Senate Blocked Gun Control Measures

Snake,
A suggestion: divide your responses up by breaking up the quotes into smaller segments. I almost missed your responses as you included them in with the quotes you made of my posts.


I know what the term collective means, but how are you using it here?

I assume you are referring to the the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The word people is a plural word, people are made up of persons which are individuals. So I don't understand what you mean by the founders referring to people.

The Constitution both defines and limits. Under the Constitution, which proclaims "Natural Rights", powers have been granted to elected and appointed officials to establish positive laws (man made) which both limit and protect those natural laws based upon their interpretation of those natural laws and in accordance with their constituents wishes while at the same time protecting the natural rights of minorities irregardless of the views of the constituents.

While that may be true, the law has placed limits on how you can obtain and keep ownership.
To own a firearm in the U.S. under Federal Law you can not be:

1. under indictment for or have been convicted of a felony that doesn't include non-violent business related crimes. Rights are generally restored after the sentence is completed for felonies that are not crimes against persons.
2. a fugitive from justice.
3. an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. (This makes many gun owners technical criminals.)
4. adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
5. an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
6. discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship.
7. subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of the person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child.
8. convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

In addition most states limit the type of weapons you may own and who may own them. In Pennsylvania several types of weapons are outlawed including shotguns with revolving cylinders, grenade launchers, forward pistol grips, etc.

Under the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition act, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new German law of 1938:

1. The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]

2. Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]

3. The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]

4. Jews were outlawed from owning guns, which wouldn't have helped them anyway.

The Russian people under the Czars, were never allowed the “right to bear arms”. Few Russians owned guns when Stalin came to power. The Soviet gun law of 1939 was aimed at the military, not the citizens.

 

Snake,
Continuing:

Exactly. That's what a government does. It writes laws and then gives power to enact them.

And if you don't like the laws it enacts, you have certain legal outlets to address those issues, guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Both written by representatives of the citizens.

Don't try to pull that stuff on me. You want me to say magazines? Okay magazines.

So what, I am not talking about them. Are you suggesting we need tighter restrictions on them, if so I would probably agree.

If there is nothing special about them you will have no trouble giving them up, as any other rifle will do just as well.

Are you talking about the U.S.? If not you need to tell me what other government has the same Constitution and Bill of Rights as the U.S., the same State laws, citizens, educational system, GNP, etc. otherwise you are not making a valid comparison. In addition, I see no section of the Constitution that prohibits the Federal government from requiring the registration of arms.

Do you wish to talk about conjectures, rumors, and hyperbole; or do you wish to discuss what the law is and what is or is not right, about those laws, in your opinion?

Most of us break laws, I am the first to admit that I have broken a number of them such as speeding, however non rises to the level of illegal firearm use. In terms of using a gun illegally, no one does until they do. I never said that gun ownership, per se was illegal, unless the ownership in itself is illegal.

I eagerly await the acquisition of knowledge and may even admit to being wrong from time to time. Please continue to point out any errors you find in my responses.

Have I ever said that all gun owners are homicidal?

For a variety of reasons, some are descendant from the family, some for target shooting, some for home protection, some because I like mechanical objects. I haven't shot any for about a year now, I hate cleaning them. I don't own any assault type weapons, if you will forgive me for using the term.

I am a natural born citizen of the U.S. of A.

 

hillbillyhippy,

I hate to bring this up, but:

No one is talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment, here, in the government, or anywhere, so why mention it?
I have addressed fire rate and high capacity magazines in other threads.

There is no need for them in the defense of a home. They are offensive weaponry, not defensive.

 

Burglars are usually deterred by a single gun shot, or a large dog, as their reason for home invasion is to rob, they like easy targets and are not going to engage in a gun fight.
Same with rapists.

Personal home assaults from family members, who reside outside of the home may require an exchange of a shot or two. Unless you belong to a family unit that owns the type of magazines and rapid fire weapons that are being promoted.

Are you afraid of being kidnapped? Kidnappers will probably get you if they want you, hard to defend against an ambush or organized assault. Same with hit men.

The Indians haven't arisen lately, so no need to fight off an Indian war party.

If the government wants you, they'll get you no mater what you are armed with.

So what type of home defense are you envisioning that can not be stopped with a semi-auto, or double barrel shotgun and a large dog or two?

 

Sig:

I was responding to these two posts. Maybe I am incorrect in assuming he is saying that he needs a high fire rate and a large magazine(s) to resist a home break-in. He hasn't responded, so we'll see.

What other reasons do you feel are justified for owning a high fire rate large magazine weapon, without adequate registration and regulation, and do you feel that those reasons outweigh any additional dangers that may arise from said ownership?

If the only rational is so that you can:

as LetLovin said, then I think the dangers out way the "right to have fun." Just my opinion.