3 ms·

To me, the problem I have with 'preppers' or the 'gun lobby' is that the over extend their arguments past the point of reasonable-ness. You may have a very val

To me, the problem I have with 'preppers' or the 'gun lobby' is that the over extend their arguments past the point of reasonable-ness. You may have a very valid reason for owning an AR-15 (even if that very valid reason is 'its rad at the range'). But for basically every valid reason, you can extrapolate a valid reason to own a pickup truck. In fact, there are more valid reasons to own a pickup truck. Pickup trucks, and the materials for making them work, are exposed to all manner of regulation and no-one but the most extreme anarchists make a peep. Try applying the same sorts of regulations to AR-15s and you get 'slippery sloped' out of existence. So, to me, gun control advocates of the 'left' have not abandoned logical arguments, they've been out lobbied/pr'd by the gun extremists on the 'right'. This is all coming from someone that does not own any AR-15s, but has fired them enough times to understand how much fun they are at the range.

Density 9y ago
Pickup trucks aren't protected by the constitution. Individual militia arms are. Our government simply doesn't have the legal power to regulate ar15s like they do trucks. IANAL but "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds pretty bulletproof to me.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  Why is it exactly that when people quote the 2nd ammendment they don't quote the whole thing. It's relatively short: "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." IANAL either, but the courts have changed their position on it over the years. For instance in United States v. Cruikshank (1875) the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government and states could restrict gun rights. Different parts of that decision have come under scrutiny many times. In any case, its a very modern and specific reading of that amendment that suggests that none of our governments can regulate ar15 ownership. Further Amendment 10 is fairly clear that if it isn't mentioned then the federal doesn't have the right to regulate something, yet here we are with federal regulations on pickup trucks.

Density 9y ago

Pickup trucks aren't protected by the constitution. Individual militia arms are. Our government simply doesn't have the legal power to regulate ar15s like they do trucks. IANAL but "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds pretty bulletproof to me.

kasey_junk 9y ago
Why is it exactly that when people quote the 2nd ammendment they don't quote the whole thing. It's relatively short: "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." IANAL either, but the courts have changed their position on it over the years. For instance in United States v. Cruikshank (1875) the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government and states could restrict gun rights. Different parts of that decision have come under scrutiny many times. In any case, its a very modern and specific reading of that amendment that suggests that none of our governments can regulate ar15 ownership. Further Amendment 10 is fairly clear that if it isn't mentioned then the federal doesn't have the right to regulate something, yet here we are with federal regulations on pickup trucks.