I came up with the first true "common sense" gun law.

[sandorski]

Is that what I individually believe the militia is? Militia is defined by law, in particular Militia Act of 1903. The intent has pretty much always been that "militia" includes all citizens fit for service (not incarcerated, found medically insane, etc).

And on the larger point the whole militia question is a red herring. From any reasonable point of view the history and practice of our country has been that personal firearm ownership is a core right. Even if for sake of argument you accepted the "Second Amendment was only intended to allow militias" it would obviously still be one of the unenumerated rights we're presumed to possess such as the right to privacy. The gun control folks aren't even honest enough to admit they just dislike that part of the constitution and seek to change it like we did with Prohibition. Instead they create completely fictional justifications for why it's not a core right and how they should be able to abridge it with impunity and that's actually what the founders intended.

Militia is a Red Herring? It's the whole reason the 2nd Amendment exists.

 

[brycejones]

Is there anyone besides the OP who really supports this idea?

 

[glenn1]

Militia is a Red Herring? It's the whole reason the 2nd Amendment exists.

So you believe that we have a right to abortion based on a "right to privacy" found nowhere in the Constitution but the mere presence of the word "militia" in an amendment otherwise saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that we don't have an individual right to own firearms? Why the hell did the founders even bother including the 10th Amendment then?

 

[ivwshane]

So you believe that we have a right to abortion based on a "right to privacy" found nowhere in the Constitution but the mere presence of the word "militia" in an amendment otherwise saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that we don't have an individual right to own firearms? Why the hell did the founders even bother including the 10th Amendment then?

I've already explained this to you and yet here you are again with the same bullshit argument.

The state is guaranteed certain rights according to the constitution regarding arming a militia for its protection, which specifically limits the federal governments ability to curtail those rights. Therefore any law that seeks to limit the rights of the state are a direct violation of the constitution.

For individuals, their right to own a gun is not guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore any law that curtails the individuals rights to bear arms and does not impede the state's rights, are perfectly legal.

The tenth amendment says the same thing.

Abortion, btw, was made legal due to the due process clause which was written to act as a safe guard from arbitrary rules imposed by the government. Its exactly why pointless regulations like the ones issued by Texas were struck down as being unconstitutional. However, even still, the government can still impose regulations if they are deemed necessary and not arbitrary. I'm sure a similar ruling could be made against useless gun laws as well.

The bottom line is that and individuals right to bear arms can be restricted and like abortion, is not a guaranteed right.

 

[PokerGuy]

For individuals, their right to own a gun is not guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore any law that curtails the individuals rights to bear arms and does not impede the state's rights, are perfectly legal.

Baloney. The federalist papers, the constitution and even the SCOTUS disagree with you.

The bottom line is that and individuals right to bear arms can be restricted and like abortion, is not a guaranteed right.

Again, baloney. The right to bear arms, as per the 2nd amendment, shall not be infringed. It doesn't say "shall not be infringed unless it's inconvenient, in which case, go ahead and add whatever restrictions you want".

 

[Kwatt]

The bottom line is that and individuals right to bear arms can be restricted and like abortion, is not a guaranteed right.

What in a non-guaranteed right?

Is any right guaranteed?

.

 

[glenn1]

I've already explained this to you and yet here you are again with the same bullshit argument.

The state is guaranteed certain rights according to the constitution regarding arming a militia for its protection, which specifically limits the federal governments ability to curtail those rights. Therefore any law that seeks to limit the rights of the state are a direct violation of the constitution.

For individuals, their right to own a gun is not guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore any law that curtails the individuals rights to bear arms and does not impede the state's rights, are perfectly legal.

The tenth amendment says the same thing.

Abortion, btw, was made legal due to the due process clause which was written to act as a safe guard from arbitrary rules imposed by the government. Its exactly why pointless regulations like the ones issued by Texas were struck down as being unconstitutional. However, even still, the government can still impose regulations if they are deemed necessary and not arbitrary. I'm sure a similar ruling could be made against useless gun laws as well.

The bottom line is that and individuals right to bear arms can be restricted and like abortion, is not a guaranteed right.

Arbitrary laws like "if you live in the city of Washington DC you can't own a gun" kinda arbitrary that the SCOTUS just struck down? And so that would make "assault rifle" bans kinda the functional equivalent of TRAP laws or partial-birth abortion wouldn't it?

 

[Chiropteran]

If a location has a special no-guns restriction, cops should be required to abide the same restriction.

 

[Knowing]

I've already explained this to you and yet here you are again with the same bullshit argument.

The state is guaranteed certain rights according to the constitution regarding arming a militia for its protection, which specifically limits the federal governments ability to curtail those rights. Therefore any law that seeks to limit the rights of the state are a direct violation of the constitution.

