Had Enough

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Here's a problem I have with this entire discussion; define "assault weapon"... Every weapon is an "assault weapon". Knives, bow and arrows, a five gallon can of gasoline, five pounds of ammonium nitrate; they are all assault weapons. My first wife's mouth was considered an assault weapon (at least by me)... As a society, we are going to have to get away from the scare tactics and posturing and start addressing the real issues. Stolen weapons, mental health, and reasonable demands to register the weapons that we do have.

 

And, abrogation of any part of the Constitution in achieving those goals is unacceptable in my opinion.

[Airbus Commander 563]

I will second Rónán O Cadhain's remarks / post, and say that if I want to own an AR-15, M27-IAR, M-60E, M-249, AK-47, and M16-A3 then by god I have the right to own those guns and the government should K.M.A. about owning them. Yes, they may inquire as to the "WHY" do I want to own such rifles, but my reply to them would be, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution allows me to own and bear (carry) firearms, and NOTHING can infringe upon that (including other laws - which they do.... you must have a concealed weapons license is an infringement to the 2nd Amendment). Now some will say, NO that is a stipulation. Well guess what, a stipulation IS an infringement, you are keeping me from doing what I want, how I want, when I want.

I never said that. I said that if they want to make a law that's unconstitutional, then they'll need a referendum to have the law pass. If there is no need for a referendum, then the law does not violate your rights and is constitutional.

 

If they pass the law then that is democracy and the will of the majority. If you don't like the will of people, then you can either like it or lump it. I think some people don't seem to realise the link between themselves and their politicians and representatives. They don't just appear in your Congress or Seanad, they are elected by a majority to represent the majority. Not everyone, but the majority, which is the only fair way to do it.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[Dirtybird1980 6]

my pardon ro. I was meaning to say that I was 2nding your post... but adding to it what I said. ... it just didnt post in that way.

 

If more than 1/2 of the country says to leave the gun laws the way they are, then Congress needs to move on to the next topic of the day and come back to gun control later in a different way. In "my" opinion, gun control is using both hands or a Bi-pod.

[Airbus Commander 563]

If more than 1/2 of the country says to leave the gun laws the way they are, then Congress needs to move on to the next topic of the day

Indeed they do, but seeing as they represent the population, if the majority of your Congress members support it, then they support it on behalf of the majority. If the majority oppose it then they represent a majority that oppose it.

[Gavin 99]

To the OP. I am not a US citizen and have no comment to make on your politics. These are decisions for the citizens of the US to make and are none of my business. What I find strange in your post is the statement that 'Any modification to our constitution is a direct attack ...' Whilst at the same time you support the second amendment. An amendment to a constitution is a change/modification. I believe there have been several amendments (changes/modifications) made to your constitution. Were all of them, including the second amendment (modification), direct attacks on your country? Or were they the democratic will of the majority?

 

Regardless of the above question, I wish the US the very best in these difficult times, I sincerely hope that you find the best solution for your people in your country. Chose what is best for you.

[razorhog703 15]

Would you mind if I borrowed / copied your letter omitting the service parts being I was never in the military, but I do support the military and their families.

 

Feel free to use or modify at your leisure. Please take the time to put on paper and send to your Congress. I am certain they do not read blog posts as much as written letters.

 

Letters like that have more impact if they don't start out, "Dear Sir or Madam as the case may be." Also, if you're gonna take the time to write it, write it on paper and send it in an envelope.

 

Hook

 

Our Senators/Representatives are due respect whether we agree with them or not. I have and will be sending letters to them as well. Please do the same if you feel strongly enough about an issue.

[realpilotsimpilot 11]

To OP: So, you take the time to define "infringe" but not "well-regulated" and "militia". Telling.

 

To non-Americans asking about changing and amending the Constitution. It is, intentionally, a very difficult process, that requires super-majorities in both the House and Senate and individual approval by a super-majority of the states. Also, given that it's one of the amendments from the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments are the bill of rights, passed right after the constitution was itself ratified), it has a nearly mythical status and isn't likely to go anywhere. So, those on both sides of this debate are left debating what levels of regulations are permitted without infringing the rights, and letting the courts settle it. Not really a satisfying outcome for either side.

[razorhog703 15]

Surely if something goes against your constitution you have to put it to referendum? Times change and if the majority wish for it to be so, then a constitution changes if it needs to be changed. If it doesn't need to be changed then there's no issue with your rights. They can't introduce an unconstitutional law without consent of the people.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

I respect your opinion, however I disagree. Perhaps in Ireland you wish to have an ever changing Constitution. In the United States there are ways to change Constitutional laws (Constitutional Convention) not by the President, Vice-President, or Congress simply acting rashly in emotion.

 

To OP: So, you take the time to define "infringe" but not "well-regulated" and "militia". Telling.

 

To non-Americans asking about changing and amending the Constitution. It is, intentionally, a very difficult process, that requires super-majorities in both the House and Senate and individual approval by a super-majority of the states. Also, given that it's one of the amendments from the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments are the bill of rights, passed right after the constitution was itself ratified), it has a nearly mythical status and isn't likely to go anywhere. So, those on both sides of this debate are left debating what levels of regulations are permitted without infringing the rights, and letting the courts settle it. Not really a satisfying outcome for either side.

