Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Written in a time of quill pens, candles, or lamps using whale oil, and sealing wax. Flintlock muskets took about 15 seconds for an expert to reload. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of assault rifles?
those were the best weapons available at the time. the purpose was to defend against tyrannical government. if the constitution was written a couple of hundred years earlier, people like you would say "that was when they had swords, axes and shields. what would they think of muskets?"
People who want guns thinks it means anybody is allowed to own a gun.
People who hate guns think it means only a "well regulated militia" (state police, local police dept, etc etc.) should have guns.
Only a few years back the Conservative US Supreme Court said it means anybody can have guns.
But as long as states have the rights to rule, the Conservatives have not taken that away yet, I agree with whatever the particular states rules. ( just like gay marriage, abortion)
I don't agree with 16 YO's driving cars in NC but that's states rights, just like NJ gun laws are states rights.
NJ does not operate like Burger King, you can't have it. "Your Way".
considering they just fought a revolution against an oppressive government, i think they meant anyone should own a gun in order to be able to defend themselves from oppressive government. of course, you can google it and come up with lots of different opinions and definitions of the word "regulated." however, the english language would offer no reason to believe that the second part of that sentence is qualified by the first part.
i used to have that opinion on states ability to make rules but i have modified it. states can not take away people's individual rights. when it comes to gay marriage, we are all supposedly to be treated equally under the law. i think that means that you cant discriminate against homosexuals that wish to marry. so basically, i favor states making rules so long as they do not violate constitutionally protected rights. the 2nd amendment is one of those. they should have to change the constitution if they wish to restrict gun ownership.
considering they just fought a revolution against an oppressive government, i think they meant anyone should own a gun in order to be able to defend themselves from oppressive government. of course, you can google it and come up with lots of different opinions and definitions of the word "regulated." however, the english language would offer no reason to believe that the second part of that sentence is qualified by the first part.
i used to have that opinion on states ability to make rules but i have modified it. states can not take away people's individual rights. when it comes to gay marriage, we are all supposedly to be treated equally under the law. i think that means that you cant discriminate against homosexuals that wish to marry. so basically, i favor states making rules so long as they do not violate constitutionally protected rights. the 2nd amendment is one of those. they should have to change the constitution if they wish to restrict gun ownership.
IYO NJ is violating your rights.
The only thing I can say is to get some of your like minded friends together and hire a lawyer to sue the state of NJ for violating your perceived 2nd amendment rights.
One of the "gouges" of the NJ gun laws is one can't buy a gun, even a rifle from a local brick and motor gun store, without paying a fee to NJ. Worse in my experience, I am denied the benefits of free market. I can not even order a pellet gun mail order. Case in point, I'd like to have a Benjamin Discovery PCP Pellet gun with a hand pump. Under $400 on the web, try to fine one anywhere near where I live (other than PA which will not sell to a NJ driver license holder). Special order locally will see much higher price, and the NJ gun-tax on purchase, yes and 7% sales tax too.
Is NJ over the line? Why else would a national chain Walmart with a staff of corporate lawyers stop selling everything "guns" in NJ, even pellets? Same for Walmart in PA anywhere near the NJ boarder. Because they know the NJ system of over the top with predatory ant-gun behavior from the local politician to the NJ Supreme Court. In contrast, when I go through the local police for the processing and payment for (to NJ state police, checks not accepted, forget credit card too) a handgun purchase permit I find the local police very friendly. They know the armed local resident may sometime come to their aid when they are being shot at by a "bad guy/gal". They know too that some bad guys will be shot by the local resident inside his home and they will not have to risk their lives to try to get the invader who has the advantage of cover being inside the home ... they are wide open when they approach the house.
The only thing I can say is to get some of your like minded friends together and hire a lawyer to sue the state of NJ for violating your perceived 2nd amendment rights.
most people in the country would believe that nj is violating our 2nd amendment rights. there are people working on it. its funny how you can have a law saying "x is illegal" and then many people will vilify those that own x or sell x. then it becomes legal and everyone thinks x is ok. the reality is that x was always ok, the government just violated people's rights by criminalizing it in the first place. there are lots of laws that violate people's rights and there are those fighting against them and unfortunately there are those fighting for them. so something being "the law" doesnt make it right, laws change all the time and they are written by corrupt politicians.
An example of the abused, the original poster of this thread. He simply wants an airgun at the lowest price and has to go through the NJ mire to own one, yes and pay discriminatory tax. Where do they get that right?
How would a non-gun owner like to have to pay a special range tax when they purchase a new kitchen range, a tax in addition to the government-sick 7% tax which somehow isn't enough for the incompetent to provide needed services. To busy trying to find "loop holes" to justify their reduction of constitutional rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
