It is a weird world where the government can't ban some guns for being too dangerous but it can ban JARTS.
Glad all of that was parsed in the constitution.
It is a weird world where the government can't ban some guns for being too dangerous but it can ban JARTS.
The FBI is most certainly not aware of every gun sale that happens or anything even remotely close to it. Background checks are only done on sales that come from dealers; private sales are conducted with no checks whatsoever. After Sandy Hook there was a push for universal background checks that had overwhelming public support but the NRA killed it.
It is a weird world where the government can't ban some guns for being too dangerous but it can ban JARTS.
And, my grandchildren will likely die of old age before semi-automatic rifles and handguns are banned in this country. I think that it would take a new Constitutional Amendment, since these are the most common guns in America.
This repeated rhetoric just encourages people to say we need to ban WAY MORE guns.
Or is that the goal?
Actually, the private sale background check has been addressed by several states, your state regulates private sales and the sale of ammunition, further the state has some of the toughest gun bans in the US, so I guess the question is if you're ignorant of your own states laws or you're being purposely obtuse.
Any non-federal legislation really means anyone just needs to go to another state to avoid restrictions, which is not much of an impedance.
So check your angles, because you're not looking very acute yourself.
That's illegal too, seems you don't know your laws very well either, huh?
And, my grandchildren will likely die of old age before semi-automatic rifles and handguns are banned in this country. I think that it would take a new Constitutional Amendment, since these are the most common guns in America.
Name one country with similar demographics to the United States that has a gun ban that's successful reduced the rate of violent crime.
You're probably right about your grandchildren, but it won't take any changes to the Constitution. What will happen is that first semi-automatic weapon sales will be banned. Then some time after that, perhaps quite a long time, their possession will be outlawed. Meanwhile, people will continue to enjoy hunting, and will still keep pistols in their homes to protect them from bad guys.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
In the aftermath of the Hungerford massacre, Parliament passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.[73] This confined semi-automatic and pump-action centre-fire rifles, military weapons firing explosive ammunition, short shotguns that had magazines, and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles to the Prohibited category.[74] Registration and secure storage of shotguns held on Shotgun Certificates became required, and shotguns with more than a 2+1 capacity came to need a Firearm Certificate.
Once on the slippery slope, history has repeatedly shown it to go downhill very very fast.
In 1988 England had this :
9 years later, in 1997, handguns were banned.
By 2006 you had this :
http://www.lossofprivacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/uk-knife-laws.jpg
There is no grammatically correct reading that leads to disarming citizens. It is so contrary to any founding father writing, teaching, or leadership as to be treasonous to even consider. There isn't a single framer that even wrote that civilians should be disarmed. None.All it would *require* is a grammatically correct reading of the 2nd amendment that it's not an individual right, and I hear that a shift in the court is likely.
Most court decision requires a lot less straightforward interpretations.
By demographics you mean black people?
There is no grammatically correct reading that leads to disarming citizens. It is so contrary to any founding father writing, teaching, or leadership as to be treasonous to even consider. There isn't a single framer that even wrote that civilians should be disarmed. None.
Therefore any "grammatically correct" interpretation of the constitution s factually and logically incorrect.
It's matter of straightforward reading comprehension that the 2A was written as a collective/militia right. It would've been simple enough to write it as an individual right instead if that's what they meant.
It sounds rather treasonous to imply that the founders' english composition skills were so shitty that they can't even write a simple sentence correctly.
If only there were a way to write a sentence about individual rights without clearly referring to the military as the subject. I'm pretty sure even poorly educated conservatives were taught how to do that in elementary school.
If only there was a way to ensure that people understood that forming militias from private citizenry means private citizenry needs to be armed.
But I guess it's too difficult for modern day liberals to understand what it means to not depend on the centralized government to provide everything they need. Men were built differently then, or at least their minds were. At least they weren't confused which bathroom they needed to use. That's the #1 problem facing millennials.
Which military were the founding fathers discussing there? A standing military?The "Militia" is the military. In english, a capitalized singular word is a proper noun. What that means is taught in elementary school, too.
As mentioned elsewhere, the vast majority of government spending is on the currently rather conservative institutions of the military/elderly, and federal tax money generally flow from blue to red areas.
In elementary school terms, that means your crowd depend on the centralized government to take money from liberals to give to themselves, then they mouth off about the liberals. Even children are able to correctly judge the character of people like that.
Which military were the founding fathers discussing there? A standing military?
The well established kind they fought the revolution with.
Bazookas, Sherman tanks, and hand grenades aren't guns.