General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo in the Old West
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by TexasTowelie (a host of the General Discussion forum).
The sheriff confiscated guns. You had to surrender your gun when you rode into town. The sheriffs knew confiscating guns worked to reduce gun violence. And no one whined about the founding fathers and the 2A.
Sure there were still shootings. But not what it could have been.
Just sayin.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Guns have been restricted and regulated from the start of this country. I've had arguments with people who insist the framers and early government did not infringe on gun ownership.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)regulated....."
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)States that a militia that is properly trained -- i.e., "well regulated" -- is necessary to the security of a free state. A quick Google search will point you to plenty of articles that explain that "well regulated" meant "well trained" or some equivalent at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. To interpret "well regulated" to mean "heavily regulated by the government" doesn't even make sense. For example, using that definition:
A militia that is heavily regulated by the government being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)part that tells us that firearms should be regulated. The Congress at this point are not doing their job. They are allowing us to own military weapons, buy with no background checks, etc.
Our National Guard has replaced the militia of private owners and is regulated. The 2A was written when weapons were very simple and almost all men not only knew how to use them but also owned them. What they did not know was how to fight as a unit - a militia. The training definition refers to this. It does not imply that government can have no regulations regarding guns and gun safety.
beevul
(12,194 posts)2A restricts only government, and authorizes or 'calls for' nothing.
Authority over the militia was granted to congress in the constitution, not the bill of rights.
world wide wally
(21,836 posts)JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)They were handed back on the way out of town.
This policy would be good for Chicago, LA, NYC. Gang members could turn over their Uzis and Aks on the way into town and pick them up on the way out.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)got their guns back as soon as they rode out of town. No one went into their homes to take their guns.
That said I think you have hit on a solution. Let cities make the decision regarding guns in their own community. However I do see a problem with this - imagine Ferguson MO and St. Louis MO. Discrimination.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That will work for abortion also.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)abortion. How is owning a gun the same as controlling some else's body?
hack89
(39,181 posts)that is the connection between the two.
hack89
(39,181 posts)you could set up police check points thought out the city to make it easy.
TexasTowelie
(128,150 posts)Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Posts about the Democratic primaries, conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden. For more information, click here.
The hosts suggest a redirect to one of the gun groups.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.