Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Poll Result
Voted 40 times in total
I see more BS about muskets. Using that logic, freedom of the press could be limited to only printing presses that were available at the time or quill and ink.
The truth is that self-defense in an inherent right, and existed prior to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment created nothing new.
While that's all true that the right to self-defense is an inherit right.
One of an infinite number rights we never agreed to ceded to the Federal Goverment nor most of us even our State.
That does not mean every state has such a limitation, it is possible for a few of our state and local governments to ban guns.
As it Happens Rhode Island Constitution is not one in which this should be allowed:
As Article 1 Section 22 of their State constitution says:
" Right to bear arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
www.rilegislature.gov/.../C01.aspx
I suspect the State court judges have just decided to ignore this clause as many modern day judges regularly do.
Such a ban would be unconstitutional.
Denocrats appear to be too retarded to understand the meaning of “…shall not be infringed”.
Do not be obtuse and pretend to be simple minded.
Ammunition and magazines are integral parts of a weapon.
How about you remain unarmed and leave the rest of the population alone. That is called personal liberty. I realise that liberty and freedom of choice are alien concepts to a Democrat.
Pun sign on your front door: “No firearms in this home”
Let us know how that works out for you.
@cth96190 It depends on who does it, it is certantly Not constitutional for the Federal Goverment to do it, nor is it constitutional for many if not most states including the State of Rhode Island as Article 1 section 22 of their State constitution spells out:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
www.rilegislature.gov/.../C01.aspx
Clearly the 3 branches of the Goverment of the State of Rhode island care not for their Constitution. As a rule the Federal Courts do not question the interpretation of State courts in regard to state laws.
Still this is a rather non-uniform understanding of such language inconsistent with the state's history.
@msc545. It looks like you are the only one to get it right. I am a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, but I'm also an attorney and can see where the absolutist arguments fail. Rhode Island joins eight other states plus the District of Columbia in banning magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds in all firearms, so it is clearly not the first state to do so. Also, from 1994-2004 there was a federal ban in place that was lifted because it expired, not because of constitutionality questions. Large Capacity Magazines are accessories, and don't fall under the definition of "arms" and hence aren't wrapped up in the language of the Second Amendment or its later interpretations. Nobody's rights are being infringed, despite the screaming and squawking. There is an exception for integral tube-fed guns, like the Marlin Model 39A.22 (and I suppose a few others as well). Here's the full court decision and its reasons for denying the injunction:
ecf.rid.uscourts.gov/.../show_public_doc
Opinion
20Opinion
All forms of Gun Control is Unconstitutional
There are several reasons why gun control is unconstitutional. The most important reason is that this Second Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of Americans to own and bear arms.
This amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the people would always have a way to defend themselves, both from criminals and from government tyranny.
Also, gun control laws are often written in a way that disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to address the root causes of crime. For example, Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but it also has one of the highest murder rates. This is because criminals don’t obey the law, and therefore gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens who are left helpless to defend themselves.
Gun Control Laws Would Violate The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
There’s been a lot of talks recently about gun control laws and how they would violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. But what does that mean?
The 14th amendment says that all people are to be treated equally under the law. This means that the government can’t pass laws that treat people differently based on things like their race, religion, or sex.
So if the government tried to pass a gun control law that only applied to certain races or religions, it would be violating the 14th amendment. This is because the law would be treating those groups of people differently than everyone else, which is not allowed under the Constitution.
Some people might argue that gun control laws are necessary to protect public safety. But if the government tries to pass a law that only applies to certain groups of people, it’s not going to be effective in achieving that goal.
And even if gun control laws were constitutional, they would likely be ineffective in reducing gun violence. There’s simply no evidence that such laws would make any difference. Many countries with strict gun control laws still have high levels of gun violence.
So if you’re concerned about the Constitution or public safety, gun control laws are not the answer.
Back when the 2nd amendment was created (and before) there were guns that held more than 10 rounds such as; The Lorenzoni Repeating Flintlock and The Girandoni Repeating Air Rifle (lethal up to 150 yards). There were assult guns as well, The Puckle Gun, that could fire nine shots per minute. And, multi barrel Nock Volley Guns and the Duckfoot Pistol to name a few. So, the thought that technology improvements was not on their minds is absurd. Their biggest fear was tyranny, of which they just left. I wonder if tyranny ever happen again... MAO ZEDONG, JOSEPH STALIN (Lenin’s paranoid successor was the runner-up to Mao in the mass-murder stakes. Stalin imposed a deliberate famine on Ukraine, killed millions of the wealthier peasants – or ‘kulaks’ – as he forced them off their land, and purged his own party, shooting thousands and sending millions more to work as slaves and perish in the Gulag), ADOLF HITLER, and now, VLADIMIR PUTIN. You tell me if well armed militia is still relevant.
Doesn't matter if they get outlawed, it is very easy to use duct table and a hacksaw to tape two different ones together, I've seen a guy do that.
I would say no it is not, because if 10 is then what's to stop a magazine of 1, or 3? The constitution does not say, so it is up to lawmakers and the courts to ultimately decide.
It is like when states try to say, fine you can have your guns but ammo you can't buy.
Plus they want people to simply turn in their high capacity magazines, without any compensation, that is stealing, the government should at least buy them back at a inflated price.
I would never turn something in I bought, simply cause a law changed and they wanted me to. They'd have to buy it from me, not only for what I paid for it, but for the time I spent picking it out, for gas and travel time to and from the gun show.
As it is 80 miles round trip plus a few hours to go into the city for me... I need that compensated too, not just the cost of the device.
