gun ownership as an innate human right. I think the interpretation of the second amendment as "right to own guns" is wrong. I think this whole debate would be best solved by just repealing the second via amendment so that we can stop having this ludicrous debate while our international peers have already found tactics to drastically reduce gun violence.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53165492]You're arguing against restrictive licensing systems because they'd prevent the poor from exercising their constitutional rights. I don't care if you dislike it, I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. I'm not saying "this isn't wrong because something else is wrong too" - I'm saying that your argument is shit. Why is it okay to support restrictive licensing for voter identification licensing, which is also a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, but [I]not[/I] okay to do that for gun ownership? You can't pick and choose - is it or is it not okay for licensing systems to prevent the disadvantaged and poor from expressing their constitutional rights? I, along with the rest of the fucking world, don't view gun ownership as an innate human right. I think the interpretation of the second amendment as "right to own guns" is wrong. I think this whole debate would be best solved by just repealing the second via amendment so that we can stop having this ludicrous debate while our international peers have already found tactics to drastically reduce gun violence.[/QUOTE] In all fairness, when did he say that he supported restrictive voter ID licensing? I think he pretty explicitly said he dislikes it as well and doesn't support it.

I love how every time we have a shooting, the first thought is always "Someone just shot up a school, lets ban assault weapons and ignore all of the actual problems" and not "Someone shot up a school, we need to figure out why they did it and what changes need to be made to prevent future incidents". I mean, come the fuck on.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53165492]You're arguing against restrictive licensing systems because they'd prevent the poor from exercising their constitutional rights. I don't care if you dislike it, I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. I'm not saying "this isn't wrong because something else is wrong too" - I'm saying that your argument is shit. Why is it okay to support restrictive licensing for voter identification licensing, which is also a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, but [I]not[/I] okay to do that for gun ownership? You can't pick and choose - is it or is it not okay for licensing systems to prevent the disadvantaged and poor from expressing their constitutional rights? I, along with the rest of the fucking world, don't view gun ownership as an innate human right. I think the interpretation of the second amendment as "right to own guns" is wrong. I think this whole debate would be best solved by just repealing the second via amendment so that we can stop having this ludicrous debate while our international peers have already found tactics to drastically reduce gun violence.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? He never said any of the shit you're ascribing to him.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53165492]You're arguing against restrictive licensing systems because they'd prevent the poor from exercising their constitutional rights. I don't care if you dislike it, I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. I'm not saying "this isn't wrong because something else is wrong too" - I'm saying that your argument is shit. Why is it okay to support restrictive licensing for voter identification licensing, which is also a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, but [I]not[/I] okay to do that for gun ownership? You can't pick and choose - is it or is it not okay for licensing systems to prevent the disadvantaged and poor from expressing their constitutional rights? I, along with the rest of the fucking world, don't view gun ownership as an innate human right. I think the interpretation of the second amendment as "right to own guns" is wrong. I think this whole debate would be best solved by just repealing the second via amendment so that we can stop having this ludicrous debate while our international peers have already found tactics to drastically reduce gun violence.[/QUOTE] I literally just said I don't support voter id. in fairness, it is pretty hard to read through your own colon. if you'd get your head out of your ass maybe you could come up with a coherent argument. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Bye" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53165492] Why is it okay to support restrictive licensing for voter identification licensing, which is also a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, but [I]not[/I] okay to do that for gun ownership? You can't pick and choose - is it or is it not okay for licensing systems to prevent the disadvantaged and poor from expressing their constitutional rights?[/QUOTE] Voting rights is mentioned frequently in the constitution and the amendments, but it is mentioned frequently because voter rights can absolutely be abridged. The constitution goes through and lists all the reasons you CAN'T abridge voting rights. (age, sex, race, poll tax, etc). Note that last one. Because it wasn't specifically restricted, they attempted to get the poor to stop voting with a poll tax. An amendment was necessary because assholes kept using poll taxes to defacto ban the poor from voting. So, no, it isn't legal or okay. It isn't even constitutional. Meanwhile the constitution just straight up says you can't infringe on the right to bear arms.

