No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable.
Yes. Reasonable regulations are acceptable.
A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry full auto weapons.
A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry flame throwers.
A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry tactical nukes.
gun restrictions are necessary to prevent unauthorized use by nuts.
Last edited by Devil505; 09-21-09 at 05:32 AM.
If there was money in it, I am sure one would certainly try too!I think a Constitutional lawyer could make an impelling argument that it is implied in it.
I voted for some regulations because I don't have a problem with ensuring that people who have shown that they pose a likely threat to the health and lives of others, either through past criminal actions or psychological evaluations, should not have guns. And I'm sure I may upset some, but I can also see a need for not allowing just anyone to run around with an automatic weapon (although I don't have a problem with people owning them for collections, I just don't think there is an actual legitimate reason for someone to be walking around with one in public). I wouldn't go too much further than these. Granted I see the things like chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons for personal use being banned as a no-brainer. And anything that isn't actually available on the market yet would have to be judged on case-by-case bases in the future.
I will bring up that I think the bill HR 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act stinks. Two of my main concerns with it, although there are others, is the provision that the Attorney General can change the qualifications to getting and keeping a license at any time and the provision that they can come in and inspect where firearms are stored. Even with the qualifier, this sounds shady.
^(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--
any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;
^In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.
Of course, the fee is another complaint. Especially since the license needs to be periodically renewed. This would be crappy to have to pay a periodic fee for a right granted in the Bill of Rights.
Last edited by Devil505; 09-21-09 at 06:14 AM.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
Driving on public roads is a privilege.
Keeping and bearing arms is a right.
Arguing that because the state may regulate the former it may then regulate the latter in a similar manner is non-sequitur.
As I noted before, and as you ignored, any and all constitutional restrictions on the right to arms would necessarily parallel those on the right to free speech.Constitutional specification of rights not withstanding. (we have a Constitutional right of free speech but that is subject to regulations as well)
Last edited by Devil505; 09-21-09 at 10:53 AM.
You want NAMES!?!?!.
You are not a serious debater.(all you ever do is challenge people to waste their time weeding through posts & then ignore their replies....if they are dumb enough to fall for your 4th grade tricks)
Sorry....I'm not taking your lame bait or falling for your stupid word games........Find a dumb target,. (& you wonder why people ignore you??)
Last edited by Devil505; 09-21-09 at 11:01 AM.