I hear a lot about how the second says shall not be infringed. So lets live up to what that says....right? Small children should be able to own guns and carry them to school. The mentally ill and violent felons should not be denied guns Guns should be allowed everywhere....on planes, major sporting events, in court...etc. Where in the constitution are these limits established? Merica!......right?
If the people of the united states wish to engage in behavior that will ultimately lead to their own death, destruction, and potentially the eventual depopulation of their entire nation, that is their own decision to make. Let them continue killing themselves in large numbers until their annual homicide rate reaches one million per year, and let them make their own decisions for how they wish to proceed from there.
So you have no problem with tens of thousands of innocent Americans being gunned down daily? Too many of your posts make me question your sanity.
So you have no problem with tens of thousands of innocent Americans being gunned down daily? Too many of your posts make me question your sanity.[/QUOTE] Some people do not care about our staggering gun deaths. They must really hate filling out a form
Let's answer a question with a question. Does the First Amendment have limits? I think all the Amendments have limits within reason and that is where the problem starts. What is "within reason", who decides what "within reason" is? I think the First Amendment has limits. Take free speech for example. I am, and should be, free to say what I want, whenever I want - "within reason". I can tell you I disagree with you or even tell you I think your ideas are stupid. I should not be allowed to get in your face, if you pass me on a street, and scream obscenities and slurs at you. Like wise I should not shout "fire" in the proverbial crowded theater. The Second Amendment, like the First, has limits "within reason". Minors should only have guns under adult supervision. Crazy people should not have at all. Other than that there should be no limits on "arms".
If that is the decision they ultimately wish to make, killing themselves off in large numbers because it ultimately makes themselves feel better, it is a decision that should be respected. Realistically what harm becomes the rest of the world if the people of the united states insist on taking themselves out of the equation and depopulating their own nation? What worth do they possess that makes them so worth attempting to save at all costs?
If they do not wish to be helped, why bother trying to help them at all? Let them learn their own lessons the hard way.
I think it's misleading to compare the Second Amendment to the First Amendment in such a manner. The First Amendment was written to make it clear that certain rights deserve the highest level of protection against government interference. The Second Amendment, in contrast, links the RKBA to a certain purpose and actually invites government interference: Government regulation is necessary in to order to have a militia. The Fourth Amendment allows reasonable government intrusions on privacy. So privacy is not protected to the same degree that the rights of the First Amendment are. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments protect the rights of the accused and allow government to justly deprive people of life, liberty, and property. So those rights are not protected to the same degree that the rights of the First Amendment are.
Saving innocent American lives is a worthy goal in and of itself whether or not the rest of the world is harmed. Whose side are you on?
Works for me. Prior to 1968 they could; my grandfather bought his first gun with his own money when he was 11 years old, and he and his peers regularly carried rifles to school they used to hunt game for the stewpot on the way home afterwards. Guess what? No school shootings to speak of. Used to be if someone had been convicted of a crime and was then released after serving his time his rights - including his right to be armed - were restored. Maybe worth looking at again. Again, works for me. If we are going to have such limits then we should have a national dialogue about them and if enough Americans think such laws have merit then we should amend the Constitution to make them legitimate.
In my opinion, anyone the same age to vote is just as eligible to own a firearm. If they are convicted felons, I would exclude them from both owning firearms and voting. Just my take
In many states, you will likely win your argument for children to have firearms. Especially with your passion and drive for everyone's rights to bear arms.
I disagree with you. First, the Bill of Rights is about individual rights. Second, I would never say that any one individual right is more important than another. You indicate that the First Amendment is protected to a greater degree than the Forth. It is just as important to me to be secure in my person against search and seizure as it is to be able to speak my mind.
