baldeagle wrote:RAM4171 wrote:baldeagle wrote:RAM4171 wrote:Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?
If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.
Pardon me baldeagle
I have great respect for you and always enjoy reading your posts. However, I am an absolutionist when it comes to the Constitution and the Billl of Rights, and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means exactly that which it states. I believe any new laws as well as all of those currently in place do just that, infringe on our rights. Pardon me for believing wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I think you are mistaken. Shall not be infringed does not mean we have to be insane and have no laws at all. Allowing mentally disturbed violent people to have access to guns is foolish and puts the people in jeopardy.
The founders of our country had no problem passing laws that regulated firearms, and they were the ones who wrote shall not be infringed.
For example, some of the colonies had laws that prohibited the discharge of firearms in public places except for weddings or funerals (where it was common to do so and still is today in some parts of the world.) Unsafe storage of gunpowder was prohibited in some cities, because it presented a public safety hazard. There were laws regulating hunting, just as there are today, to prevent the decimation of the deer population, and just like today "vermin" could be taken at any time (wild pigs, foxes, coyotes, etc.)
Most of the laws were what I would call common sense. You can't fire into the door of your neighbor's house because someone could be injured, for example. Even ownership of weapons was regulated. You were required to own certain types of guns and certain levels of powder and ball in preparation for the common defense.
So the idea that shall not be infringed means no laws can be passed doesn't match what our forefathers did in practice. The difference between their laws and the ones frequently proposed now is that their laws addressed irresponsible gun ownership whereas the current laws simply seek to take away weapons and ammunition. There is no way that can be justified under the Constitution.
No right is unlimited. Free speech does not mean you may speak at any time in any place about any thing any more than shall not be infringed means you can walk down Main Street firing your gun in the air to celebrate your son's birth. Along with rights comes the responsibility to exercise them sensibly. Those who cannot or will not do so are rightfully disarmed by the people for the safety of all.
Well said, BaldEagle 
