Journalists shot, killed in Virginia during live shot

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.

It announces that this is the purpose for the right's existence, but it then doesn't limit ownership to that purpose.

 

My point in bringing that up was only to address Sunshine's post that was obviously leaning toward the usual gun/car analogy and banning things that can be used irresponsibly. The two aren't as analogous as some like to think. Yes, both can kill when used irresponsibly. But one was invented with the designed purpose to kill. The other was invented to travel from A to B, and to pick up chicks.

 

I understand why you brought it up, but I don't think it's relevant. Who cares why they were invented?

 

Only as a defense against the "do you want to ban cars, too?" argument. Otherwise, in the grand scheme, it isn't relevant.

 

It doesn't. But it says the government can not make a law "abridging the freedom of speech." Cursing would fall under that umbrella.
The second amendment, meanwhile, mentions nothing about the right of the people to skeet shoot.

 

Saw this post from Florida Man on the other thread and found it relevant, so I brought it here. He said what I've been trying to say, but in a much clearer way.

 

We should ban beer and bourbon, too, then. What if it cuts drunk driving deaths by a fraction? If you reduce the rate by even 10 percent, that sounds worth it to me.

 

"Fuck those 3,000 people. I gots da right to shoot squirrels from mai porch."

 

"Fuck those 3,000 people. I gots d right to drink a whiskey sour."

 

I pointed that out to schiezainc using drugs as an example. The point went over his head by about the length of a football field.

 

If the country really wanted to get rid of guns, you pass restrictive ownership for now and in the future, start a gun buyback program to clean up the streets and change sentencing laws to any crime with a gun involved automatically means no parole and you serve full sentence plus 10 years.

And by restrictive I mean no gun shows, no personal sales and no sales to anyone who doesn't have a state issued license that says they've completed a gun education class, passed a basic shooting exam and have gun specific insurance.

Or basically what we expect out of people to be able to drive. No limit on how many guns or what kinds as long as they aren't fully automatic.

Extended clips would be banned and also included in the buyback program.

 

It's a start, but I don't know how practical it would be. There are somthing like 300 million total firearms in this country. A buyback program would be expensive and unlikely to make much of a dent. And lots of states already have gun enhancers on the books.

What you suggest turns gun ownership from a right into a privilege, and that will never fly. This genie isn't going back in the bottle easily.