Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367782)

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2367985)

Yes, let's do like the North Korean government, jail the entire family for what one family member does. It is the "guilt by association" system that punishes relatives of the perpetrator, even if they did not commit the crime. This punishment can extend up to 3 generations.
If your alcoholic, black sheep uncle robs a bank, you as his nephew/niece will accompany him in jail also. Even a child born in prison to a woman sentenced under this system can possibly stay in prison for it's entire life.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2368018)

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."

That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2368018)

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."



That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

Originally Posted by TheWarriors (Post 2368042)

I don’t think you quite understand why the Second Amendment exists. Perhaps you would like to apply the same logic to all the other Amendments?

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2367744)

I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

Originally Posted by FredMitchell (Post 2368050)

Those numbers fail the back of a napkin test. We don't have over 365,000 murders by any age annually.

Originally Posted by Chellybean (Post 2367746)

Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2367785)

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.