The constitutionally dictated right is part of the issue. There's almost no way you can interpret the 2nd amendment to include at home ownership of an AR-15. It's also mildly ironic that the first part of the second amendment literally says, well regulated. Like...I just don't get it.
So where in those two quotes does it say you have the right to keep arms in your private residence not intended for a well regulated militia? Do you have a fire arm? Are you part of a well regulated militia? If not, according to the constitution, you have no rights to keep those arms. The security of the state is now taken care of by the branches of the military, which wasn't something the US had at that time. The well regulated militia would most likely be the national guard. Outside of that, your private storing of a hand gun under your bed for "self defense" is nowhere even near anything listed in that amendment. Edit* It's like people see my right shall not be infringed and just ignore the rest of text.
People are ignoring the dissenting opinion of Heller, which you seem to be paraphrasing, because it’s a dissenting opinion.
In my interpretation, people, are individuals who are part of the well regulated militia. In current times, this would be what we consider the state national guard since we've abandoned the idea of not having a standing military.
That would violate the owner's 4th amendment rights. There's no way police wouldn't abuse a law like that to "discover" evidence of other crimes while in the home. It's not unreasonable to enact a regulation stating gun owners need to properly secure their firearms, whether with a safe, (I keep my firearms in a safe and my ammo in a separate lockable storage cabinet) or with gunlocks (of which I am not a fan) however, it's those laws are unenforceable until after the fact. The ATF ARE the police. Do you have any idea the level of bureaucracy it would take to carry out what you propose? An ATF large enough to enforce regulations like that would be bigger than the entire DoD. Also, who defines the regulations pertaining to home defense purposes? Off the top of my noggin, I can think of 100's of variables: Practicing at a range? dry firing in your own house? taking it out of the safe to clean and function check the firearm at regular intervals? what would you consider a reasonable regular interval? Again, I do think there needs to be changes, but from my view, they need to be as I posted earlier, on the front end...before somebody gets their grubby mits on a firearm.
I wonder if they were going through the dementia phase of syphilis when they wrote that second part. It certainly created a lot of kooks.
That would mean that the way “the people” is used, that it’s the only place it has a different definition. Which might mean what you’re saying, who knows. If the fucker hadn’t used up all his semicolons in the first amendment, we’d have a clearer understanding.
Honestly, the idea of home defense with a fire arm is pretty foreign to me. I've lived my entire adult life without access to a fire arm in my home. If I put my mind to it, I could probably come up with a reasonable take on why I would need a gun in my house, but it would be very loosely backed and I doubt under rigorous debate I'd have a solid reason. This is why I said if you do have a legit reason to have a gun in your house for personal protection, it should be strictly regulated, potentially as far as having someone check your dwelling to make sure you are in compliance with the regulations. If you are using a gun for sport competition, those places should be the ones holding their members weapons. If you are using a gun for hunting, I can easily see hunting lodges or some other entity holding weapons. Again, all of these things are possible, we just don't want to do anything difficult or anything which could inconvenience our lives.
Yeah it's incredibly ambiguous and open to interpretation. It's about the most weaselly way of wording it seeing as how it was a gigantic sticking point which almost derailed the entire constitution. To then see people interpret it as this absolute, no questions, no possible way to see it differently is garbage.
Controlling gun violence is a complicated issue, but I’m fairly certain the solution doesn’t involve implementing a surveillance state and giving police more power. The only way the cops are coming into my house is if they have a warrant, whether I own a gun or not.
Honestly, the idea of an abortion is pretty foreign to me. I've lived my entire adult life without access to an abortion. If I put my mind to it, I could probably come up with a reasonable take on why I would need an abortion, but it would be very loosely backed and I doubt under religious debate I'd have a solid reason. This is why I said if you do have a legit reason to have an abortion, it should be strictly regulated. Edit - Sorry. I'm in a pretty shitty mood today.
Well, I don’t agree with you, really. It says “the people,” that means people can own a gun. If they want to create federal law to clarify it and “rein it in,” as it were, then it must be done. Or a law that further defines the well regulated militia, and the regulations.
We live in New York State, which prides itself, no, crows loudly about, having the toughest gun laws in the country. And a motherfucker shot up a grocery store. I own one handgun, and I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get it. And still I have to re-register my concealed carry permit every five years. To buy even a shotgun, a 20 gauge to hunt rabbits with, at the local sporting goods store I have to fill out paperwork and pass an instant background check. Gun laws only affect law abiding people. And despite my belief in that, I’m willing to sit down at the table and discuss how we can do things better. But when the options in the table are bands, and yearly mental evaluations, home inspections, liability insurance, etc.? That is why this discussion goes absolutely no place and never will. Laws mean absolutely dick to a criminal or crazy person.
Yeah I can agree with that. Abortions are, or should I say were, regulated pretty heavily. It's not like you could walk into Walmart and get an abortion without any sort of testing or mental health checkups or regulations stating after a certain amount of time you can't get one anymore.
I don't think it does either, but I'm also not sure owning a gun to keep at my house for self-defense is a valid reason for owning a gun. I haven't completely fleshed out personally if I feel home ownership of a gun is something realistic I would encourage if we could bottle up the idea of gun ownership and start over. If it was required by law for gun ownership in your home that you had to register your serial number and have a home inspection of your gun safe and trigger locks, what would you do? Not being inflammatory, just curious as to the reason for the pushback.
What if just to buy a pistol, you had to go through the same requirements to get a CCP, would you do it? What if upon buying and passing that requirement, you were also required to buy trigger locks, a gun safe, and register your firearm? What if you weren't allowed to keep the pistol at your home, but had to keep it at a gun club or shooting range, would you do it? If you could only buy a single shot bolt action rifle for rabbit hunting, would that be an acceptable compromise? What's your baseline of acceptable change?
“They were stolen.” The pushback is because you seem to think law enforcement would never abuse that authority, where there is a list a mile long of examples where they do. It could be about literally anything, not just guns.
Completely agree, but to most people who view gun ownership as a constitutionally protected right, your second part is a non-starter. You can't even advance the conversation past, it's my right to own a gun and you should not be allowed to do anything to stop that.
What if the government did a buy back of your guns at 150% of their value? Would you accept the punishment, whatever it might be, if you were found to be in possession of an unregistered, unregulated firearm?