 

Nice reply. I could go on and on in the letter, however I wanted to make it brief and to the point. What are your ideas on Militia and Well-Regulated?

[scott967 62]

Yes, they may inquire as to the "WHY" do I want to own such rifles, but my reply to them would be, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution allows me to own and bear (carry) firearms, and NOTHING can infringe upon that (including other laws - which they do.... you must have a concealed weapons license is an infringement to the 2nd Amendment). Now some will say, NO that is a stipulation. Well guess what, a stipulation IS an infringement, you are keeping me from doing what I want, how I want, when I want.

 

I don't think carrying concealed arms has ever been considered intrinsic to the concept of "well-regulated militia". Concealment has generally been considered the domain of those seeking to do harm. That's why licensing is required. See also the definition of "any other weapon" in the National Firearms Act.

 

I don't get the idea that modern sporting semi-automatic firearms only have offensive uses. They have many uses. I've read somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 - 3.5 million AR-style firearms have been sold. I don't think they are being bought by mass-murderers, otherwise we would be having several of these a day.

 

scott s.

.

[canuk22 29]

I'm Canadian and this is difficult for us to get our heads around that. Our countries are so similar in culture but yet so different on this issue.

[razorhog703 15]

When gun laws or lack thereof other than just bearing arms, are put ahead of the safety of children, something has to be done.

Assault weapons are an offensive weapon. Im sure the constitution as was written umteen years ago didnt intent people to own mass assault weapons which were soley designed to kill and maim in the greatest and fastest way possible. There is nothing about it thats says defend.

 

If my kid cant go to school or a movie theater without the fear of wondering if he will be shot, wait not just shot, riddled with bullet holes from an assault rifle, then there should be change. Surely childrens and everyones life is more important that owning a weapon that aims to kill as many as possible.

 

IMHO

 

Living in Canada I would not expect you to fully understand my post. Even so I welcome the discussion. I choose to conceal carry when I go with my wife and child to the movie theater and I guarantee that if I were in the theater at that time the tradegy would have been significantly different.

[Airbus Commander 563]

I respect your opinion, however I disagree. Perhaps in Ireland you wish to have an ever changing Constitution. In the United States there are ways to change Constitutional laws (Constitutional Convention) not by the President, Vice-President, or Congress simply acting rashly in emotion.

If we want to change the constitution we have a referendum, if the majority are in favour it changes, if the majority are against it stays as it is. Our constitution has changed many times since it was first written as our opinions and beliefs as a country have changed. If someone wants to hold a referendum, it just requires a majority vote in our Dáil, the equivilent of your congress, and a date for the referendum is set.

 

New laws cannot be brought in if they are not constitutional, you either drop the law, or have a referendum and then keep going with the law once the constitution has been changed. The constitution can only be changed if the majority want it changed.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[canuk22 29]

Living in Canada I would not expect you to fully understand my post. Even so I welcome the discussion. I choose to conceal carry when I go with my wife and child to the movie theater and I guarantee that if I were in the theater at that time the tradegy would have been significantly different.

 

I wish on you this never happens. But I have a question, let's say yourself and others like you are faced with such a terrible thing and that in the middle of all this commotion an innocent person is shot!! I mean the theater would be hell with people running all over, pilling up in semi dark conditions. I see an incredible risk here.

[razorhog703 15]

Assault rifles and large ammo clips didn't exist and weren't even contemplated when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. So it certainly wasn't drafted with the objective of protecting the rights of citizens to own them. The right to bear arms was a concept of its time and was drafted with the weapons of that time in mind.

 

I strongly disagree, but let's take a look at a case that was brought up in 1939:

 

In United States v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns that could be used for the “common defense.” Specifically, the Supreme Court said that “ordinarily when called for service (men in the militia) were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

 

Common for infantry at the time were muskets. Common for infantry in our time is the AR-15, a civilian version of the Army’s M-16.

[realpilotsimpilot 11]

 

Nice reply. I could go on and on in the letter, however I wanted to make it brief and to the point. What are your ideas on Militia and Well-Regulated?

 

Well, suffice to say, we probably disagree. The Supreme Court said in Heller that it supports an individual's right to gun ownership which means you can't completely ban guns. But, you can make them hard to own and purchase. At the very least, I would think that well-regulated militia would mean that they can be regulated, so definitely their can be restrictions. To me, the most important things they should do: 1) Get rid of gun show loophole. Sorry, too big an exception. 2. Make the prohibition on the mentally ill purchasing weapons enforceable. Mandatory doctor's note, something. 3. More uniform standards on training and competence before you can use. (Some states are better here than others. and 4. (and where we will disagree most strongly) Re-institute the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, but this time ban possession. Yes, I'm advocating that high capacity clips, flash suppressors and the guns themselves be taken from owners. That will never happen, but at the very least we need to ban further purchase of these, like it was before.