Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SoutherDem

(2,307 posts)
44. I try to act civil on this subject, sadly I don't alway succeed.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:57 PM
Jul 2012

But, I understand your example that one national law would not work and to a great extent I agree. Maybe a better way of saying my point would be a national minimum, not based on the most strict but not the most relaxed either. If a state wants to make theirs stricter that would be fine. From what I can tell looking on line we range from near none to extremely restrictive. Neither is right. Finding the middle may indeed be hard. I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn.

We agree on the training, enough said.

The government worker I was thinking of was the Sheriff who is elected but an elected board would work also. I do understand the difference between semi-auto and full-auto. Also, the looks of a gun does not make the gun. I am not seeking banning any guns or even accessories. However, I would like to see someone have to give an explanation as to why they are needing/wanting a certain types of gun. The point isn't the reason, even target practice may be a good reason, self defense too. This would at least cause a second glance at a person seeking a gun which can shoot 100 rounds without reloading. Actually, I may be suggesting making some items easier to get. My point isn't to prevent gun sales or ownership. It just seems to me allowing the person benefiting from the sale to make the decision if this person wants the gun for target practice vs. taking out a group of people is not fair or safe. When things happen like what happened Friday in CO we seem to start looking very close at these people and some ask why didn't someone catch this. I want to add one step to try and catch it. Simply knowing you will be looked at a second time may be enough to stop someone, or get that person help.

Really most of my last answer would apply to the ammo too. I don't want a hard limit. I want a point that if someone is building an arsenal to do something criminal a flag goes up. This would not stop every crazy person. But, if it stops a few it may be worth the small inconvenience.

Thanks for honest answers. Too often with this subject I see BOTH side giving snark answers rather than attempting to discuss the issue.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

And then... nebenaube Jul 2012 #1
The militia is the body of people who are subject to conscription. It's basically everyone. slackmaster Jul 2012 #2
That's scary. ananda Jul 2012 #3
There's nothing to be scared of. It's who we are. slackmaster Jul 2012 #6
That was Washington's idea of a militia pscot Jul 2012 #53
George Washington favored an individual mandate for guns alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #54
That struck me too pscot Jul 2012 #57
I saw this posted Friday SoutherDem Jul 2012 #18
In 18th Century colonial America, participating in defense of the community was regarded as a civic slackmaster Jul 2012 #24
It was also up till sometime after the Vietnam War we drafted people also. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #45
The muzzle loader was what was considered state of the art in weaponry at that time rl6214 Jul 2012 #58
My point is keep the 18th century standard or dismiss it don't pick and choose SoutherDem Jul 2012 #60
Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #68
The unorganized militia is sarisataka Jul 2012 #25
To answer your first part. Angleae Jul 2012 #63
"Well regulated" at the time of the founding... immoderate Jul 2012 #4
Or help fight off Russian invaders demwing Jul 2012 #30
Well, what do you think the gubmint comes after you with? Armored cars! alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #55
I'm not familiar with this "gubmint" you are speaking of rl6214 Jul 2012 #59
At the time, there was no intention of keeping a standing army. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #5
I do but SoutherDem Jul 2012 #7
There isn't anyone on the pro-gun side who won't discuss reasonable restrictions. shadowrider Jul 2012 #16
That reasonable question... sarisataka Jul 2012 #28
agreed shadowrider Jul 2012 #33
that is not true - there were some on the old DU-gun forum DrDan Jul 2012 #31
I seem to remember that but at my age I have a hard time remembering what I had for breakfast shadowrider Jul 2012 #35
There isn't anyone on the pro-gun side who won't discuss reasonable restrictions? SoutherDem Jul 2012 #32
I appreciate the civil response without snark shadowrider Jul 2012 #40
I try to act civil on this subject, sadly I don't alway succeed. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #44
NO FreakinDJ Jul 2012 #8
That has nothing to do with our Constitution. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #11
It makes Great Sense unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit yourself FreakinDJ Jul 2012 #23
Nnnnnnnope. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #9
I really hate the whole thing of parsing sentences, especially legal text HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #10
That is crazy Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #13
You may have the basis of a case to repeal the Second Amendment there slackmaster Jul 2012 #20
You didn't convince me it is more than a rationale. HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #39
Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #65
What you call a "subordinate clause".... kentuck Jul 2012 #27
Call me old school...I wouldn't argue that it's not an attempt to clarify. HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #36
That interpretation isn't supported by the law, tradition, or even common sense 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #12
The slave states wanted the ability to protect their ability to keep slaves. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #15
No, I don't agree. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #14
You can still legally own a gun, it is just not a constitutionally protected right. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #17
The rationales aren't particularly relevant because of how the right is ascribed. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #22
Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #66
That is completely insane. Motown_Johnny Feb 2013 #69
In the simplest terms... kentuck Jul 2012 #19
They meant something like they do in Switzerland. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #21
You should take this all the way to the Supreme Court! Tejas Jul 2012 #26
Yes, probably but the whole clause is obsolete now. DCBob Jul 2012 #29
Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #67
To understand what they meant you need to go back to how things were in their time Marrah_G Jul 2012 #34
There was no standing army at the time. Now we have one. A huge one. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #37
My dad was a history teacher, and here's what he taught me: proud2BlibKansan Jul 2012 #38
YES. the guns' purpose was to defend Americans from domination by another country, England. robinlynne Jul 2012 #41
After a certain point how much do the original authors' intentions matter? Posteritatis Jul 2012 #42
Lets look at a similar sentence... EX500rider Jul 2012 #43
Maybe but it doesn't matter a tinker's damn. cali Jul 2012 #46
I'm glad I started a lively discussion Panasonic Jul 2012 #47
Wonder why this hasn't been discovered before? ileus Jul 2012 #48
If they had let me write it this discussion would not be necessary. A Simple Game Jul 2012 #49
Analyze the sentence. moondust Jul 2012 #50
Yes. elleng Jul 2012 #51
they certainly did not evision the craziness we have now Skittles Jul 2012 #52
The meant to provide for the country's defense because we're not supposed to have a standing army. e TransitJohn Jul 2012 #56
I just don't understand... Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #61
Yeah, Jefferson wanted to take away the settlers gun on the frontier so they would starve Zorra Jul 2012 #62
Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did the Founding Fathers ...»Reply #44