As the Bill of Rights are declaratory and restrictive against the federal government, it is not the purview of the federal government to impose any type of restriction on the Second Amendment or any other of the Bill of Rights.
The purpose for "the right of people to keep an bear arms" is to ensure a "well regulated militia" can "the security of a free state". The system in place currently clearly doesn't do that. Feel free to stop cherry picking. - - - Updated - - - You mean like the restrictions on the other Amendments falling within the BoR? Where are your angry posts decrying hate speech laws, for example?
Sorry, but you will have to do better than that. The Bill of Rights, as defined in the Preamble to said BOR, are restrictions on the general government, which again, is what I said. Just because you may not have seen me decry a restriction against hate speech ( whatever the hell that is ) means exactly what?
http://www.conservative-daily.com/2014/02/08/why-does-the-post-office-need-guns-and-ammunition/ http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...=ibaf&q=post+office+orders+more+ammo+and+guns all YOU had to do is a web search and you would have saved some valuable bandwidth
A) Government requisitions B} You lub you some gubmint jackboots. You think that almost all departments in government need their own SWAT teams like the Dept of Education? Really?
That's your interpretation. Cherry picking is arguing about the word militia. It clearly states "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. Supreme court agrees. Sorry if that upsets you.
SCOTUS has two separate rulings that say that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
And as is the intent by reading any of the papers on it at the time. Never was a militia a requirement to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment intent came from English law allowing citizens to own arms.
On a side note, I thought of more! Reduce the time duration people are allowed to have their vehicle in gear before a mandatory documented break, semi-annual driving physicals, mandatory annual driver safety and courtesy classes etc. It is after all only a government privilege and if all these suggestions (preceding post too) and more, across the board, can save one life...well, you know...however be aware of the potential for blow back(fire ) / (hopefully?) unintended consequences. Now back to the strategy of discriminately saving anonymous impersonal lives, on paper, using ratios/fractions/stats. By some estimates, there may be as many as 300 plus million firearms in the USA and 254 million registered vehicles. The MVA deaths are twice that of firearms yet there are more firearms than cars. Detailing (car pun? ), less cars but more MVA death while more firearms and less firearm deaths. Potentially, you have a greater chance of saving more people with controlling their driving privileges than their right to arms. You're more a pragmatist than an ideologue, no? Save more lives and pursue cars rather than target firearms...pun intended? Seriously, if you're a ratios/fractions/numbers guy looking for statistical goals through greater general restrictions of a privilege, that doesn't necessarily need to differentiate between those directly involved in creating/orchestrating the deadly acts and those who are not, this is tailor made for you. Again, the government can more easily restrict a privilege than a right, puts you and yours in a better position for a statistical win.
Security from what exactly...could it be tyranny in all its forms? - - - Updated - - - Oh, good one! I am, like you, totally against laws that specify particular thoughts as crimes with elements that identify such things as "hate" speech or other "hate" crime considerations/elements. Just another progressive tactic to criminalize thought/attack free will/thoughts. History repeats itself. Right On for being onboard against this political tyranny Brother Logi! Are WM's now allowed to serve and be designated as a 0311, if so are you for it?
Are you argueing that if a person does not oppose all violations of the Constitution, and do so to your knowledge, then they lose the right to oppose any violation? And by the way, hate speech laws have been opposed for many years by conservatives as clearly unconstitutional and a violation of the concept of equal treatment under the law.
So limitations on the First Amendment are ok? http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/virginiavblack.html http://americansfortruth.com/issues/hate-speech-laws/
I wasn't the one attempting to ignore half the Amendment while claiming to support it. Nice try. Actually, that's not all it says. And gun control (as opposed to banning) isn't about denying people the right to bear arms. It's just about making sure that there is regulation. Nothing about that upsets me.
In other words, there might be more firearms than cars - depending on the estimates you choose to believe, and those cars get used far more frequently and for a longer duration than the firearms. As funny (or punny) as your post was, it doesn't stand to reason. More people harm themselves with steak knives than nuclear weapons, so perhaps we shouldn't worry about who has nukes and focus on the great steak knife conspiracy.
You mean like living in a society where you can be shot because someone subjectively determined that you might do something they don't like at some point in the future? Sorry, I'm not a big fan of being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, or the "fighting words" used by such loons as the Westboro Baptist Church. WMs weren't even allowed to undertake infantry training when I served (other than the very basic skills taught during boot camp and MCT), but I understand they're now allowed the training. To my understanding, I don't believe they get the infantry MOS, even if they pass the SOI courses. http://www.militarytimes.com/articl...-from-Marine-Corps-enlisted-infantry-training As for my opinion on it: anyone who can meet the requirements and perform the job duties should be allowed to serve and have that designation. Honestly, in a firefight your primary concern is whether everyone on your team has the skills to ensure everyone gets home - there's not so much concern with what's between their legs.
Do you believe that using such childish misspellings as "lub" and "gubmint" make your argument appear more intelligent, rather than a childish ad hominem? This honestly has to be the first time I've seen a conservative whine about someone buying ammo in excess of what they need.
Well, you clearly aren't as opposed to them as you are to limitations on the Second Amendment... Do you believe any religious morality should be incorporated into law?
Nope, just pointing out that it is inaccurate and intellectually dishonest for a person to portray themselves as a protector of the Constitution while accepting limitations to Constitutional rights. Of course they have, most hate speech occurs on the political right!
remind us again on your stance on the 2nd A? So if you know your Rights, you are smarter than the average bear and where does it put the person who wants to kill someone for practicing their Constitutional Rights? They are stupid?
My stance is the same as it is with all rights: Each individual's rights in a society is limited by the rights of the people around them. Who is trying to kill people for "practicing their Constitutional Rights"?
