Come on. You are smarter than this.
The 2nd is open to interpretation. For example, you can't go out an purchase a tank or a hand held rocket launcher (at least not legally). Why not? Those are "arms".
The 2nd can be kept, while changing the definition of what is legal to possess and what is illegal.
In addition, a NE can be declared that limits the number of guns that an individual is allowed to own, without a special dispensation. You still have the right to bear arms, you just don't have the right to own more than X number.
A NE can be declared that makes it necessary to jump through multiple hoops to get your hands on any weapon that is semi-auto, or to make it illegal to modify any gun in certain ways.
You guys are all fooling yourself if you think the Dems can't do anything similar to what Trump is trying to do, in order to make an end around and prevent their plans from getting blocked by Congress.
To be honest, I have mixed feelings on Trump's plan for border security. I'm not at all opposed to directing more money toward solving some of the issues. If he makes his NE work, and gets the funding he wants, I'm not going to cry about it. Where the money comes from, and what is weakened, is a concern of mine, but I have no idea how that will shake out.
I'm mostly just playing Devil's Advocate ITT, but I do think this is not a long term smart move by Trump.
Been I think we are talking about two different subjects. I'm saying the 2nd will never been done away with, which I think you are agreeing with. Your saying a president or other legislative body could try and restrict ownership, numbers and so on. Fair enough, but won't ever pass muster I subsequent supreme court actions
I'm all for crazy people not having access to weapons (who determines who's crazy or not?), felons, people with restraining orders and so on. Each and every innocent killed by a weapon is a trudged, but by that logic how can you stop deaths from drunk driving?
I have many friends who don't own weapons, have never shot a weapon and don't see a need for owning weapons. They are sheep being led to slaughter. Who would own weapons if all law abiding Americans didn't?
Here is an angle that most people don't understand don't want to understand. Some people, like me are gun collectors, we don't shoot that often, but we collect weapons. My niche is 1900 - 1946 bolt action rifles, with a preference for US, Canadian, UK and German bolt action rifles. Last year I bought four K98 Mauser's, all made in the same factory in Austria (you know where they speak Austrian). They are years 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944 with all matching serial numbers on every part (and the Germans market everything up until the later stages of 44 and into 45). I'm still wanting a 1939, 1940 and 1945 from the same factory and if the opportunity avails itself will buy a deaths head model. But here is the deal...they are locked away an won't ever be shot. Unlike the coins I use to collect they appreciate yearly especially those in good to excellent condition with all matching serial numbers. I have another one that's a mix of numbers and marks, so that is my shooter. There are lots of people being vilified for owning weapons and never have done anything wrong. And before you say that's the same paintbrush we use with illegals, I'll remind you that the first thing they did to get on US soil was to break the law.
Have some other more collectable weapons as well as an AR-15. The AR is for plunking around and target shooting but it is one of the few long weapons I keep at hand in the house. The rest are all in a very secure area away from my home, for obvious reasons.
These are mostly liquid assets for the future and anyone who thinks thats insane needs to go online and see what some of these things sell for. I recently saw an auction for an SS sniper rifle with the original Austrian made scope and the bid started at 20K, sure it went past 30K before it was all said and done. Near mint condition, all matching serial numbers and rare marking with an original scope.
The last official federal report I saw said that gun violence in the US was actually declining. I'll look through my saved docs and see
Any public official who advocates gun quotas, restricting ownership without a lawfully valid reason or in general campaigns on the premise/promise they will end private gun ownership will get crushed by an election, the courts or both.