[QUOTE=Reaper297;53165674]I love how every time we have a shooting, the first thought is always "Someone just shot up a school, lets ban assault weapons and ignore all of the actual problems" and not "Someone shot up a school, we need to figure out why they did it and what changes need to be made to prevent future incidents". I mean, come the fuck on.[/QUOTE] I think you're misrepresenting the typical mindset an anti-gun person has. You'll usually hear the same "We need to figure out why they did it and what changes need to be made to prevent future incidents" diction coming from the anti-gun camp, it's just that they believe that changes to gun laws in the US are an important part of "what changes need to be made to prevent future incidents".

[QUOTE=butre;53165769]I literally just said I don't support voter id. in fairness, it is pretty hard to read through your own colon. if you'd get your head out of your ass maybe you could come up with a coherent argument. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Bye" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] I misunderstood your post - I thought you said "this is wrong because something else is wrong too." The Ted Bundy example threw me off a bit. My bad. That said, it's nice that you want me to come up with a "coherent argument" when your initial response to my gun licensing post was literally "so you think the poor don't [I]deserve[/I] to defend themselves." That's definitely exactly what I meant. What a fair and honest representation of my argument. If you want people to engage with your arguments fairly, try extending that same favor instead of going "so you [I]hate the poor[/I]" and then crying when someone else misrepresents your perspective.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162944]Are you saying my bomb collection is endangering society? Fuck off my bombs arent sentient.[/QUOTE] Can we step back for a moment and recognize how bad of an argument this is? In every gun thread on FP someone does the "hurr what about mustard gas or bombs" argument like either of those things are remotely equivalent to firearms. Its bad and dishonest debating on par with the stupid "I identify as a train/attack helicopter" argument. Its so bad it calls into question whether or not you have enough required knowledge to hold an honest and intelligent conversation about the topic at hand. So, for your own credibilities sake, can you please stop using this argument? [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163006]If a states democratically elected legislature decides to make licensing super hard then you have lots of ways to fight back, you just seem to really not want to accept ANY form of gun control and make up all sorts of externalities that could easily be dealt with in the legislation or in practicality[/QUOTE] I have many problems with your idea. First off any gun registry opens the way for confiscation at some point in the future. Secondly due to how US state governments work a blue state or a state that may turn blue would likely just make it arbitrarily hard to acquire a gun license with no way to combat it. Thirdly, if this was implemented, current gun owners who would be unable to meet the arbitrary requirements that these states would put in would in will lilely get their firearms confiscated. Given that firearms are also a great way to store money in the form of assets this will cost people a massive fuckload of money. Finally nationwide gun licenses would be a massive bureucratic hell to implement and would likely cost a couple billion dollars . It also would likely have little to no effect on gun violence since people who are gonna commit gun crimes get their guns illegally or would simply not register them since the government has no way to confirm if you have firearms if theres no paper trail.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53165983]A couple billion dollars [I]in initial investment[/I], that's not even for yearly upkeep.[/QUOTE] Lets not even talk about how the hell you enforce something like that. Youd need to create a whole new organization to manage that clusterfuck of paperwork. Even then they'd probably be able to enforce it as well as the government enforced prohibition, which is to say barely.

[QUOTE=Amber902;53165936]Can we step back for a moment and recognize how bad of an argument this is? In every gun thread on FP someone does the "hurr what about mustard gas or bombs" argument like either of those things are remotely equivalent to firearms. Its bad and dishonest debating on par with the stupid "I identify as a train/attack helicopter" argument. Its so bad it calls into question whether or not you have enough required knowledge to hold an honest and intelligent conversation about the topic at hand. So, for your own credibilities sake, can you please stop using this argument? [/QUOTE] If I had to do that sort of a comparison I feel like cigarettes is a much better than bombs or mustard gas. It was and arguably still is pretty ingrained in western society, everyone agrees that they kill people and kill other people, and society did agree after a certain point that enough was enough and reined in the harmful practices of cigarette companies, such as selling directly to children. And they're generally more strictly regulated then they were a few decades ago, but cigarettes haven't gone anywhere.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53166013]If I had to do that sort of a comparison I feel like cigarettes is a much better than bombs or mustard gas. It was and arguably still is pretty ingrained in western society, everyone agrees that they kill people and kill other people, and society did agree after a certain point that enough was enough and reined in the harmful practices of cigarette companies, such as selling directly to children. And they're generally more strictly regulated then they were a few decades ago, but cigarettes haven't gone anywhere.[/QUOTE] Cigarettes don't have a specific clause in the constitution dedicated to ensuring citizens have access to them. They also have no real self defense capabilities.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53166013]If I had to do that sort of a comparison I feel like cigarettes is a much better than bombs or mustard gas. It was and arguably still is pretty ingrained in western society, everyone agrees that they kill people and kill other people, and society did agree after a certain point that enough was enough and reined in the harmful practices of cigarette companies, such as selling directly to children. And they're generally more strictly regulated then they were a few decades ago, but cigarettes haven't gone anywhere.[/QUOTE] Thats still a shitty analogy. Cigarettes are always harmful and will eventually kill you. Responsible gun ownership and usage has what is effectively a 0% chance of mortality. Furthermore your analogy is so vague that I can replace either guns or cigarettes with anything from automobiles to chainsaws.

