Shooting at Las Vegas casino

Ain't about "intended," though.

I advocate complete and immediate repeal of the Second Amendment because I disagree with how courts have interpreted the Second Amendment, to this point, and don't trust them to continue to interpret the Amendment. Legislators, particularly local legislators, should not have to be handcuffed by the federal Constitution on this issue.

 

When you drive into Vegas there are billboards for all the shooting ranges you can go to get your rocks off shooting an AK 47

 

Actions would be better.

 

Firearms in general should be treated like cars. A license, registration and insurance should be required upon criminal penalties of law. Doesn't interfere with anyone's right to bear arms whatsoever. I'm as free as a bird to buy a new car today, except for my bank balance.

 

I don't disagree with you, but the courts might. So fuck 'em. Let the legislatures live with their laws, instead of hiding behind the Constitution. This needs to be a policy debate, not a Constitutional debate. Repeal and replace.

 

Disagree. Ownership should be outlawed. We can't risk even one person going off-kilter after legally purchasing a license and insurance. It's not worth the risk.

 

No, I don't think it does. We can ban ARs without a wholesale repeal of the Amendment. We already place other restrictions on the arms civilians are allowed to "bear" with regard to bombs/artillery/etc., I see no reason we can't extend those restrictions a bit further.

I've no problem with having a 2nd Amendment as it relates to arms serving reasonable purposes--hunting rifles and pistols serving personal protection purposes are fine by me. But it's insanity to group military-grade assault weaponry in with those firearms as if they're the same thing, when really they're something fundamentally different designed for entirely different purposes ...and possessing a level of lethality the founding fathers never could've fathomed in their wildest imaginations when they drafted the Second Amendment.

 

I think the response to your first post was because people felt it was sarcastic. I did, too. If it's not, that's great.

 

On a side note, anyone else do a giant spit take when Trump said, "The Scriptures say ... " and then started weaving God into his remarks?

I'd like to hear someone ask Trump, on live TV, to quote his three favorite passages from the Scriptures. Probably get the same answer – "All of them!" – that he gave when asked about his favorite books of the Bible.

 

I covered an Antonin Scalia speech, of all people, a few years back. He mused out loud that the Second Amendment might just mean that people can own guns with the firepower available at the time of the Bill of Rights' ratification.

But, indeed, the nuclear bomb argument is a compelling one and I've made it, too. We know that there is a line somewhere.

 

Well never mind then.