Presidential Study on Gun Control

NJ has (or had) a proposal that, when a gun is finally available that can only be fired by that guns' legal owner, then that gun shall be the only gun available for purchase in the state on NJ.

So, let's say S&W come up with an electronic biometric ID system for one of their 4-inch .38 specials, and they put it on the market.

From that moment on, that would be the only handgun a NJ citizen would be allowed to purchase. Period. No target pistols, no semi-autos, no single-shot hunting pistols, no cowboy 6-shooters. NO other type at all.

Practical Pistol competition dies. Cowboy shooting meets die. Handgun hunting dies. Homeowners get stuck with a crappy 6-shot .38 while bad guys still have the 15-shot 9s they stole before the law. Hobbies like collecting and target shooting die.

But it's not infringement, because one type of gun is still available. Rigth?

That's pretty much the rational.

There's a lot of really cool strawmen being built in this thread.

Are you sure you want to go down that trail, Corky? Because "at the time it (the First Ammendment) was written", the "genre" of free speech tools were printing presses, handwriting and the human voice, not giant word processors with millions of bits of information. Not to mentions teevee and radio stations...

But that's different. Guns are scary.

You're fucked. These people introduced a new gun at the SHOT show. They start shipping to the US next month. Their .22LR pistol will be going for $9,463.30.

But, hey, you can still buy a gun, right?

Plus they had rifles at the time that the Bill of Rights was written. Not to mention heavy artillery.

Not to mention that the muskets were the "assault rifles" of their day. At the time of its writing, therefore, the 2nd guaranteed the right to keep and bear military-grade small arms.

I realize that. Apostle was the one who brought up "genre" I was just pointing out to him that he was making a dumb argument.

Point out the relevant SCOTUS ruling that says he's wrong.

Unless I'm mistaken, he's arguing from the perspective of the courts...not how it "should" be.

The link won't load! Anywho.....a 9,000 dollar .22? You would have to be one stupid S.O.B. to buy that.

Thank you...

I don't care POV hes arguing from. Its wrong.

What's wrong? The fact that that's the way it fucking is???

Because I've got news for you. That's the way it fucking is.

Deal with it or write your congressman.

Wow, what a great idea.

Write to a person who knows less about the Constitution than most first graders.

I'll tell you what Shoes, if you dislike my opinion dont read them.

Also at the time the 6th Amendment was written you had a right to counsel but the government wasn't required to provide one for you in the event you couldn't get one. It wasn't until 1932 that SCOTUS ruled the Fed courts had to provide one and it wasn't applied to the state courts until a 1961 ruling.

And of course when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as the Miranda Warning. Nor was there any nonsense about "anchor babies".

Oh and Timmy those single shot muskets and rifles were often as large if not bigger then the "giant assault rifles" with exception of course to the number of rounds in the gun. As for assault rifles that is a ridiculous term created by gun grabbers. A rifle is a rifle.

Oh and please let us know where we can buy automatic combat shotguns legally in the United States. I so want one.

^Again, I was pointing out the flaw in apostle's statement. Don't have a cow, man.

Yeah you pretty much failed at pointing out any flaw.

The founders were a lot smarter then you which is why the wrote:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And not this:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed."

They understood that weapons change over time hence them generalizing through the use of "arms" and not specifying a specific weapon.

You can have any opinion you want, and in fact, I see nothing wrong with yours in this case.

I guess at this point, I'm just trying to understand why you're calling someone an idiot for stating a fact. :shrug;

The reason is because he doesn't get it...

Or he could just be an insecure douchebag.

Of course, I pretty much agree with everyone here, but that didn't stop me from getting dogpiled...

You whine.

A lot.

You guys wouldn't know an honest to God leftist if one bit you on the ass....

Actually I do get it. Unfortunately for a mindless fool like you, I disagree with the opinion, because it is flat out wrong.

Unlike you Alfie, I'm not afraid to say that judges and are full of shit. At times they are just as politically motivated as the politicians who put them into their positions.

Would you just shut the fuck up about being "dogpiled" on Mike. If you can't fucking handle it, then don't come here. But for God's sake stop being a sniveling, whining asshole about people disagreeing with you.

Maybe not, but I know a whiner when I see one.

Come on. Seriously.

He says, "The courts say that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own A Gun...not Any Gun You Want Without Infringement."

Someone explain how that's incorrect, because I'd love to have a sawed off shotgun, or a silenced full auto somethingorother without having to pay for a stamp.

Simple, had there been a list of guns the 2nd Amendment applied to, the opinion would be a valid one. For the court to step in and pick and choose what guns are okay for people to own, is by its very nature, an infringement.

To claim oh well they didn't know there would be such and such a type of firearm today is irrelevant. The Constitution is quite clear about not infringing on our rights. Each and every time the government imposes a new regulation, it is an infringement. Each time a Supreme Court allows those regulations to remain in place it is an infringement.

Okay, let me put this another way.

Do the current laws limit and/or infringe on what type of firearms we can own, or do they not?

Yes, currently there are laws on the books that limit the types of firearms people can own.