Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun
Don't states and local jurisdictions have the right to determine what is safe and reasonable for their area?
Since you support states infringing on or violating constitutional rights, then you support a state sponsored church or a city council using tax payer money to erected a big cross on city hall or states mandating the teaching of creation in schools instead of evolution or states enacting jim crow laws?
Do people really believe that gun laws in rural areas would work in Los Angeles and New York?
Do you really believe a criminal is sitting there thinking "oh those damn anti-2nd amendment laws piss me off and I was gonna rob a liquore store today or I was going to go car jacking but I need a ****ing license or have to wait several days before buying a gun"?
In Los Angeles you have to give your fingerprint to purchase ammunition. Good!
So you support submitting a finger print to buy paper,pencils computers and to make a phone call and anything that is basically support asking the government permission to exercise a right?
"The 2nd amendment doesn't mention assault weapons." -- is the most idiotic statement uttered by gun rights advocates.
The second amendment states "arms", that means weapons in general nothing specific and the 2nd also says "shall not be infringed". So that means the government has no business banning weapons.
Assault weapons weren't invented you nitwits!
The it wasn't invented argument can be used for the internet, modern printing presses, telephones, warrantless wire taps on citizens making calls to other citizens and so on.
And the 1st amendment doesn't mention child pornography.
You still have to get the child to be doing something illegal in order to take those pictures or video.
There is a long history of local sheriff's determining what was safe and sane within city limits.
There was a long history with slavery, racial discrimination and other things. It doesn't make them right.
And the whole notion that if everyone were strapped we'd all be safer is so ****ing retarded its unbelievable.
No, what is ****en retard is the whole notion that somehow enacting anti-2nd amendment laws is somehow going to take away guns from people who in the first place do not already obey the law.
Cars weren't even designed as weapons and you still need a license to drive.
Irrelevant argument. Driving is not a constitutional right and a license is permission from the state to drive cars on the road. No right should require permission from the government.
Goddamn people are thick and unreasonable on this issue.
I know more than a few gun owners that have their legal guns and then their secret stash of guns purchased under the table etc. You got two ****ing hands asshole! What do you need 15 ****ing guns for, you moron?
Seeing how it is a constitutional right it is no one's business how many or what kind of firearms or weapons someone owns.
And in their sick paranoid minds, gun control laws are somehow aimed at taking away their rights.
Gun control laws are aimed on taking away or severely restricting their rights.Obviously you failed to read the shall not infringe part and the whole concept of a right is that you do not need permission from the government to exercise that right.
No lame-brain, gun control laws are meant to stop flooding the streets with illegal unregistered weapons used by criminals.
So you admit that anti-2nd amendment laws are pointless with this statement?
We care about the handguns and weapons being used by felons.
So you are cool if the government said that since were a felon you do not have a right to free speech religion or any other constitutional rights?