Oklahoma violent game law overturned

The most intelligent and informed post I've seen here. Big + for you!

OMG, I so know who posted this!

RU a Gurl???

I feel ashamed I didn't bring that up - you bested me!

The second amendment is easily the most convulted of the Bill of Rights. Strict gun control laws are not necessarily in violation (or even limiting) the second amendment.

Although I must add that statistics give us reason to both favor gun control and to reject it. Households with legal weapons are more likely to experience suicide, murder, and accidental death. On the other hand, only about 15% of all guns used in violent crime were legally obtained. The majority of weapons were purchased on the black market.

Personally, I'm in favor of very strict sentencing for illegal weapon possession. Say five to ten year prison term for the first offense. That would eliminate a lot of crime.

@Vidguy, the study you are referencing is done on ATTEPMTED suicides, vice successful ones, (not suicides in homes owning guns verses those without, essentially they took all suicide attempts, and then said a certain % of them were successful, and of those numbers the use of guns is very high) it is a simple fact that a gun is going to be a more effective suicide weapon. People who are going to commit suicide are going to do it with or without a gun, this is not a cause and effect situation. The more accurate thing would have been to say suicidal people are more likely to succeed in a home that owns a gun. Most people feel no more suicidal OR muderous after they buy a gun than before.

And what is convoluted about "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."?

Let's look at that in modern terms: "Since governments like the one that we just beat sometimes need reminded that they don't have absolute power over the people, it is important to have a well equipped (in those days regulated meant equipped, hence names like regulars) citizenry to secure their own freedoms, Therefore, the PEOPLE'S right to own and carry weapons will not be limited."

I think the first amendment is more confusing than that.

No where in the text does it say "of a certain type, caliber, size, scary look, having a bayonet lug, cost," or mention waiting periods.

If you look at it as someone who is reading the document and no as someone trying to find arguments for circumventing it, you could actually take off the entire first part before the comma, as it is only justifying the actual rule. Sort of like a mother saying to a kid, because you'll get hurt, don't jump off the roof of the house. Now, does putting a mattress at the bottom of the jump invalidate that the mother said not to jump off the roof? Then why would technological advances in guns invalidate that my rights to bear them shall not be infringed? Had the framers wanted only militias run by the state to own weapons, they would have said "only law enforcement and military may own guns." The simple fact that the wording is "The rights of the PEOPLE" means just that, the people.

what would eliminate a lot of crime is if we actually enforced the laws we have, and a death penalty for violent criminals would, if nothing else, at least cut down on repeat offenders.

Indeed; which is why I mentioned it a few replies back.