laws passed by federal and state have put various weapons on banned lists. A bill is a written proposal for a new law. The bill is presented to Parliament so that it can be discussed and voted on. Various laws have been passed banning weapons in various federal and state property’s Such as a post office, courthouse. The 2nd gives individuals the right to defend themselves
Given the concentration of wealth at the top, this is a big task….but then much of the inequality has been created since RR “aw shucks” road into town. Bush, T—-, and the Republicans have made it much worse. The rich are insatiable and we need to get to work. Crime is a conspicuous symptom. These solution is not the chaos guns lead to, but rather a more equitable society.
So what I'm asking is if all of the above is true, then why can't any, but not all guns be outlawed in any place or to almost anyone? Most gun rights "supporters" of the 2nd would have none of that. They claim we can't outlaw assault weapons, or limit where guns are allowed. Where does it say anything in the 2nd about defending yourself? Are you not in the U.S.? We don't have a parliament here.
There are many ways. Reduce poverty, provide meaningful work, support stable families and social interactions, reduce access to weapons, provide free or low cost mental and physical healthcare, improve the living environment, provide increased free or low cost education and consulting, eliminate victimless criminal prosecutions, provide incentives to building better interracial and cultural relations, and offer a level playing field in regards to upward mobility. Just a few things off the top of my head.
What are you trying to ask, I do not understand the question. Next to the part about overthrowing the government 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. My mistake it’s been a few years, House of Representatives
What I am asking is why so many people object to laws that limit the ownership of certain types of guns. I don't see anything in the 2nd about overthrowing any government. Nor do I see anything about individual self protection. The 2nd is only 27 words long, where are you finding this stuff? Please indicate the specific words or phrases.
You support a stable family with a reasonable income, a healthy physical and social environment, and loving members of some type of family unit.
You are describing Nirvana… “a state of perfect happiness; an ideal or idyllic place.” I’m in… Then, what do we do when we wake up?
What guns are you referring to 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. What is difficult to understand ?
How would this be accomplished ? What level of poverty would be acceptable ? Everyone would have their dream job, plenty of ballerina, and fireman jobs available in your area ?
What is a reasonable income? What is a heathy physical environment? What is a healthy social environment? What is loving members family unit ?
What is difficult for you to understand that times have changed, and assault style automatic weapons were NOT available in the 1770s when the constitution was written. It NEEDS adjustment. And our constitution allows that kind of change - through clearly set procedures. Clinging to notions that if it was good in the past does not make something good in the present or future.
If you don't know the obvious answers to these questions then you have not got a clue, or you are here perhaps just to argue?