[QUOTE=Amber902;53165936]Can we step back for a moment and recognize how bad of an argument this is? In every gun thread on FP someone does the "hurr what about mustard gas or bombs" argument like either of those things are remotely equivalent to firearms. Its bad and dishonest debating on par with the stupid "I identify as a train/attack helicopter" argument. Its so bad it calls into question whether or not you have enough required knowledge to hold an honest and intelligent conversation about the topic at hand. So, for your own credibilities sake, can you please stop using this argument?[/QUOTE] Jeez, a simple comparison and my entire ability to hold intelligent and honest conversations is called into question? Sure, bombs and guns are not synonymous, but we as a society recognize their danger and restrict their usage, the same can, and should, apply to guns. Sure, guns don't degrade as easily and aren't as hard to maintain as bombs, but they still do degrade, and still do require maintenance, so where does this charge that they are completely incomparable come from? [QUOTE]I have many problems with your idea. First off any gun registry opens the way for confiscation at some point in the future. Secondly due to how US state governments work a blue state or a state that may turn blue would likely just make it arbitrarily hard to acquire a gun license with no way to combat it. Thirdly, if this was implemented, current gun owners who would be unable to meet the arbitrary requirements that these states would put in would in will lilely get their firearms confiscated. Given that firearms are also a great way to store money in the form of assets this will cost people a massive fuckload of money. [/QUOTE] First, that's a slippery slope argument, can't believe I have to inform you of that. A constitutionally protected right to petition for any firearm license could be written in such a way that this is irrelevant. Second, refer to the first. Third, refer to the first, we can take into consideration people who already owned weapons and let them keep them. So because guns are expensive and people decided to spend lots of money on them we shouldn't do something absolutely common sense like requiring a licensing system for guns? Heh... [quote]Finally nationwide gun licenses would be a massive bureucratic hell to implement and would likely cost a couple billion dollars[/quote] Yeah just like how nationwide car licenses is just unmaintainable, and even if it was hard, doesn't mean it's impossible. This is not an argument [quote]. It also would likely have little to no effect on gun violence since people who are gonna commit gun crimes get their guns illegally or would simply not register them since the government has no way to confirm if you have firearms if theres no paper trail.[/quote] There would be less guns in society, we would move away from a gung-ho gun culture and more about a responsible gun culture, reducing the demand and prevalence of guns in our society. Along with gun buybacks we could easily see a reduction in gun violence, ESPECIALLY since only the most law-abiding citizens will be getting these guns. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Amber902;53166027]Thats still a shitty analogy. Cigarettes are always harmful and will eventually kill you. Responsible gun ownership and usage has what is effectively a 0% chance of mortality. Furthermore your analogy is so vague that I can replace either guns or cigarettes with anything from automobiles to chainsaws.[/QUOTE] Yeah you can literally make that argument about anything, responsible cigarette usage is actually totally legit, once a year a cig is fine!

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53165838]I think you're misrepresenting the typical mindset an anti-gun person has. You'll usually hear the same "We need to figure out why they did it and what changes need to be made to prevent future incidents" diction coming from the anti-gun camp, it's just that they believe that changes to gun laws in the US are an important part of "what changes need to be made to prevent future incidents".[/QUOTE] I was referring more to the Democrats specifically, as this is what they always do after a major shooting, but that's on me for not clarifying. I just find it annoying to see them push for bans every time. It starts feeling like they're not interested in actually finding a solution and more interested in trying to appeal to voters. As for the anti-gun crowd , I'm fine with them pushing for smart legislation that actually leads to real solutions. Same goes for the pro-gun crowd. Shit like this isn't a step in the right direction though. All it's going to do is create further division between both sides and make coming up with a solution much more difficult.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53166037]Jeez, a simple comparison and my entire ability to hold intelligent and honest conversations is called into question?[/quote] Note how I said on this topic. To equate guns to bombs in this context either demonstrates a lack of knowledge in regards to the topic or fallacious and dishonest arguing. The fact that you misread or misquoted such a simple statement calls your reading comprehension or honesty into question. [quote] Sure, bombs and guns are not synonymous, but we as a society recognize their danger and restrict their usage, the same can, and should, apply to guns.[/quote] Guns have uses other then killing people. To my knowledge no one hunts with a JDAM. Your comparison falls flat because there are no civilian legal uses for bombs. [quote] Sure, guns don't degrade as easily and aren't as hard to maintain as bombs, but they still do degrade, and still do require maintenance, so where does this charge that they are completely incomparable come from? [/quote] How exactly does the fact that both require regular maintenance make them equivalent? I must reiterate that you camt really hunt with bombs. You cant practice bombing at the bomb range. Competitive bombing isnt a sport. Bombs have no civilian uses. [quote] First, that's a slippery slope argument, can't believe I have to inform you of that. A constitutionally protected right to petition for any firearm license could be written in such a way that this is irrelevant. [/quote] its only a slippery slope fallacy if its an illogical progression of events (ex man marries man, man marries goat, man marries house). Gun registries have led to gun confiscations in the past, thus it is not an illogical progression. "I cant believe I had to inform you of that." [quote] Second, refer to the first. Third, refer to the first, we can take into consideration people who already owned weapons and let them keep them. [/quote] I dont even know if this qualifies as an argument, in any case since I refuted your first point Ive already provided a response to this. [quote] So because guns are expensive and people decided to spend lots of money on them we shouldn't do something absolutely common sense like requiring a licensing system for guns? Heh...[/quote] There are people who hold onto tens of thousands of dollars in guns since they are a safe investment. Same reason people buy art. Since the government has demonstrably confiscated guns based on registries its safe to assume that these people stand to lose tens of thousands of dollars. [quote] Yeah just like how nationwide car licenses is just unmaintainable, and even if it was hard, doesn't mean it's impossible. This is not an argument[/quote] Drivers licenses are a whole different ballpark then gun licenses. First off when the DMV was established there were barely any cars, and nationwide car registry was a requirement by 1918, when there were barely any cars. This allowed the system for managing car registration and drivers licenses to grow symbiotically alongside the growth of car ownership. Implementing gun ownership nationwide now would be a nightmare because there is no preexisting framework to build on and gun ownership is already extremely widespread. Furthermore, unlike cars, its incredibly difficult for the government to find out if you own a gun or not if you dont do anythinf with it. So barring door by door house searches the government has no real way of making sure you dont have an unregistered firearm.0 [quote] There would be less guns in society, we would move away from a gung-ho gun culture and more about a responsible gun culture, reducing the demand and prevalence of guns in our society.[/quote] Can you describe and quantify the terms "Gung-ho gun culture" and what you believe is "responsible gun culture" [quote]Along with gun buybacks we could easily see a reduction in gun violence, ESPECIALLY since only the most law-abiding citizens will be getting these guns.[/quote] Gun buybacks dont reduce crime. Instead it encourages criminals and civilians to bulk buy cheap shitty firearms on the illegal gun market and sell them to the government for more then they're worth. Criminal elements may actually then use this to buy better guns or fund other illegal items. You'd likely end up putting more money onto the illegal gun market then you're taking out of it. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [quote] Yeah you can literally make that argument about anything, responsible cigarette usage is actually totally legit, once a year a cig is fine![/QUOTE] Actually no. There is no responsible way to use cigarettes. Its entirely possible to get cancer from one cigarette. If this is some sort of snide statement then its really falling flat.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53166037]Jeez, a simple comparison and my entire ability to hold intelligent and honest conversations is called into question? Sure, bombs and guns are not synonymous, but we as a society recognize their danger and restrict their usage, the same can, and should, apply to guns. Sure, guns don't degrade as easily and aren't as hard to maintain as bombs, but they still do degrade, and still do require maintenance, so where does this charge that they are completely incomparable come from? First, that's a slippery slope argument, can't believe I have to inform you of that. A constitutionally protected right to petition for any firearm license could be written in such a way that this is irrelevant. Second, refer to the first. Third, refer to the first, we can take into consideration people who already owned weapons and let them keep them. So because guns are expensive and people decided to spend lots of money on them we shouldn't do something absolutely common sense like requiring a licensing system for guns? Heh... Yeah just like how nationwide car licenses is just unmaintainable, and even if it was hard, doesn't mean it's impossible. This is not an argument There would be less guns in society, we would move away from a gung-ho gun culture and more about a responsible gun culture, reducing the demand and prevalence of guns in our society. Along with gun buybacks we could easily see a reduction in gun violence, ESPECIALLY since only the most law-abiding citizens will be getting these guns. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] Yeah you can literally make that argument about anything, responsible cigarette usage is actually totally legit, once a year a cig is fine![/QUOTE] Your posts on this topic are nothing but snide, poorly-argued fallacious arguments.