For individuals, their right to own a gun is not guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore any law that curtails the individuals rights to bear arms and does not impede the state's rights, are perfectly legal.

The tenth amendment says the same thing.

Abortion, btw, was made legal due to the due process clause which was written to act as a safe guard from arbitrary rules imposed by the government. Its exactly why pointless regulations like the ones issued by Texas were struck down as being unconstitutional. However, even still, the government can still impose regulations if they are deemed necessary and not arbitrary. I'm sure a similar ruling could be made against useless gun laws as well.

The bottom line is that and individuals right to bear arms can be restricted and like abortion, is not a guaranteed right.

The only right mentioned in the text of the Constitution is copyright and it pertains to writers and inventors. The only guarantee made in the Constitution is that all states are guaranteed a republican form of government (read: not democracy).

The bill of rights documents (but does not guarantee) rights reserved to individuals. Governments exercise just powers, individuals and confederations of individuals (assemblies and corporations) exercise rights.

The bill of rights states in it's preamble:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The interpretation of an amendment that ends "shall not be infringed" as permissive (rather than restrictive) of arbitrary infringement is silly at best - particularly since the long term betrayal of the bill of rights (by both major parties) has led to nearly a complete lack of public confidence in the government.

 

[ivwshane]

Baloney. The federalist papers, the constitution and even the SCOTUS disagree with you.

No, you are simply wrong. The 2nd was viewed as a collective rights issue for well over 100 years until Heller. And as I already pointed out, the constitution is consistent in what a militia is when you look at where else the word was used. The federalist papers also supports the description and purpose of militias as I have described.


Again, baloney. The right to bear arms, as per the 2nd amendment, shall not be infringed. It doesn't say "shall not be infringed unless it's inconvenient, in which case, go ahead and add whatever restrictions you want".

Lol, even in the Heller case Scalia said there could be restrictions placed on the right to bear arms.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

 

[ivwshane]

What in a non-guaranteed right?

Is any right guaranteed?

.

I was referring to rights that are explicitly stated in the constitution. For example; the right to a free press. Abortion isn't an expressly stated right so if there ever were a reason for it to be prohibited, it could be.

 

[Kwatt]

I was referring to rights that are explicitly stated in the constitution. For example; the right to a free press. Abortion isn't an expressly stated right so if there ever were a reason for it to be prohibited, it could be.

Abortion isn't an expressly stated right? OK I see.

The "right to bear arms" is an expressly stated right. So it can't be prohibited.

Is that correct?

.

 

[rudder]

Better access to mental health care coupled with less restrictive hippaa laws along with legalizing narcotics would reduce the 32,000 firearm deaths in the United States. When you take suicides and violence related to gangs and the illegal drug trade out of those statistics.... The United States becomes when of the countries where someone has an extremely low chance of dying by gunfire.

Liberals continually push their gun control propaganda totally oblivious to the fact that taking away weapons from law abiding Americans will literally do nothing to lower gun deaths.

Not sure why this does not sink in with liberals. It is almost like they have some kind of brain defect that prevents them from thinking logically. It is almost like a cult like mantra... Gun control gun control gun control.

 

[ivwshane]

Better access to mental health care coupled with less restrictive hippaa laws along with legalizing narcotics would reduce the 32,000 firearm deaths in the United States. When you take suicides and violence related to gangs and the illegal drug trade out of those statistics.... The United States becomes when of the countries where someone has an extremely low chance of dying by gunfire.

Liberals continually push their gun control propaganda totally oblivious to the fact that taking away weapons from law abiding Americans will literally do nothing to lower gun deaths.

Not sure why this does not sink in with liberals. It is almost like they have some kind of brain defect that prevents them from thinking logically. It is almost like a cult like mantra... Gun control gun control gun control.

So your logic is that if there were no guns then there would still be gun deaths? Not only that but the amount of deaths by guns would be the same!?

Speaking of cult like mantra...

 

[Kwatt]

So your logic is that if there were no guns then there would still be gun deaths? Not only that but the amount of deaths by guns would be the same!?

Speaking of cult like mantra...

I am at a loss to see what rudder posted comes anywhere close to this??????


.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Better access to mental health care coupled with less restrictive hippaa laws along with legalizing narcotics would reduce the 32,000 firearm deaths in the United States. When you take suicides and violence related to gangs and the illegal drug trade out of those statistics.... The United States becomes when of the countries where someone has an extremely low chance of dying by gunfire.

Liberals continually push their gun control propaganda totally oblivious to the fact that taking away weapons from law abiding Americans will literally do nothing to lower gun deaths.

Not sure why this does not sink in with liberals. It is almost like they have some kind of brain defect that prevents them from thinking logically. It is almost like a cult like mantra... Gun control gun control gun control.

But you keep suicides, drugs and gang crimes in with the European stats. I see, sounds fair.
The whole purpose of more gun restrictions is to address what you said.