Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

Current jurisprudence says otherwise. Thus, you proceed from a flawed premise.

 

All these words, and not one of them meaningfully addresses the OP.
Typical.

 

How is it in any way "reasonable" to remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
Please demonstrate the necessity for doing so.

 

Nonsense - the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the militia, or the people in the militia.
Says so right in the text.

 

Unfortunately, SCOTUS let us down on this.

Linguists did make a case at the time (and submitted it to SCOTUS as an "Amicus Curiae") explaining the difference, using the meaning of the terms as they would have been used at the time, between a "militia" and "a well regulated militia". Unfortunately Scalia decided to ignore it all and create ad-hoc his own field of linguistics. A complete field of knowledge (and a scientific one, at that) obliterated and re-imagined for the sole purpose of making the call in favor of Heller.

 

You want me to list firearm deaths in the U.S.? I'm sure you can acknowledge that they are far more numerous than in countries where strict gun laws are applied. Specifically those that don't allow ANY guns in the hands of the public.

I'm not saying we should beat up in public anybody caught with a gun in their possession, like they do in Singapore. But anything close to what they have is progress. No system is perfect, but taking the good of experiences like Australia or GB would be a plus.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

Not the actual text of the 2nd A. But a SCOTUS decision does say something like that. So it makes little difference.

 

Yeah well Scalia was a bit of a flip flopper since in the same case you're referencing he also went on to say (loosely quoting) that rocket launchers (over the shoulder type) would have to be looked at since they could be used to shoot down taking off or landing passenger airplanes.

He sort of angered people on both sides of the issue in that decision (Hellar I think?) but for different reasons.

 

You are probably correct but I am not trying to lobby for more gun laws or less for that matter. Just having a conversation. I will leave current jurisprudence to the courts where it belongs.

 

In fact, he said no to "military-style weapons". But gun advocates simply rationalized this in the most perfect way: they still quote "Heller" as their most prized reference. But ignore all the parts that they don't like, as if they weren't there.

 

All 30,000 of them? Compared to 423,000,000 guns?
When you do, you'll discover that 99.99291% of the firearms in the US are not involved in killing anyone.
How does this support your assertion that the "most reasonable" course of action is to deny the right to keep and bear arms to the general public?

Post hoc fallacy.
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws of those countries and their lower rates of gun-related deaths..

No such state exists.

No. You said the "most reasonable" course of action to deny the right to keep and bear arms to the general public.
You have no rational basis for this claim.

 

False. He said no such thing.
He DID say:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”.....


It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Nothing here supports your assertion.

 

Yes. The actual text of the 2nd says this:

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.

Thus:
The 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the militia, or the people in the militia.
Says so right in the text.

 

If we eliminate all firearms, the 0.00709% that ARE involved are eliminated, and the rest are made unnecessary.

From 30,000 dead we go down to nearly ZERO. Not too shabby!

I'm not talking about the right to keep and bear arms. I'm against this made up "right" to own and use guns, which doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution.

You actually want me to demonstrate that people who don't have a gun are less likely to kill others than people who DO have a gun? Really?

 

You cannot demonstrate a rational basis for doing so.

The fact you don't like the fact there is a right to keep and bear arms, as defined bu jurisprudence, does not mean you get to ignore the fact there is a right to keep and bear arms, as defined by jurisprudence.
You said the "most reasonable" course of action to deny the right to keep and bear arms to the general public.
You have no rational basis for this claim.

I want you to demonstrate exactly what i said I wanted you to demonstrate:
Demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws of those countries and their lower rates of gun-related deaths.
Your "Um... er... duh....I'd like to move the goal post now" response indicates you know you cannot.
Tuis, you present a post hoc fallacy.

 

This is not intended to he an arguement for or against 2nd amendment rights. Just for discussion purposes only...

"Shall not be infringed". Literally wouldn't this mean that monetary obstacles are unconstitutional?

 

As in taxes laid by the state with the intent or effect to restrict the exercise of the right? Yes.
As in having to actually buy a gun from someone? No.

 

It means nothing about guns can be further improved or altered.

 

It doesn't say ALL ARMS.

 

Ok... and why is that your "limit" for how far you think gun control should go?

 

Nope - just firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as (and thus, not limited to) self-defense in the home -- that is, all "bearable arm"..

 

He reaffirmed the Miller decision, which DOES.

 

Utter and complete nonsense -- nothing in Miller supports your assertion that Scalia "said no to "military-style weapons".
Disagree?
Cite / copy / paste the text.
Since it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, you should have no trouble doing this.

 

That is an extreme position. Does that include disarming law enforcement?