I am so bored with "what the founding fathers intended" argument.
They were flawed human beings who shamelessly founded a country based on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while denying those rights to slaves, women, natives etc.
Are you not intelligent, reasoning beings? Can't you think for your damn selves? Get rid of the second amendment. It was outdated the moment the US had a standing army. Stop trying to debate a dumb amendment. It's obvious anyone dumb enough to believe in that is also too dumb to understand basic english either.
On a side note, the founding fathers would have soiled themselves if they ever saw an AR-15 or even any handgun.
@kevcvs57 saidAt least that would be a better comparison.
Well a public space is anywhere outside of your private space so the insurance could be required in order to get a public carry licence.
Although many people keep their guns at home, where as almost no one owns a car for the purpose of keeping it at home.
@bunnyknight saidWas this an attempt at comedy? Sarcasm? What?
@vivify
Here's an even better idea:
Force lawmakers to carry insurance that would provide any victim of crime $1 million compensation for failure to protect that citizen from crime while promoting a dysfunctional society that generates criminals.
@vivify saidNY may be more oppressive than other places, although from what I've found even there you can own an unregistered vehicle not on blocks.
Semantics noted.
You can own a car without insurance but you can't use it; in NY state, uninsured vehicles must be put on blocks. Let's make it that uninsured gun owners have guns that don't work.
See: https://www.quora.com/In-the-United-States-is-it-legal-to-own-and-use-an-unregistered-car-without-a-license-if-you-dont-drive-on-public-roads
Clearly in many places people drive unregistered cars on private property.
And here is one town's law, which seems to indicate NY in general is more flexible than you say: https://www.southamptontownny.gov/Faq.aspx?QID=64
@vivify saidSeems more like satire.
Was this an attempt at comedy? Sarcasm? What?
If I turn in my gun because I can't afford liability insurance and then get shot in my own house because I'm unarmed, should lawmakers be blamed?
It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. - Thomas Sowell
@techsouth saidjust curious, are you for or against universal healthcare? i forget
Seems more like satire.
If I turn in my gun because I can't afford liability insurance and then get shot in my own house because I'm unarmed, should lawmakers be blamed?
It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. - Thomas Sowell
@no1marauder saidthe framers were quite competent at conveying the3ir mean...our leaders have strayed from it.
Ridiculous.
The Framers never intended any right to be unlimited and various local restrictions on guns were commonplace in1787.
And it may be quite a blow to you ego, but no you dont have an inside lock on the framers intentions...they wrote it down.
@techsouth saidIf someone who does have gun insurance murders your child in a school shooting....
Seems more like satire.
If I turn in my gun because I can't afford liability insurance and then get shot in my own house because I'm unarmed, should lawmakers be blamed?
It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. - Thomas Sowell
This argument goes both ways.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidThe Framers also intended for the Constitution to have the ability to be changed. So regardless of their intent with the Second Amendment, they gave future generations the ability to change or even get rid of Amendments, like we did when eliminating legal provisions for slavery from the Constitution.
the framers were quite competent at conveying the3ir mean...our leaders have strayed from it.
And it may be quite a blow to you ego, but no you dont have an inside lock on the framers intentions...they wrote it down.
@mott-the-hoople saidThey were, but right wing fanatics like you do a poor job understanding their meaning - not surprising since few of you have any grasp of Lockean Natural Rights.
the framers were quite competent at conveying the3ir mean...our leaders have strayed from it.
And it may be quite a blow to you ego, but no you dont have an inside lock on the framers intentions...they wrote it down.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@mott-the-hoople saidSeems to me, that the term, ''well regulated,''
yes it does...
" "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.""
any gun law is unconstitutional.
and it is stupid beyond belief to think that a law will prevent criminals from having guns.
gets short shrift in debates about guns.
@no1marauder said"shall not infringe"
They were, but right wing fanatics like you do a poor job understanding their meaning - not surprising since few of you have any grasp of Lockean Natural Rights.
what part of that are you not getting?