Yes...THANKS, Howard!
One portion of an important judicial decision seems applicable to me:
"...the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."
This would seem to imply that while we may have the right to bear pistols and shotguns, the private possession of exactly the kind of semi-automatic (and this perp had converted his semi-automatic rifles to automatic) rifle used by the perp in Las Vegas is not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Admittedly, there is further reading to do, but this seemed quite important to the nature of this discussion due to the type of weapons used.
I think that in the end, it may take a combination of governmental approval of not only the intended purchaser (already in place for retail sales, not so much for private sales or gun shows, etc.) as well as the type of weapon. Who would expect to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a bazooka and the ammo for the bazooka? It ought to be the same for such lethal weapons as "assault rifles"...which was to my understanding the nature of the weapons used at Las Vegas.
We DO have a lot of work to do if we're going to have any power at all over these insane zealots who think that their lives aren't complete until they take the lives of as many as they can kill with them as they blow their own brains out.
Sure do wish we were back in the "...days of innocence" when all a child had to worry about was getting caught chewing gum in school.... <sigh>.
[Edit--so, now the news is reporting that 42 guns were found to be in this perp's possession between the ones he had at the Hotel and at his home. Why the hell would anyone in their right mind need that many guns? Hell, I don't even have that many guitars or fishing rods....and I think I have too many already!!!]
Cheers?? I'm not sure...:uneasy:
Doug
One portion of an important judicial decision seems applicable to me:
"...the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."
This would seem to imply that while we may have the right to bear pistols and shotguns, the private possession of exactly the kind of semi-automatic (and this perp had converted his semi-automatic rifles to automatic) rifle used by the perp in Las Vegas is not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Admittedly, there is further reading to do, but this seemed quite important to the nature of this discussion due to the type of weapons used.
I think that in the end, it may take a combination of governmental approval of not only the intended purchaser (already in place for retail sales, not so much for private sales or gun shows, etc.) as well as the type of weapon. Who would expect to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a bazooka and the ammo for the bazooka? It ought to be the same for such lethal weapons as "assault rifles"...which was to my understanding the nature of the weapons used at Las Vegas.
We DO have a lot of work to do if we're going to have any power at all over these insane zealots who think that their lives aren't complete until they take the lives of as many as they can kill with them as they blow their own brains out.
Sure do wish we were back in the "...days of innocence" when all a child had to worry about was getting caught chewing gum in school.... <sigh>.
[Edit--so, now the news is reporting that 42 guns were found to be in this perp's possession between the ones he had at the Hotel and at his home. Why the hell would anyone in their right mind need that many guns? Hell, I don't even have that many guitars or fishing rods....and I think I have too many already!!!]
Cheers?? I'm not sure...:uneasy:
Doug
Last edited: