The line in my mind is where ever the citizens of the particular communities want for, and this is important, THEIR OWN communities. For instance, if NYC, or Chicago want's to ban the ownership of guns within their cities, then they may have a problem with federal suits, but they can try and do so. What they can NOT be allowed to do, is go into other cities, and communities and try and tell them what to do regarding their own laws, and practices.
As noted, I agree on the jurisdiction point.
What guns are acceptable to you for me to own? And why should that be up to you?
You did read what I wrote, didn't you. The line you posted this under is: I don't care to ban all guns.
However, if you ask, to open up another discussion, we can as a people decide that there are regulations and restrictions. I have no personal care on what they are. However, sawed off shot guns have been on the list in the past, and so have automatic weapons. I won't lose sleep over either. And I don't mind not seeing tanks, rocket launchers or nukes at my neighbors house eoither.
Oh, I don't think it is silly, or dishonest. See, we know that agendas that are rarely accepted well by the populace when imposed in large sweeping chunks, incrementalism has been the practice to slowly chip away at original intent for 100 years plus.
Really? Be more specific. What don't you have today that you did have?
I see what you are saying, but there is very little trust left now to believe that the intent is what the outcome in the future would show.
This would make sense if there was any substance behind it. You see too many of us are so fixed on our SIDE, our TEAM, that we do little but demonize and hype things beyond where they really are. That's one reason why I have ridden you on your reading material. Like so many today, on all sides, there is a tendency to us and them instead of seeking to actually address real issues. Taking our guns overall is not a real issue.
Yes, yes it does, and I think you have the context wrong here. The first part seperated by a comma, does indeed talk of a standing army, however after that it talks of every citizen of this country individually. And as long as 'We the People' retain the right to determine, and overthrow an tyrannical government if, and when they get too far out of control, then the amendment MUST be read as such. Otherwise, you stray from the right to gun ownership, to exactly what is feared.
Two things, the reason for it not being infringed is set up by the standing army part. That is the context. Peoplemay have thought that it would allow them to overthrow, but that was not why the amendment was included.
Second, you can't be armed well enough today to actually overthrow anyone. We could become as miserable as iraq, I suppose, but we could not defeat our army. So, that argument wouldn't hold up well today.
Really?, I want to see the politican that runs a campaign on the "own a tank, or surface to air missle" platform....heh, heh...
But, see, this is where I think in this creeping incrementalism thing, that we have strayed. Show me in Article 3 where the court is to "interpret" the Constitution?
Also, please document any "extreme radical" in this country that has been caught with a tank, or SAM, I would think that would be news. So, the "silliness" stems on both sides eh?
j-mac
The Consititution is a legal document. As such, disputes in what is says goes to court, and often leads us the the third branch, the SCOTUS.
And don't over read what I wrote. I am not claiming there are extreme radicals, though there may be, but only one would want those things.
That said, a rocket launcher isn't that far removed from wanting an automatic weapon. Most of us don't want one, but some do. And it is more than like some wouldlike to have a rocket launcer. I bet if we worked hard, we could find someone who wanted a tank. And would you really argue there are no radical groups that wouldn't want a nuke?
My point is, the miltary has these things, and if we use the context of the standing army too literally, whihc no one has, then we would eb saying people could have these things. I don't think you would support that.