Please show us in the Constitution where there's a limit on the types of weapons or the types of ammunition. The simple fact is, it doesn't exist and EVERYONE knows that.
There's also no limit on the weapons allowed. It simply says the right of the people to be armed will not be infringed.
And that militia thingy... during the time it was written, there was no standing military for the "Colonies". That militia thing was the people in each state that could called up if necessary. Therefore, owning weapons of war was expected.
All my guns hold FAR more than 10 rounds. Part of the reason I chose them is because in all the confusion, I'm likely to miss a few times. And any perps I need to bring down are likely to have friends with them who I GUARANTEE WILL be armed with guns holding FAR more than 10 rounds. In that "game", I plan on being the last one standing and there will be ONLY 1 story to tell the cops what happened - mine!
Every single country, state or city that disarmed it's citizens has the highest crime rate, but every country, state or city that still has a right to own weapons still manages to keep crime under control. It is un-constitutional to take any hand held weapons from people. I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a law one day that restricts buying any firearm that has a trigger, because passing such law technically not forbidding to own weapons, it just would make it illegal to own tools that have fire pins and triggers on them, do you see how such ""laws"" work? they are not allowed to take away guns, but they are allowed in their corrupt judicial system to pass idiotic none logical laws.
Let's get something straight. Many people who own guns couldn't give a damn about hunting. They want guns for SELF DEFENSE.
The bad guys don't care about the law. So making laws to make your guns less effective than the bad guy's gun IS UNCONSTIUTIONAL on its face. Your most basic right as a human being is self defense and no man whether government men or otherwise has any right to take that right away. Like all of your other basic rights, they don't come from government, they come from your CREATOR. And government has no business interfering with them. It's none of their business. If they spent more time going after the bad guys than the good guys who are trying to protect themselves then this discussion wouldn't even be necessary.
I am a law abiding citizen and I want the biggest baddest gun I can get my hands on for self defense. Who the hell is anybody else to tell me I can't have it?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Arguably, the ban on private ownership of nuclear weapons isn't Constitutional. Concealed carry requiring permits and open carry being banned, too. I can't say I lack reservations about those ideas, though.
No, and if they go by the standard of, "as informed by history" then they would see that plenty of times civilians actually have had SUPERIOR weapons than the government. Even now, the standard issue handguns for the USA military is not the best at all. They chose the current model based on it having interchangeable parts with other calibers, not on best performance.
The 2nd Amendment covers the "right to bear arms". It doesn't say "the right to have any kind of weapons you want".
Reasonable restrictions on guns is Constitutional, so long as they don't take away the right for someone to have some type (not all types) of a weapon.
Yes indeed.
Probably not. The only thing more gun laws or restrictions do is keep (whatever it is) out of the hands of the law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t care about the laws…. they will do as they please (which they are currently doing now (in record numbers) since ridiculous bail changes, no pursuit rules and public defenders/prosecutors aren’t holding people accountable).
All they have to do is suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights as archaic, and then ban anything they want. Funny how our government can give weapons to other countries for killing people, but want to take yours away.
That is not relevant because the Constitution is not law. That is because there are no penalties for congress violating the Constitution nor is there any way to enforce compliance. At times, the Courts may enforce part of the Constitution but generally whatever the government wants the government gets.
Hard to say since when that amendment was written we only had muskets. I also think one has to remember it was written in a time when colonials had just thrown off the rule of an abusive king. So defense of one's liberty was a very real threat. Yes I very much believe in personal liberty. But with that power comes responsibility. And in this day and age a certain segment of the population suspends common sense in defense of somewhat antiquated legislation.
If Biden would somehow ban guns with magazines. Would the police and the military have to carry single shot firearms? Hollywood needs to stop making the mindless people believe that every gun owner only owns a fully automatic weapon.
he constitution insures the right to bear arms an maintain a well armed militia. It does not specify the type of weapons.
Just as constitutional as banning handguns to individuals under 21 or felons
It depends on who does it, it is certantly Not constitutional for the Federal Goverment to do it, nor is it constitutional for many if not most states.
A State Constitution could in fact be written to allow it.
Because I can read the Constitution. No mention of magazines is made.
The short answer is yes, it's constitutional.
High capacity mags are f great for range day, save time
You cannot ban guns, but you CAN ban high-capacity magazines which are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
@12Volt A bullet is a piece of cast lead that is propelled out of the cartridge and hits the target. You want to ban cast lead? You can make bullets by melting lead which is easy.
People who reload actually reload spent cartridges with a primer, gunpowder, and a lead bullet. It is not all one piece.
@msc545 The Federal 2nd amendment like the Rhode Island Constitution's Article 1 Section 22 does not mention "Guns" it mentions "Arms" a generic term for weapons of war hence the 1776's Declaration of Independence contemporary phrase "to bear arms against their country". Clearly referring not just guns but all weapons of war.
This is of course the entire point of such prohibitions on goverment power to monopolize the means of war over the people said goverment is suppose to serve.
The way the Second Amendment is written, I think you might actually be able to ban the commercial production of ammunition as well. Ammunition is also not an arm as you describe it. However that will never happen because of course that would lead to a very instant and violent revolt.
@msc545 This is true, such a group of well armed men could at best overthrow a local goverment, if there were enough of them maybe even a state. Not even all the military force that 1/3rd of the States was enough break free from the imperial power of the Federal Goverment.
So no a few men with guns doesn't even show up as a threat and as such they are not also a serous threat to state or local governments because the Federal goverment is obligated to protect them.
Not American. I don't understand why you need such things.
I'm not giving up my extended magazines
no, it is not.
Nope.
I would think yes.
A well regulated malitia
Militia
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions