Anti Gun rights activists proven wrong... again.

I have been following the erosion of the Second Amendment since I was in High School when the Gun Control Act was made law in 1968.

If changing or abolishing the Second Amendment was such a good idea with the support of "We-The-People", it would have been done already and in short order.

If it's not absolute then it's not a "Right". The Government can't move the Goal Posts on a specific right of the Constitution for their convenience it doesn't work that way. Originally Posted by Levianon17

The First Amendment is also not absolute. Interpretation of the amendments is left to SCOTUS and they have made it very clear that the Second Amendment is not absolute.

"The court ruled in Heller's favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”"

I have been following the erosion of the Second Amendment since I was in High School when the Gun Control Act was made law in 1968.

If changing or abolishing the Second Amendment was such a good idea with the support of "We-The-People", it would have been done already and in short order. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Name an amendment that was adopted “in short order.”

The First Amendment is also not absolute. Interpretation of the amendments is left to SCOTUS and they have made it very clear that the Second Amendment is not absolute.

"The court ruled in Heller's favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”" Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're trying to pick gnat shit out of a hay stack to prove your ridiculous point.

You're trying to pick gnat shit out of a hay stack to prove your ridiculous point. Originally Posted by Levianon17

That states have the right to set gun laws as they see fit is a "ridiculous point"?

That states have the right to set gun laws as they see fit is a "ridiculous point"? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yeah it is because most often they over step the boundaries of the Federal Constitution.

umm, we have a mass shooting problem. it's not even debatable. we need bipartisan laws and regs to fix that. we're the only first world country that is totally off the charts on mass shootings and gun deaths. the status quo is not acceptable. banning assault rifles would be a great start. Originally Posted by pxmcc

I'm going to have to call bullshit on this "common knowledge" that the US is the only country with a mass shooting problem. Per capita (and only comparing Europe, Canada, and the US) The US actually ranks 11th. Who has more mass shootings per capita? In order from most to least: Norway, Serbia, France, Macedonia, Albania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, Czech Republic.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ngs-by-country


As for banning "assault Weapons", Australia did that and it didn't do jack for their mass shootings (despite commonly misquoted figures). In the 25 years before Port Arthur they had 14 mass shootings, in the 25 years after (with the same criteria) they had 9 mass shootings. However, over this 50 year period Western Society as a whole was getting less violent and a trend of less mass shootings was pretty universal. While people like to say Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur, that has more to do with the fact that they also changed the definition of "mass shooting" in their country. After Port Arthur they no longer included gang shootings, killings by minors, or family shootings, and increased the casualty count by 1.

you are conflating banning assault rifles and disarmarment. why is it that civilians can't buy an Abrams? because an Abrams isn't designed for civilian use. it's a weapon of war. the same applies to assault rifles.

will that end all mass shootings? probably not. will it reduce gun deaths? as demonstrated in Australia, yes. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Would now be a good time to point out that you CAN legally own a tank, and I've hung out with a guy that legally owns one, with a fully functional cannon?

Again... you can't define what it is that you want to ban. THAT's why it is essentially a disarming of the citizens.

You claim that an object whose attributes you cannot define is a "weapon of war" and thus we should not allow civilians to own. "Keep and bear ARMS".... not artillery, ARMS. A tank is essentially a mobile artillery platform. In the same way the Founders were not advocating personal ownership of artillery, Originally Posted by texassapper

Actually, the Founding Fathers DID advocate for private ownership of artillery. A few of them owned a piece or two themselves, and they signed off on a number of armed, privately owned ships that had a number of cannons.

Ahem...

people can own tanks and fighter aircrafts as long as they are demilitarized. (they can't own F-14s tho.)

oh, one can also own artillery pieces, cannons. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'm not 100% sure on the fighter aircraft, I think you might be able to own one that is armed, but not be able to fly it. I do know for a fact that you can have fully-functional tanks, cannons and all. It's a ridiculous amount of paperwork and money, but it's only counted as a destructive device and you need to have a tax stamp. Getting proper ammo for it is likely going to be a custom job, and if it's explosive that's another tax stamp PER ROUND.

we make it way easier to buy a gun than to get a driver's license. that makes zero sense.

sure you can buy a car, but you can't legally drive it until you pass a 2-part test. i failed my field test twice before i finally succeeded on my 3rd try.

and of course car manufacturers and dealers can be held liable for negligence. why should gun manufacturers and dealers be any different? Originally Posted by pxmcc

There is no mandate to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle, nor are you required to register it or insure it. You can let a 10 year-old drive legally, just as long as it's private property. The registration/insurance/license part comes in when you want to operate it on public lands.

It's also not easier to buy a gun than a car. There is no legal minimal age to buy a car, nor is there any kind of required background check.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on this "common knowledge" that the US is the only country with a mass shooting problem. Per capita (and only comparing Europe, Canada, and the US) The US actually ranks 11th. Who has more mass shootings per capita? In order from most to least: Norway, Serbia, France, Macedonia, Albania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, Czech Republic.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ngs-by-country


As for banning "assault Weapons", Australia did that and it didn't do jack for their mass shootings (despite commonly misquoted figures). In the 25 years before Port Arthur they had 14 mass shootings, in the 25 years after (with the same criteria) they had 9 mass shootings. However, over this 50 year period Western Society as a whole was getting less violent and a trend of less mass shootings was pretty universal. While people like to say Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur, that has more to do with the fact that they also changed the definition of "mass shooting" in their country. After Port Arthur they no longer included gang shootings, killings by minors, or family shootings, and increased the casualty count by 1. Originally Posted by readyd

... You are CORRECT on this for the most part. ...

#### Salty

I'm not 100% sure on the fighter aircraft, I think you might be able to own one that is armed, but not be able to fly it. I do know for a fact that you can have fully-functional tanks, cannons and all. It's a ridiculous amount of paperwork and money, but it's only counted as a destructive device and you need to have a tax stamp. Getting proper ammo for it is likely going to be a custom job, and if it's explosive that's another tax stamp PER ROUND. Originally Posted by readyd

you can own a fighter, but the electronics & cannons have to be removed in order to be de-militarized in order to comply with FAA regs. its illegal to mount guns on aircraft.

its gonna be expensive to own one. lol.

Name an amendment that was adopted “in short order.” Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

My casually informed memory calls up the repeal of Prohibition which is, I Tink, The 19th Amendment. I understood that it was passed through the process relatively quickly, for a constitutional amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment of the 1970s though, failed to gain full ratification by enough states in the required seven years, and so, faded away.

That is what I mean by "short order."

Would now be a good time to point out that you CAN legally own a tank, and I've hung out with a guy that legally owns one, with a fully functional cannon? Originally Posted by readyd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao2Ex1d0oMU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWwVf1WjWO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky0BA4mowOg