You have to live in other cultures with far fewer firearms to see the perspective of the mindset that gun ownership makes. In many rural areas, in many countries, they are an everyday part of life and carefully owned and used, but widespread ownership is simply not neccesary.

Saying that is one thing, but on the flip there is no place in any civilised society for semi or automatic weapons. They belong in wars and for law enforcement. Any restriction on this type of weapon is welcome, and the fact that I can go buy one and kill 100 people in a very short period of time is asinine.

Those who think these type of weapons should be available to the common man, are, quite simply, (and no pun intended there...) priviledged to be part of a sub culture mentality.

Exactly!

Lets get rid of 2, then 1, then 4,5,6,7 then 3, then 8 and 9. 10 can stay.

Once we get rid of the 9 amendments we can get rid of 13, 14, 15, 24, and 25

In fact there is history on your side

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."


Once we do that, we can monkey with the main articles
Let's get rid of Article 3 too...

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

I believe that you missed MTI's point. The 2d Amendment does not say that you have an absolute right to bear any arm you want. You have a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations. The 2d Amendment says that right can't be taken away.

Its not about guns, its about CONTROL and RIGHTS. When one that you enjoy goes away, you will start caring.

__________________
MB-less

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Some day, it will hit on his rights and you can bet he will cry blue murder. Till then, it is fun and games.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Every time the candidate changes it's the same. Everyone cries about guns and gun sales go through the roof buying $5000 HK-91's and Street Sweepers and then everyone locks them in a safe and they're forgotten.

It appears that the gun biz gets a huge boost when some fear change.

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

But why buy guns if the government is taking them away from you, looks like a bad investment to me. Or were you planning to use those guns...?

__________________
1979 Black on Black, 300CD (sold), 1990 Black 300SE, Silver 1989 Volvo 780, 1988 300CE (vanished by the hands of a girlfriend), 1992 300CE (Rescue).

It would seem like a good idea that if folks are standing line for Uzis . . . there should also be a demand for kevlar body armor, bullet resistant windows and doors.

Yup, they sound like common-sense restrictions to me. Like I said in another thread, the 2nd amendment doesn't give anyone the right to bear any weapon they like just like the 1st amendment doesn't give anyone the right to say anything anywhere without facing consequences. Frequently it is in discussions like these were common sense is sorely missing.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Canada's homicide rate is about 3 times less per capita than in the US though some lesser crimes are higher. It's easy to take apple & orange statistics and twist them to suit any cause.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

If your intention is to stop guns from getting into the hands of violent criminals, the insane, etc, etc, I have no issue with it. I'm certainly not for everyone being given a gun. I believe if you are insane or criminally inclined in the violent sense, gun ownership is NOT for you. Just as if you are not doing something illegal, you should be able to PURSUE life, liberty and happiness. Cross that legal line and all 3 might be taken away from you.

However, is that the case here or are they trying to curtail guns one type at a time till there are none left? Using your example of the 1st Amendment, I can also say that you can say anything you want as long as I don't find it offensive and neither will anyone. So yes, you do have free speech. It just happens to have a few "common sense restrictions" along with it.

As I said, few (there will always be some) will disagree with you if you say "I don't want guns in the hands of unsupervised minors, the criminals, the insane, axe murderers, etc, etc". OTOH, the disagreement is present when you try to limit the guns one at a time till there are non left.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Gangsta Rap music was present at more murder scenes than any single gun, so lets ban it.

What were they supposed to write? The Bill of double dog virtually impossible to never infringe of rights.

What do you think "shall not be infringed" meant?

That language is absolute. The only way that our right to bear arms can be infringed is by amending the Constitution. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The dispute over the 2nd Amendment is not about whether the right to bear arms can be infringed. The dispute is over the scope of the right itself. If the right were absolute and unlimited, then we each would have the right to own bazookas, tanks, nukes, etc. I don't think common sense or history would support that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Beyond that, I don't think you will find any clear guidance about the precise scope of the right to bear arms. Ted Nugent thinks he's got it figured out, but that's because he's an arrogant blowhard. Hardcore advocates of gun control think they have it figured out, but they are blinded by their hatred and/or fear of guns. The answer is somewhere in between. I don't think anyone, not a single person, can say with certainty where the answer is. It is something that will just have to be worked out, probably in the Supreme Court someday.

Going back to the original post in this thread, we are still waiting for someone to give an example where Obama voted to infringe 2nd Amendment rights.

He's been a senator for 3 years he has not had much of an opportunity to vote one way or the other the only bill that would come close to showing his support one way or the other is the conveniently did not vote on was the Prohibiting Funds in the Bill S 1200 from Being Used to Decrease Gun Ownership amendment.

The whole point about the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority, that is why they did it. Very few of us attend protests, circulate petitions, quarter in a persons home, have excessive bail issues, or need one of the many protections of the 5th Amendment but we're all glad they are there.

And I will add that IMO they did not intend the right to keep and bear arms so joe the gun nut has the right to shoot his AK-47 at pop cans, it was created to keep and bear the power to the people to prevent tyranny and an oppressive government, if anyone wants to take the time to read the many preambles to the constitution this point will be crystal clear and spells out the specific intent of the authors.