[QUOTE=Amber902;53166027]Thats still a shitty analogy. Cigarettes are always harmful and will eventually kill you. Responsible gun ownership and usage has what is effectively a 0% chance of mortality. Furthermore your analogy is so vague that I can replace either guns or cigarettes with anything from automobiles to chainsaws.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=geel9;53166025]Cigarettes don't have a specific clause in the constitution dedicated to ensuring citizens have access to them. They also have no real self defense capabilities.[/QUOTE] Never said it was perfect, just that it was better than comparing guns to bombs. I don't think it was that vague either since some of what I mentioned is very specific to cigarettes and the culture around it but whatever.

This doesn't ban the Garand, woo

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163072]I guess, but it works fine for cars, right? and those arent even constitutionally protected like what im suggesting should be. So we know that we can trust the government with some licensing etc, so there are definitely ways to make it work.[/QUOTE] Here's the deal. I'd be totally down for a Constitutionally protected licensing system. So would everyone else, I think. But the thing is, that goes against the current Constitution. Which means to have a Constitutionally protected licensing system, you'd have to change the Constitution. If you can change the Constitution that easily, "Constitutionally protected" loses its meaning. What's to stop another change from being made later? If I, and other responsible gun owners, thought it would end there, yes, I think everyone would be for it. If it was a shall-issue licensing system (not may-issue, which is used to enforce de facto bans all over the country without any legislation), mandated in the Constitution to remain as such, and ACTUALLY UNTOUCHABLE, absolutely. But we both know it wouldn't stop there. People would keep pushing and pushing. You're asking people to weaken their position voluntarily on the hope that the people who want to take more just go away, and they won't.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166572]Here's the deal. I'd be totally down for a Constitutionally protected licensing system. So would everyone else, I think. But the thing is, that goes against the current Constitution. Which means to have a Constitutionally protected licensing system, you'd have to change the Constitution. If you can change the Constitution that easily, "Constitutionally protected" loses its meaning. What's to stop another change from being made later? If I, and other responsible gun owners, thought it would end there, yes, I think everyone would be for it. If it was a shall-issue licensing system (not may-issue, which is used to enforce de facto bans all over the country without any legislation), mandated in the Constitution to remain as such, and ACTUALLY UNTOUCHABLE, absolutely. But we both know it wouldn't stop there. People would keep pushing and pushing. You're asking people to weaken their position voluntarily on the hope that the people who want to take more just go away, and they won't.[/QUOTE] What specific part of the Constitution goes against a protected licensing system? This is the second amendment in its full text: [quote]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.[/quote] If we're going to argue 'shall not be infringed' encompasses every possible instance wherein a citizen is deprived of their right to keep and bear Arms, then we violate that every single day and have been doing so for hundreds of years. Police may detain a person and remove weaponry from that person for safety considerations, and/or demand that they lose and or otherwise give custody of their arms over to the state - where they are not guaranteed its return. That by itself, I feel, demonstrates that 'shall not be infringed' does not mean that you can not bar access, only that there must exist a path for citizens to obtain weapons - which would nonetheless be retained by such a licensing system. Furthermore, the whole thing has the pretext of considerations towards a 'well regulated Militia'. To which end, it would make more sense to argue for second amendment protections when comes the rights of a citizens guard to obtain arms to secure and protect their local area -- but there's nothing 'regulated' about letting anyone bear arms with zero supervision or accountability. I think the intent is well stated there that the framers basically were saying 'if you want to have and bear arms, you'll have to be under someone's watch - even if it's the watch of other citizens. Once enrolled in such organization, which is well regulated by its membership and staff, then your rights to bear arms shall not be infringed'. I mean, I'm no constitutional lawyer but I feel that's a pretty fair interpretation of what the 2A is. It's written right into the amendment that the framers very much intended for there to be a good deal of regulations in place to which end they were basically setting up that 'those who bear arms must be held and kept accountable for those arms by some form of organization/coalition/militia/citizens-guard/night-watch'. I don't think the protections you seem to be arguing about actually exist, wherein people's right to have and obtain weapons is 'actually untouchable' despite my being able to point out thousands of instances where citizens were forceably disarmed and no constitutional arguments were successfully brought and argued that such disarmament was unconstitutional. There's definite nuance in play here which your argument appears to ignore. e: I mean, if we're being Constitutional Absolutionist then nobody can be put into jail for any reason as that goes against the 5th amendment if we're interpreting it strictly. By said amendment you can only be put to jail by order or consideration from a grand jury; meaning that arrests themselves may be unconstitutional [quote]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/quote]

