Who should be restricted from owning a gun

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

 

Lol. Do you really want to go there? I think you need to read a lot more about that decision, than you apparently have, with that little quote out of context and find out where exactly its author intended citizens ought to go instead for their remedy to any breach of their 'gun rights'. It's rationale does not accomplish what you think it does.

 

Bring it.

Note that the lack of a Second Amendment still doesn't enpower the federal government to infringe the right to bear arms, which thwn becomes a 9th and 10th Amendment issue.

Multiple states have affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions and courts, which would still exist regardless of the status of the 2nd.

 

Yep, the federal protection is irrelevent on states as are those pesky federal appellate courts, and those states get to change or amend their statutory protections, or repeal it entirely based on their public policy needs. States can put their 'constitutional protections' under scrutiny according to their own constitutional remedy, voters can in some states just ditch those with a simple majority or some supermajority via an initiative or referendum. In point of fact your argument gets us where I wanted to go anyway. Local autonomy on the issue of gun regulation. Let New York decide what happens in New York. All of that is easier than amending or repealing the federal Constitution.

 

You must have missed the 14th Amendment and Chicago v McDonald.

Does this apply to marriage rights and women's reproductive rights?

 

Nope. Again, my argument is that the second amendment is worse than useless and should be repealed, not that any other section or language of the Constitution should be. I don't have to adore them all, or hate them all equally.

Follow the dots. If I advocate for the repeal of the second, Chicago dissolves into the ether with it.

 

Fair enough. It's good that you're comfortable with your hypocrisy with regards to the Constitution.

You are familiar with Article V, right?

 

Wake up. its not hypocrisy unless I said I liked the second amendment yesterday when I bought my own guns, and dislike it today after I have bought the gun so that nobody else can have one in my neighborhood. My statements are entirely consistent with the view I have always expressed. The constitution has great ideas and one troublesome outdated one.

 

I see that insisting on states' rights with regard to one right and insisting on federal level laws with regards to others is the hypocrisy, just because you don't like one.

 

Nope. This is not a states 'rights' contention I am making because its not based on any 'right' whatsover. I believe that local autonomous decision-making is better here than micromanaging this at the federal level. If I were sitting in Congress and a federal bill sat before me to ban or regulate most guns or gun activity, I would vote against it, because its not smart policy, not because Congress should not have a legislative 'right'. Its left as a policy argument for states to determine as our best practice . In other areas, I think we are talking about specific due process and equal protection concerns and those are not amendments that I see as outdated or unnecessary to the basic functions of our republic.

 

Not at all. What, EXACTLY is required to be on a "terrorist watch list?"

 

Or taken off?

No one really knows.

 

Try finding a woman who can "defend herself" against a dude I work with. He's 6'8" tall (203cm), about 375lbs (~170kg), and thinks nothing of LIFTING a 450lb (~210kg) battery onto a high shelf. His brother has 2" (5cm) and about 55lbs (25kg) on him...and it's all rock-hard muscle, since he's been a bricklayer for 25 years. My wife is tall, strong, well trained, has more than 30 years of martial arts experience, was one of the youngest instructors in the COUNTRY, and taught it for over 15 years. Even with her skill and strength, I doubt she could fight one of them off unless she had a weapon.

 

EXACTLY! It is like the no-fly list...no known criteria, no way to know who is or is not on it, no way to get off it.

 

I'm not sure, but if you really are interested I'm sure it can be found in a regulation published by Homeland Security.

 

Your viewpoint is duly noted.

 

Clear as mud

https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/national-security-branch/tsc

 

So...an unknown criteria, issued by unknown people, with unknown procedure for challenging it and not even a pretense of due process. No.

 

Your concession is duly noted and accepted.

 

Your interpretation is duly noted as wrong as it may be.

 

Guns are a woman's friend. A guy's too!

 

"The consequences of being placed on a government watchlist can be far-reaching. They can include questioning, harassment, or detention by authorities, or even an indefinite ban on air travel. And while the government keeps the evidence it uses to blacklist people in this manner secret, government watchdogs have found that as many as 35 percent of the nominations to the network of watchlists are outdated and tens of thousands of names were placed on lists without an adequate factual basis. To make matters worse, the government denies watchlisted individuals any meaningful way to correct errors and clear their names."

https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/watchlists

 

I'm not sure how to react to this. My first reaction is the old saying, "First they came for the Communists and no one did anything. Then they came for the Jews and no one did anything. Now they're coming for me."
My second reaction is that I'm glad I'm retired. I traveled the world for a living, racking up thousands of frequent flier miles, sometimes even weekly. My third reaction is to be glad I'm not on any of these "lists". My final reaction, though, is to grab a beer and hit the jacuzzi.

 

If you say so.

 

I already accepted your concession. You do not need to concede again.