I simply cannot fathom the state of affairs in this nation as it relates to the 2nd amendment. A few points and then I welcome feedback....
1-The right to Bear Arms is certainly enshrined in our Constitution. Only the most extreme of our citizens and/or pundits espouse some sort of massive roll back.
2-Of all ten amendments in the BOR, only one uses the phrase Well-Regulated. The 2nd Amendment
3-Other rights enshrined in our BOR include freedom of religion and the right for peaceful assembly. Neither of these rights have any preamble of the reason for their existence as the 2nd amendment does. They don't say, things like "An open and spiritual community being necessary for the well-being of the state, the right to worship freely shall not be infringed". HOWEVER, we accept limitations and regulations on religion and assembly.
Warren Jeffs and some of his followers certainly believe that their religion allows them to marry multiple people. Perhaps minors. We have laws in place prohibiting polygamy and regulating the age of marriage. These FLDS folks quote the First Amendment in their defense. Certain other religions including some Islamic teachings in smaller sects of that faith allow for polygamy. These laws in place are accepted despite the fact that they regulate the ability for some Americans to practice what they sincerely believe is their religious practices. As a society, we do all we can to allow the open practice of religion.
However, we sacrifice and/or cede some aspects of this right back to the government to regulate what we deem are harmful aspects to society.
We can peacefully assemble in this nation. You can organize a march or meeting to talk about anything you wish. Politics, religion, education, etc. Any topic is pretty much allowed.
However, you cannot decide that you'd like to organize a meeting in the middle of main street without going through some process to apply for a permit. We have sacrificed/ceded this aspect of this constitutional right back to the government in the interest of the greater public good. We can still assemble. There are just some aspects of this right that are regulated by the government..
As a society, we mostly agree to sacrifice aspects of the first amendment back to the government for oversight/regulation is worth it for the betterment of the nation.
I don't understand why some feel that any aspects of the 2nd amendment are never worthy of regulation? Actually , I have news for some..WE ALREADY DO. Certain "arms" are not allowed for purchase without serious background checks and/or other regulations. I won't get into the definition of what a "machine gun" is, but certain "guns" are strictly regulated. With Background checks. With other rules in place.
Can you not sacrifice certain aspects of your rights for the greater good of the nation? Yes, ALL LAWS can be a slippery slope. The regulatory aspect of rights to assemble could be expanded on to never allow meetings/marches in public under the guise of "public safety". For the most part, the regulations work. Perfectly? Maybe not, but if you listed the top 1000 things Americans wish were not regulated by their governments, I bet laws regulating the right to assemble would not make the list.
As a start, with hard work, we certainly can agree on the definition of military grade weapon/assault rifle and regulate the purchase to those who pass a universal background check and require a 48 hour waiting period. Certainly, we can agree if you are on the Terrorist Watch List, you should not be able to buy these weapons. I understand the hard work required for reasonable people to agree on the definition of the weapons and I understand the potential of misuse of a "watch list". Can't reasonable people work through this?
The false argument that these laws would not prevent the Orlando or Sandy Hook massacres don't add up to me. Will these laws prohibit all mass shootings of this variety? Of course not. How many mass shootings involve these type weapons annually? 10? 20? What if a handful of these were lessened by the type of gun the person had? What if San Bernadino killers had pistols only? Could 8 lives have been spared? What if this sick person in Orlando had 4 pistols? Could the death toll have been 17 vs 49? Of the 15k + killings with guns (I think this is right backing out suicides) what if these laws protected/saved only 2% of the victims? That is 300 people. 300 lives. 300 families not decimated and forever changed. what if 2% is too low. What if it was 10%? 1500 people.
What if some shooting we don't know of been prevented all together by the potential perpetrator been forbidden to buy his weapon and eventually caught up to by the authorities?
The question is for those who want these weapons available...can you not sacrifice some aspects of your rights to own and use these guns for the greater good?
Yes, you lose a little freedom and that is a scary proposition. But ALL LAWS are the act of ceding freedoms to the government for the betterment of society. We havre laws in place regulating the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.
Would you be willing to look into the faces of the victim's families and say, your rights to buy these weapons with no regulations trump their rights to live?
If you believe in open carry and if you believe that this is a good defense to minimize these attacks in the future or even prevent, I don't argue with you.
However, it is not realistic nor practical for 99.9999% of us to carry a military grade weapon with us everywhere we go. If you were at the night club and had your pistol on your side you are probably just as likely to stop the assailant with your glock vs an AR-15. We are not safer with you, a good responsible gun owner, having an AR-15 vs a handgun. If somehow, your rights are infringed slightly to prevent you from openly buying the AR-15 at any time and on a given day, you simply have your handgun, you still can protect your family and property.
However, wouldn't society be slightly better off if we had reasonable rules in place? Simply expanding what we currently have for heavier "machine guns" does not lead to totalitarian rule. It is common sense.
It just takes a little sacrifice.
Cmon people.
1-The right to Bear Arms is certainly enshrined in our Constitution. Only the most extreme of our citizens and/or pundits espouse some sort of massive roll back.
2-Of all ten amendments in the BOR, only one uses the phrase Well-Regulated. The 2nd Amendment
3-Other rights enshrined in our BOR include freedom of religion and the right for peaceful assembly. Neither of these rights have any preamble of the reason for their existence as the 2nd amendment does. They don't say, things like "An open and spiritual community being necessary for the well-being of the state, the right to worship freely shall not be infringed". HOWEVER, we accept limitations and regulations on religion and assembly.
Warren Jeffs and some of his followers certainly believe that their religion allows them to marry multiple people. Perhaps minors. We have laws in place prohibiting polygamy and regulating the age of marriage. These FLDS folks quote the First Amendment in their defense. Certain other religions including some Islamic teachings in smaller sects of that faith allow for polygamy. These laws in place are accepted despite the fact that they regulate the ability for some Americans to practice what they sincerely believe is their religious practices. As a society, we do all we can to allow the open practice of religion.
However, we sacrifice and/or cede some aspects of this right back to the government to regulate what we deem are harmful aspects to society.
We can peacefully assemble in this nation. You can organize a march or meeting to talk about anything you wish. Politics, religion, education, etc. Any topic is pretty much allowed.
However, you cannot decide that you'd like to organize a meeting in the middle of main street without going through some process to apply for a permit. We have sacrificed/ceded this aspect of this constitutional right back to the government in the interest of the greater public good. We can still assemble. There are just some aspects of this right that are regulated by the government..
As a society, we mostly agree to sacrifice aspects of the first amendment back to the government for oversight/regulation is worth it for the betterment of the nation.
I don't understand why some feel that any aspects of the 2nd amendment are never worthy of regulation? Actually , I have news for some..WE ALREADY DO. Certain "arms" are not allowed for purchase without serious background checks and/or other regulations. I won't get into the definition of what a "machine gun" is, but certain "guns" are strictly regulated. With Background checks. With other rules in place.
Can you not sacrifice certain aspects of your rights for the greater good of the nation? Yes, ALL LAWS can be a slippery slope. The regulatory aspect of rights to assemble could be expanded on to never allow meetings/marches in public under the guise of "public safety". For the most part, the regulations work. Perfectly? Maybe not, but if you listed the top 1000 things Americans wish were not regulated by their governments, I bet laws regulating the right to assemble would not make the list.
As a start, with hard work, we certainly can agree on the definition of military grade weapon/assault rifle and regulate the purchase to those who pass a universal background check and require a 48 hour waiting period. Certainly, we can agree if you are on the Terrorist Watch List, you should not be able to buy these weapons. I understand the hard work required for reasonable people to agree on the definition of the weapons and I understand the potential of misuse of a "watch list". Can't reasonable people work through this?
The false argument that these laws would not prevent the Orlando or Sandy Hook massacres don't add up to me. Will these laws prohibit all mass shootings of this variety? Of course not. How many mass shootings involve these type weapons annually? 10? 20? What if a handful of these were lessened by the type of gun the person had? What if San Bernadino killers had pistols only? Could 8 lives have been spared? What if this sick person in Orlando had 4 pistols? Could the death toll have been 17 vs 49? Of the 15k + killings with guns (I think this is right backing out suicides) what if these laws protected/saved only 2% of the victims? That is 300 people. 300 lives. 300 families not decimated and forever changed. what if 2% is too low. What if it was 10%? 1500 people.
What if some shooting we don't know of been prevented all together by the potential perpetrator been forbidden to buy his weapon and eventually caught up to by the authorities?
The question is for those who want these weapons available...can you not sacrifice some aspects of your rights to own and use these guns for the greater good?
Yes, you lose a little freedom and that is a scary proposition. But ALL LAWS are the act of ceding freedoms to the government for the betterment of society. We havre laws in place regulating the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.
Would you be willing to look into the faces of the victim's families and say, your rights to buy these weapons with no regulations trump their rights to live?
If you believe in open carry and if you believe that this is a good defense to minimize these attacks in the future or even prevent, I don't argue with you.
However, it is not realistic nor practical for 99.9999% of us to carry a military grade weapon with us everywhere we go. If you were at the night club and had your pistol on your side you are probably just as likely to stop the assailant with your glock vs an AR-15. We are not safer with you, a good responsible gun owner, having an AR-15 vs a handgun. If somehow, your rights are infringed slightly to prevent you from openly buying the AR-15 at any time and on a given day, you simply have your handgun, you still can protect your family and property.
However, wouldn't society be slightly better off if we had reasonable rules in place? Simply expanding what we currently have for heavier "machine guns" does not lead to totalitarian rule. It is common sense.
It just takes a little sacrifice.
Cmon people.
