Gun rights

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by DGTess

and ... ?

You can't compare the situation today and the situation in 1789. It's apples and oranges. The Bill or Rights and the Constitution still apply today, but the context which within they work is so different. Because of that, they can't be expected to be applied the same way. When the 2nd amendment was passed, every state had a militia and a major war had just been won by that militia. Now there is a powerful standing army and the various states don't maintain a militia at all any more. Only 22 states have militias, and most of those are more for disaster relief then for actually military actions.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

You can't compare the situation today and the situation in 1789. It's apples and oranges. The Bill or Rights and the Constitution still apply today, but the context which within they work is so different. Because of that, they can't be expected to be applied the same way. When the 2nd amendment was passed, every state had a militia and a major war had just been won by that militia. Now there is a powerful standing army and the various states don't maintain a militia at all any more. Only 22 states have militias, and most of those are more for disaster relief then for actually military actions.

And the Supreme Court held - in OUR times - that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms.

We don't use the militia to fight wars any more, but our military is still the people. They're not "special", even if they have need of tools different from mine. There's no logical reason, only legislative reasons, the people cannot have the same tools no matter their profession.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DGTess

And the Supreme Court held - in OUR times - that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms.

To be fair, lots of folks want to overturn SCOTUS precedent other than DC vs. Heller. Some of them even have pretty decent legal arguments. You're talking about a 5-4 case here.

That said, D.C. vs. Hellar does allow for the government to place reasonable limitations on firearms ownership, so there's that.

Maybe some gun reform makes sense, but I haven't seen a single proposal from this administration, including the mental health database, which would be anything but a bandaid on a bullet hole.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by DGTess

They're not "special", even if they have need of tools different from mine.

They are heavily screened, heavily trained and heavily regulated. That makes them different then the average Joe on the street.

[badgeguy]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

They are heavily screened, heavily trained and heavily regulated. That makes them different then the average Joe on the street.

Yes, and no.. Apparently even "the deadliest sniper in American history" and all his "training" couldn't save him from someone with "issues" whatever they may be....

"Live by the gun, die by the gun". I would like it better if we just went back to the Middle Ages where all we had were swords and horses.... Guns regardless of who has them causes a lot more emotional suffering in the big picture.....

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

They are heavily screened, heavily trained and heavily regulated. That makes them different then the average Joe on the street.

I call BS. I've spent over 30 years in and with the military; few are "heavily screened" or "heavily trained". I will grant "heavily regulated" - but that's the people, not the tools.