Yes, and the average number of guns per American gun owner is 4. Now, how is one-gun-a-month not a reasonable restriction?
Or are you starting a different argument -- that our gun laws don't work? You're kind of confusing me here.
"If I were to buy 3 AK-47s in one day, I have that right, and no one should question it."
Oh, please. What percentage of American gun buyers does that describe? .00001%. Maybe? You can't spread that out over three months? Now who's being "unreasonable"?
"and to track everyone's purchases and ownership of what amount to protected implements is tantamount to unreasonable search, at the least."
No different than vehicle registration, or licensing pilots, doctors, truck drivers, etc. I think a warrant should be required to search the database for a particular serial number, however.
"Just because it's been a while since a refresher doesn't mean we should be stripped of our right to do so!"
Stripped how? I pointed out that 70 million Americans already have 200 million guns. That's not enough for your revolution?
"The ballot box is run by the candidates with the most money available to make their presence known."
So voting is a waste of time and an armed revolution is the way to go, huh? What is this, Uganda?
Why did the federal AWB expire? You think Sarah Brady simply changed her mind? You think Congress was lazy? Tell me why YOU think it expired.
"Every man and woman, white, black, Asian or Mexican, short or tall, fat or skinny who is a citizen of this country is permitted the right ... to keep and bear arms for the purpose of lawful self-defense of self and State."
Well, at least you didn't say "every person", so there's some hope for you. But every citizen? Hmmmm. The insane? The feeble-minded? Children? Prisoners? Felons?
And if the second amendment protects this right, then doesn't Due Process or Equal Protection mean that every state must have the same laws? Why do somes states allow concealed carry and some don't?
"I continue to bring that point forward to illustrate that you appear to mold it to your grammatical whim."
Then I can expect it to stop, now that you know exactly what I mean by it.
"I believe there is a movement to have the Second Amendment stricken from the BoR. While your at it ..."
While I'm "at it"? What makes you think I'm part of that movement?
Averaging in this discussion seems contemptible, Sir, as we are discussing the rights of the people at-large. I personally own over 40 firearms, many of which I've purchased over the last 5 years and a small percentage of which were willed to me by several relatives.
And yes, I am absolutely arguing that our guns laws don't work. We shouldn't have gun laws to begin with, in my opinion. The 1934 Federal taxation of an entire class of firearms was predicated on a lie, and because some twit of a lawyer decided not to show up to Miller, the judge threw out the case with predjudice.
Fact is that thousands of men had returned from WWI with full auto selective fire weapons and kept them in their basements and attics as relics of their time in the trenches.
Our boys went over to the European theater and brought back the same, and no one was the wiser. Because some gin-stilling hillbilly had a sawed-off shotgun in his truck and an overzealous FBI agent decided to haul him into court on the recently-enacted law, we now have to pay a $200 tax on a firearm that is no more lethal than its semi-auto cousin. That is, in my opinion, a perversion of justice, and it's not preventing anyone with the means to purchase one from doing so.
Additionally, there are major metropolitan areas in this country with skyrocketing violent crime and yet they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. We could have another 200-thread discussion on this talking point, but I think it would be dishonest for anyone to argue that allowing the law-abiding of this country to arm themselves for protection of self and State is a bad idea.
It all comes down to power, Sir. We continue to go around and around about this, but the simplest fact of all of this is that the Founding Fathers distrusted the absolute power of an overbearing federal government. They came to these shores to get away from a nanny-state oligarchy. To say that they were divesting the populace of this country (the entire populace, not just one class of citizens) of their right to protect themselves and their governing-by-the-people interests is unscrupulous!
Oh, please. What percentage of American gun buyers does that describe? .00001%. Maybe? You can't spread that out over three months? Now who's being "unreasonable"?
Actually, Sir, I believe you are the one being unreasonable. I know at least a dozen (yes, 12) people who are or have been just exactly like that. We will go to gun shows in the Southeast and buy up curios and relics to refurbish and re-sell or even to add to our own collections. This is not unreasonable, and again, we're not prevented from doing it, nor should we be! You are, again, arguing to preclude the few who practice exactly this from the many who may only buy one firearm per year. Just because people don't do it, doesn't mean they should be barred from doing so! You argued for the same preclusion in Post #213.
No different than vehicle registration, or licensing pilots, doctors, truck drivers, etc. I think a warrant should be required to search the database for a particular serial number, however.
Driving a vehicle is not a constitutionally guaranteed idea, Sir. Flying a plane, driving a truck and practicing medicine are not written anywhere in the Bill Of Rights as an inalienable Right. If you would be comfortable being tracked in your every movement and your every purchase being cataloged, I know a few million Americans who would have a bone to pick with you. England has a nice civilian surveillance program, I've heard.
Stripped how? I pointed out that 70 million Americans already have 200 million guns. That's not enough for your revolution?
Ah, now it's personal. My revolution, Sir? I'd argue that 50% of this country is fed up with the Federal bureaucracy and bloat. The problem is that we have grown comfortable and complacent in our cozy little cottages of nothingness while the Federal government continues to foster their power-hungry wants. A bloodless coup at the ballot box could be attained, but unfortunately there's about 150 million Americans who are comfortable voting for a name (again, because some names have more money than others) rather than an idea. We have become lazy and subjects to the talking points of the mass media in control of content distribution in the world. If more people spent the time to take part in the intellectual discourse available to them in forums such as this, perhaps the seed of liberty, true liberty, could be sown in the minds of people who really are fed up with governmental protraction but just don't know it yet. Voting is absolutely the way to get things done, Sir, but do you honestly feel that your vote counts for anything anymore? There's always some talk of "voting irregularities" when one side doesn't get their way or lose by a razor-thin margin.
Why did the federal AWB expire? You think Sarah Brady simply changed her mind? You think Congress was lazy? Tell me why YOU think it expired.
Not sure how we got to this cog in the wheel, but since you asked: I believe the AWB expired because the Legislators actually realized it didn't do a damn thing to curb crime. I mean, c'mon RP! If you read the AWB, it was replete with completely nonobjective classifications for weapons. If they wanted to do away with large classes of weapons, they should ban ammunition calibers, not firearms that "look dangerous." Passing that law, in my mind, was a complete perversion of law in this country, and as it were, they barely passed it when it was up for the final vote! They had to put the sunset clause in it to get those final few Pubbies to cross the aisle for passage. Even under the watchful eye of a Democrat legislative branch, people were hard-pressed to pass a law that was so obviously seditious. Regardless of what party was in office at the sunset of that bill, it failed to be reconstituted because it was a failure as legislation and did absolutely nothing to curb violent crime in this country in any way.
And again you're discussing the infirm and mentally challenged as potential gun owners, and yes, I am contending they are protected by the BoR just as well and you or me. However, you're throwing out the presumption of innocence with regards to some of those people in that sliver of society. I'm not advocating the arming of violent felons or the mentally unstable, but until they are convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally defective, they are afforded the right to walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm just as well as anyone else. After indictment or mental incarceration, strip them of that right, absolutely.
Why do some states allow concealed carry and others don't? Mr. Paulsen... surely you jest? You've been the one promoting the States-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. I would just assume let your interpretation speak to your question, but I would state that, as you've said before, the States have the right to place into their constitutions the rights to utilize a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. It's the business of that state how they wish to control their people. I live in a state with very purposeful laws concerning firearm usage, thank God. The business of the state of California, New York, New Jersey, etc. is their business and their business alone. I would never live there, so I don't believe it affects me one iota.