Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

Sorry, I added this link to my previous post late.

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671

 

Early history is all well and good from a domestic perspective. But the world is complicated by technology, especially during ww2 when we quickly found out that our security at home is determined by a a world wide presence overseas. German uboats routinely sunk tonnage of commercial shipping off our own coast. It was pretty naive to talk about standing armies vs militia after that for national security. We need NATO, we need our allies. The first line of defense is at the border of ANY adversary, not at our own border. It seems ridiculous to become isolationists when world trade us so dependent on our military protecting it around the world. Our own private economy does business with nearly every industrialized nation of the world.

This is why our guard unit, today’s militia, was routinely deployed in other counties for training exercises. The difference is blurred.

 

I don't disagree with you at all but this thread was about the 2A and should there be limits. I simply said that the founding fathers who created the 2A envisioned NO LIMITS. A lot has changed since back then and people that know me on this forum know I believed it is way too hard to change the constitution. Recently I argued for a change to make it possible to impose term limits but given the current rules it is almost impossible.

 

But, I think we agreed that the 2a was about arming militia units and their personnel not about arming private individuals. All that matters is what is “now.”

We can’t take our weapons in our guard/ militia weapons home for personal protection. For one thing, we have grenade launching capability from our full auto m4 s. These capabilities are all tied to our mission, which is to be as capable and train with, our standing Army for national as well as domestic defense. . So yes, there are “ limits” to the firearms we use both on duty and at home.

 

I think that the 2A refers to militias. As long as they exist and have the right to bear arms anyone that is a member should not be restricted on what type of weapons they own. If we don't like this we should change the constitution.

 

Being slandered

 

Well slander is speech. the freedom of speech is not absolute because you can't slander people. So it does translate to a limitation of the liberty because the liberty is not absolute.

 

But not "free speech". "Free speech" is unaffected by a prohibition on slander.
Nukes are weapons, but not "arms" The right to keep and bear arms is unaffected by a prohibition on nukes.

 

Prohibition on slander is a limit to speech.

 

But not free speech.
Not all speech is free speech, you only have the right to free speech, so a prohibition on slander does not affect your right to free speech.

 

Thank you! I agree 100%. Norway has much much better system then USA.

But no one needs guns.

 

Guns are much more frequently used for murder and suicide.

 

right the freedom of speech is not absolute it's limited.

not being allowed to slander is a limit placed on speech. The right isn't absolute it's limited to avoid things like slander.

 

I have used nuclear weapons many times -- I play a lot of video games (age 50).

But no one needs live replica of firearms and other dangerous and expensive toys.

 

We don't determine what people can have based on need this isn't a communist country.

People can have extravagant houses extravagant cars and extravagant firearms if they so choose. Nobody needs any of this stuff.

 

Nevertheless, nations like Norway which have Welfare State and high taxes for rich people are much more fair.

 

What does this have to do with fire arms?

 

In my opinion, all Human Life is precious -- thus firearms which enable tens of thousands of murders and suicides each year should be banned.

 

That's poor reasoning. If all human life is precious and banning an item is the way to preserve it you should first advocate for banning automobiles they kill more people than guns.

 

Automobiles are very important for everyday life.

I would seriously advocate banning motorcycles. They are 29 times more fatal then automobiles.

 

So human life is less precious than transportation. I'm not interested in your situational values in human life. It's dishonest to defend something that causes more death and injury while suggesting human life is precious.

Your argument for banning fire arms is disingenuous.

But not automobiles because human life isn't that precious.

Spare me your false platitudes.

 

I guess I have not thought out my theory well enough. I have no degree in any Social Science.

But I know that guns and motorcycles are too costly in terms of Human Life. Had guns been responsible for 5,000 rather then 572,000 deaths in USA 1999-2016, I would have supported Second Amendment.

 

What is the number that changes ‘costly’ to ‘too costly’?

 

No you haven't thought out your morality well enough.

For you human life is only situationally precious.

if guns were banned the deaths caused by then would probably be greater. Banning something doesn't remove it, it only makes sure that only outlaws have it.

You don't value human life you value your political agenda. You're just grand standing on phony values.

 

I do not think there is a definite number. But 34,000 lives a year is definitely too costly.