This is simply silly. Your right to bear arms ends at my property line. There are no absolute rights. Free speech ends in the crowded movie house. There are reasonable public safety concerns that outweigh individual rights. And while I agree that current laws are more restrictive than necessary, it does not help the cause of repealing them by stating that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
When you see someone arrested for a non-violent "gun crime", i.e. merely possesion of a "prohibited weapon", what you are seeing is a crime being commited by an out of control illegitimate government.
Really? A "prohibited weapon" extends to lots of things. Would you really want Timothy McVeigh to be able to drive his U-Haul of fertilizer bomb material into your neighborhood? Until he detonated it, he was simply driving a U-Haul with a "prohibited weapon." It does not help the cause by arguing that indiviudals have an unlimited right to put others in an unreasonable amount of danger. It's a common law principle that has been around since Magna Carter.
watch your border, maybe you need a man for a govenor
Nope, not in a free republic with a right to bear arms & weapons, -- and to possess any other type of property. - See the 14th.
Would you really want Timothy McVeigh to be able to drive his U-Haul of fertilizer bomb material into your neighborhood?
Farmers, miners, road builders, gasoline & propane dealers, chemical suppliers, -- the list is endless, -- all drive trucks full of dangerous materials on our thoroughfares every day.
Face up to a fact of life, - anyone with the desire can be a 'mad bomber'.
Until he detonated it, he was simply driving a U-Haul with a "prohibited weapon."
Exactly the point. How can a free society inspect every truck for "bomb materials"? Sure, we can have unenforceable 'laws', but to what real purpose?
It does not help the cause by arguing that individuals have an unlimited right to put others in an unreasonable amount of danger.
Nor does it help the cause of liberty to argue that we can 'license' every aspect of life, and prohibit possession of every dangerous type of object or material.
It's a common law principle that has been around since Magna Carter.
The prohibition 'principle' is a very closely restricted governmental power under our constitution. -- Prohibiting booze required an amendment, soon repealed, as it obviously infringed upon many other rights, and led to scofflaw disorders.
Attempting to enact prohibitions our RKBA's is an even bigger disaster in the making.
The 'justice dept' is playing with fire with such uncalled-for infringements on our liberties.
This is the philosophy which has made guns illegal in Washington D.C., the safest city in the U.S.
it does not help the cause of repealing them by stating that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states, in part, "shall not be infringed". The Constitution is still the law of the land, having a supremacy clause contined within. Now maybe you can think of a gun law that does not infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but I certainly cannot.
It does not help the cause by arguing that indiviudals have an unlimited right to put others in an unreasonable amount of danger.
I think that allowing government to step out of its constitutional cage puts us in a greater amount of danger than keeping and bearing arms freely. You would have us guilty until proven innocent, and not to be trusted with weapons with which we might harm others? This is right into the la-la land of thought crime and European law, which our forefathers fled as I recall.