Lots of interesting things to think about in the past few pages, I think while we're at it, we ought to consider some more....
While the question of bans of this, or that do have a relationship to the 2nd Amendment, there are other natural rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights. In fact, I believe that there is an amendment or two that mention that not all our rights are listed there.
Some will argue that by simply banning some things, our fundamental rights are not violated (and the boldest may even claim they are not even truly infringed).
I don't see it quite that way, and neither do a lot of us. And it is because of that and our personal experiece that we disdain what the gun ban crowd call "compromise".
I've been watching this closely since 1968, and doing more than just a casual bit of reading of history. And I understand the effects of the law of unintended consequences.
What they want now, is to begin with, what they got in 1994. And perhaps just a little
bit more. We did it for 10 years, to no significant (and some will say no discernable) effect on either general crime, or mass shootings.
That September day in 2001 woke up a lot of people to the simple fact that evil does exist, and doesn't need a gun to kill. Gun control support fell, and has been in decline ever since. We, as a nation, and as individuals have more important problems that need attention than assault weapon bans.
Forget the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment for just a bit, because, frankly even though true, it simply isn't relevent for the majority of the people. Arguments or even discussions about it put us squarely in the category of anarchist loonies for a huge segment of the people today. Of course, a lot of people (maybe a third of colonial America) thought it was craziness to rebel against the Crown, too. But, that was then, and this is now, right?
So, consider this, the proposed bans on "hi-capacity" (and who gets to decide what that is?) magazines and "assault weapons" are not just about taking away our ability to buy/own military style gear, but they are also about taking away our ability to own what the POLICE
use to protect us!
Another point to consider is that by the anti's focus on "assault weapons" (their made up term for semiautos with military style) they have actually made them the most desirable arm to own and use for both good AND evil!!!
Some ask, "why are these killing machines so popular?" The answer may well be "Because you made them that way, idiot, with your hamfisted attempt to make them illegal!" Forbidden fruit is very attractive, and get it while you can is a powerful motivator as well. And that entirely ignores the past 4 decades or so of our entertainment industry glamorizing guns that look like "assault weapons".
Back in the 1960s you could get an FAL. You could get an AR-15. You could get a semi auto Tommygun or a Mini 14 in the 70s. And you know what, sales were relatively small. Steady, but not tremendous. Also back then, you seldom saw machineguns in movies, outside of a war movie, and tommyguns were on the Untouchables.
That changed. Drastically. And so did we. Art imitating life, or vice versa?
Hi cap mags?
No need for them in my opinion. If your hunting you don't need that many bullets and if your just target shooting just load a couple extra small capacity mags
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But don't think for a minute you opinion has, or should have any impact on mine.
Who owns you? Go ahead, ask yourself, its ok. Just be prepared to face the real truth. If you are a citizen of this great republic, and over the age of majority, you would think the answer is "why, me, of course! I own myself!"
But, really, do you? DO WE?
Got news for you, gang, when you give, or allow, someone else the authority to determine what it is in life that you NEED, you don't own you anymore.