Quote:Thank you for revealing so many little secrets!! Are you sure j you wont be reprimanded? I'll let you in on a little secret, loose lips sink ships... :-)


Whether you want to believe it or not, I'm in favor of getting rid of all guns, but your argument while compelling, is not an argument in which the constitutionality of the law would come into play.


Yes, I hear you, and I can understand your preference to having the ability-dare I say freedom?- own, collect, shoot whatever dog on gun you want to.


It's my opinion that times demand a reevaluation of our laissez faire attitude towards the right to bear arms. We already oppress the freedom owning machine guns, grenades, rpg's, so I think the precident is there to have the discussion.

Yes there is precedent to regulate the sale and movement of firearms just like there is precedent to regulate the use of free speech. Here's the kicker the spirit or the purpose of the constitutional right isn't to be altered while regulating the use of a constitutional right.


For example there is precedent to regulate speech in the manor of protecting others from harm through the use of speech by another party. I can't slander you and claim free speech because the purpose of the 1st amendment is to protect a free press and dissenting views among other things but it's not for protecting speech used in a manor to damage other parties directly or insight violence. The Klan can hold rally's and use free speech as a dissenting view on many different topics but they can't hold rallies and call for violence or make threats because the purpose of the amendment does not allow it.


Now what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? It has nothing to do with collectors hobby shooting hunting and so on, it is specifically written to empower an armed populace to counter an armed government. Therefore the purpose of the amendment can not be altered by regulation to obstruct the balance of power between the populace and government.


Now we can argue if that has already been done. If that should be changed, or Is the concept outdated and so on. But limiting ammo, the type of firearms, the capacity of firearms or worse banning many of the above completely violates the purpose of the amendment.


I'm open to regulations that do not violate the purpose of the amendment. Regulations like the current ffl3 license required to own specific firearms are acceptable albeit some of the conditions are unreasonable but compromises right?

---