"Well regulated" in the 18th century context is an expression meaning that something is running like a fine watch - well regulated. The modern interpretation would be: "In order the militia to run smoothly, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." But my point is that you would have to amend the Constitution to add a Constitutionally protected licensing system. Which means "Constitutional protections" can easily change. Please note I don't believe militias and so forth are a good idea in this century, so I don't hang most of my arguments on the Second Amendment to begin with. I already believe its meaning has been extensively violated but also that some "infringements" are both necessary and beneficial. All I'm saying is "Constitutionally protected" seems like sort of an empty phrase.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166694]"Well regulated" in the 18th century context is an expression meaning that something is running like a fine watch - well regulated. The modern interpretation would be: "In order the militia to run smoothly, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." But my point is that you would have to amend the Constitution to add a Constitutionally protected licensing system. Which means "Constitutional protections" can easily change. Please note I don't believe militias and so forth are a good idea in this century, so I don't hang most of my arguments on the Second Amendment to begin with.[/QUOTE] Why would you need to amend it? It allows for it right now? You could simply argue that this licensing system accounts for a 'citizens militia' wherein the organization issuing the licenses is responsible and accountable for the actions of its membership - much as any organized militia would, complete with ranking structures. [quote]I already believe its meaning has been extensively violated but also that some "infringements" are both necessary and beneficial.[/quote] Then why argue that it is 'impossible to do'? If the amendment is no longer being enforced why do we even care about it if it is effectively repealed? Seeing as it is not repealed, I presume that the amendment is still enforced and in effect and that the violations you state are not in fact violations, else they would be challenged by the circuit courts as unconstitutional and the SCOTUS would declare those violations to be violations, issuing clarifying verdicts to correct these actions. e: Further, if you're admitting that your argument is not rooted in the second amendment but is nonetheless constitutionally-founded: Present what portion of the constitution serves as the foundation for your argument?

SCOTUS is not really interested in actually interpreting the Constitution, regardless of their mission statement. If they were, decisions would be objective and made once - instead rolling changes are made whenever it's convenient for SCOTUS' political leanings of the time, be that left or right. Where have I said my argument is Constitutionally founded? I don't use "but 2A" as a defense. I talk hard numbers and critical thinking. 2A would be a good platform, but if it actually meant anything to legislators, an AWB would not be up for consideration at all. De facto bans enforced by licensing systems refusing to issue licenses to anyone are unconstitutional but they happen all over the country and there's nothing anyone can do about it, so what's the point of falling back on 2A when it obviously has no meaning to our lawmakers?