We tried that with civil rights .... didnt work all that hot.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Congress OKs Va Tech-inspired gun bill
- Thread starter FMRAM
- Start date
We tried that with civil rights .... didnt work all that hot.
Yea, a little bit different animal though too.
Yea, that's the kicker. It may not violate the 2nd Amendment now, but what happens down the road when the Supreme Courts decides a case as a result of this legislation which in turn establishes precedence for even another case down the road.
Ever see the movie, Multiplicity. A copy of a copy of a copy is not a good thing. Things have a way of metamorphosing into something completely unintended.
Most state constitution 2A clauses that I've seen tend to specifically define the right as an individual right.
Most states pre-civil war were free states, still didn't help the slaves living in the other states... Individual rights should not be granted at any level but protected at all levels.
It has always appeared to me in reading individual state constitutions -- including ones that were never NOT part of the Union -- that they were trying to further define and be more specific in their 2A clauses than the one in the Bill of Rights.
I think Kalifornia is a lost cause, unfortunately. Until something radical happens, they're going to continue to think that firearms are the root of crime.
But if we could only ban all firearms there would be no violent crime...
Just look how amazingly successful that's been in the UK and Australia!
Funny thing is, the Illinois Bill of Rights has a copy of the US 2nd Ammendment...and right now Cook County (Chicago) is trying to ban firearms period. Apparently a Constitution doesn't mean anything to lower governments i.e. DC, Chicago, etc.
Maybe the people of Chicago will stand up against this measure. If not, well.....that just sucks.
Chicago has already banned private handguns completely. But Daley is a communist, so go figure.
Granted that does suck, but by the same token what if Chicago passed a law which said you couldnt be Christian, or you couldnt be a Muslim. This would violate the 1st Ammendment. If you would object to 1st Ammendment violations how do you justify not objecting to 2nd Ammendment violations.
Not trying to be accusitory, just trying to understand the your thought process.