Pirate's Cove

This is one of the reasons that supporters of citizens owning firearms for protection, hunting, and sport won’t give in even on policies they agree with: because we know that the gun grabbers will want even more. That their “common sense gun reform” is just a stepping stone to even more and more restrictions, more gun grabbing

Why all semi-automatic weapons must be banned on a national basis | Opinion

It is now more than evident that it is very dangerous for a society to allow for the widespread distribution and ownership of weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy human life.

There is no mention in the Second Amendment about an individual right to own and bear arms. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to placate those former colonies (and soon to be States), who feared the potential of a federal government acting like the King they just overthrew. The bulk of the military that fought the Revolutionary War was state militias (the modern equivalent of which is the National Guard) acting under the command of federal forces.

This is not dissimilar from the current structure of our military forces. Recent interpretations of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court are simply mental gymnastics designed to achieve a political end desired by a very vocal but small minority. Further, firearms to protect against the federal government is one of the main reasons for the 2nd Amendment. The writer is blowing up his own argument. And the 2nd did, in fact, say “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

Yeah, well, that’s the way the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment, which is pretty simply to understand, done that way on purpose. It’s also the way the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights thought, especially after the British government attempted to confiscated the guns of the colonists. A good chunk of Revolutionary War fighters were just average citizens, who banded together to form militias, but, would have been nowhere without their guns.

Also, militaries tend to use automatic weapons, not semi-automatic, except for those who use specialized weapons, such as sniper rifles.

The single common factor in all the recent mass shootings was the use of semi-automatic weapons (fully automatic weapons have been banned for many years). All semi-automatic weapons, both rifles and handguns, must be banned on a national basis. It is self-evident that these weapons are not needed for either personal protection or for hunting. Restrictions on the private ownership of weapons are not prohibited by the Constitution. With the elimination of semi-automatic weapons, there should also be a ban on high-capacity magazines.

These prohibitions should be coupled with a national buy-back program of semi-automatic weapons, but the refusal to sell these weapons or magazines to the government would not itself be a crime. Rather, if a crime is committed using a prohibited weapon or magazine, the owner or immediate seller of such a weapon or magazine would be equally liable for any crime committed with such weapon or magazine, regardless of who pulled the trigger. Simple, if you keep these weapons, keep them safe and locked up.

Well, good luck with this. Does Tallahassee Democrat writer Bob Reid think they can just do this with a law? One that won’t be sued into oblivion the minute it was passed? Does he think that Red states won’t immediately tell their citizens that the state will protect them? Do they think that anyone will turn in their guns? Maybe old, junky ones. Many hunters do, in fact, use semi-automatic rifles that aren’t those scary looking “assault rifles.” Many women use small, semi-automatic pistols to protect themselves. What will be left with? Revolvers and bolt action rifles. How soon till the gun grabbers come for those?

The Constitution expressly allows Congress the right and authority to dictate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. To make sure the will of a majority of U.S. citizens are implemented, Congress could remove from the jurisdiction of the federal courts the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a ban of semi-automatic weapons (similar to the removal of jurisdiction over habeas corpus during the Civil War).

The same argument the far left is making on abortion. Which, even if allowed, would not preclude the Supreme Court ruling, but, wouldn’t be allowed, since the 2nd Amendment is specifically in the Constitution.

Really, what would happen after this would be doing the same with all the other guns. And it would mean that criminals would be the ones carrying firearms of all types out and about, while law abiding citizens would have no protection. Which would also be coupled with the Democrats soft on crime policies.