ExRx.net

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ne ... z2JmWPN59V

According to this article Obama also opposes lawful concealed carry (which I'm sure I've heard elsewhere).

It kind of looks like he started out being fairly big on gun control, and then not so much with the exception of support for the assault weapons ban. So it does look like he would like to bring that back, but lacked the political capital and support until now.

"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"

As far as I'm concerned "regulated" means that gun control is not unconstitutional. And as we are seeing, firearms free of regulation isn't making a lot of people feel very secure.

Firearms free of regulation? We already have tens of thousands of gun laws at the federal, state and local levels.

Well actually that refers to the militia and not the guns. However no amendment is unlimited. You can't have a 50 cal machine gun, or a rocket launcher, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't keep a tiger in your yard, you can't have plutonium, you can't expect to not be searched if a cop catches you red handed, you may lose your freedom if you break the law, you can't practice religious human sacrifice, and so on. So nothing can be held up as absolute.

Really I don't get the whole 2nd amendment thing though, just as you pointed out. It's for a militia which is now the National Guard. Plus you have a right to property. That includes guns. Therefore you have a right to own guns, no 2nd amendment required. There are also the unenumerated rights. That's pretty much means it's ok unless there is a law about it.

My opinion on it, is that there is just too much dogma involved. We come up with policy based on opinions about opinions about opinions about opinions about the constitution. There is some value in that, but in some cases that should just be dropped. Go back to the document, and read what is there. Unless guns somehow aren't property, they don't need a special amendment. That's why amendment 2 says "militia". That's all it's about. Guns would have just been property to the authors, like tools or a piece of furniture, or whatever.

So what is the 2nd amendment for if it references militias, we have property rights and guns are property, and we already regulate guns as well as ban dangerous ones (like the machine gun example)?
It's for people's fantasies about overthrowing an oppressive regime, for which they have neither the equipment nor intestinal fortitude.
That's what I think anyway.

We need guns for the coming zombie apocalypse of course!

In all seriousness, I do believe a societal collapse is more probable than a violent revolution. At least, within the next 5 to 10 years. Perhaps a cyber terrorist attack that leaves vast amounts of cities crippled without power or something. Or even something a little less severe, like riots in a city for whatever reason. Perhaps this is what gun advocates should argue from now on . Would be nice to have an "assault rifle" in this scenario.

That sounds about right. Just "playing politics" I guess. This is why I'm about to stop voting entirely. Both sides do it too much.

"Really I don't get the whole 2nd amendment thing though, just as you pointed out. It's for a militia which is now the National Guard." - Ironman

Colonial militias were made up of civilians who provided their own weapons and were free to come and go as they wished. The National Guard is a branch of the federal armed forces. It's nothing like the militia refered to in the second amendment.

"Plus you have a right to property. That includes guns." - Ironman

That just means that the government can't take away people's property without compensation. It wouldn't prevent an arms "buy-back". Nor would it prevent the government from banning firearms, or ammunition (without which a rifle or pistol might as well be a paperweight).

"There are also the unenumerated rights. That's pretty much means it's ok unless there is a law about it." - Ironman

It's much easier to pass a law than it is to overturn an amendment.

"Guns would have just been property to the authors, like tools or a piece of furniture, or whatever." - Ironman

The Redcoats didn't go around seizing peoples couches whan the revolution broke out. They did seize weapons.

"It's for people's fantasies about overthrowing an oppressive regime, for which they have neither the equipment nor intestinal fortitude." - Ironman

If some future dictator ever did seize power, it's possible the military would be divided with some elements backing the new dictator and others siding with the constitution and congress. In such a stalemate is it unreasonable to think that a well-armed civilian population might act as a tie-breaker?

"In all seriousness, I do believe a societal collapse is more probable than a violent revolution. At least, within the next 5 to 10 years. Perhaps a cyber terrorist attack that leaves vast amounts of cities crippled without power or something. Or even something a little less severe, like riots in a city for whatever reason. Perhaps this is what gun advocates should argue from now on . Would be nice to have an "assault rifle" in this scenario." - Rucifer

There are some situations where a pistol or revolver just isn't enough gun (although a handgun is certainly better than nothing). The LA Riots and Hurricane Katrina are frequently cited examples.

Another advantage of "assault weapons" in a self-defense situation is that they're scary looking. An AR-15 is a bigger deterent than a revolver.

Still sounds the same to me. If that militia isn't well regulated, it shouldn't own or handle guns. Does that regulation exempt individuals? It would be ludicrous to regulate a militia but not the individual - like regulating the medical profession but not individuals from practicing medicine.

Similarly, each of us is regulated in such a way that we can't drive a motor vehicle without the proper driver's license.

So call it gun control or gun ownership control. It's all the same and it's not unconstitutional. And if anybody says he is already up to his armpits in laws, the escalating gun violence only proves the current regulations are not well enough to satisfy the well regulated requirement of the 2nd amendment.

I would bet anything existing regulations are watered down and toothless to satisfy the gun lobby.

"So call it gun control or gun ownership control. It's all the same and it's not unconstitutional. And if anybody says he is already up to his armpits in laws, the escalating gun violence only proves the current regulations are not well enough to satisfy the well regulated requirement of the 2nd amendment." - tostig

What escalating gun violence? Gun violence and violent crime in general have dropped dramatically since the early 90s. The current murder rate hasn't been this low since the 1960s.