They Want to Take Your Guns

The funny part is, she may not have that right if tested in court. "Able bodied men".

 

I agree. Once someone has served their time, reactivate their rights. There are currently remedies for this, at least in my state.

 

Absurd, to think for a moment that a woman does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Sexists are strange like that.

 

The way the government interprets gender nouns these days, I guess you are right.

 

While we are exploring this subject, educate me. I'm not a lawyer. Where is the line drawn whether the constitution trumps state law or vice versa? I've never understood this. Ever.

 

Obviously not Might be time for Brainol or Agent Orange exposure

 

Article VI: Supremacy clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Federal law and state law exist independently; whichever law is most restrictive applies.
That is, Colorado may not bust you for smoking pot, but the DEA could close down all of the places that grow/sell it.

 

The interpretation tries to err on the side of caution.

And no, that's not unsupportable nonsense at all. How many people die every day of gun violence? Gun violence facilitated by modern handguns, for the most part, which did not exist when the 2nd was written.

 

One of the better written treatises on this subject. For those inclined it helps also to read the Federalist Papers, notes from the constitutional convention, and, to the extent they are available, notes on the discussions at the State ratifying conventions. The intent of the framers is perfectly clear.

 

Not sure what this is supposed to mean, especially in light of the fact the interpretation is 80 years old, well within the era of modern firearms, thereby negating any question of muskets and flintlocks.

>300,000,000 guns in the US; in 2015, under 6500 handguns were used to commit murder.
As I said: unsupportable nonsense.

A point rendered moot by Heller, both directly in the ruling, and by reference in the opinion.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

And once, again, we see you cannot response to the explanation you asked for with any degree of substance; nowhere do you indicate in any way shape or form how the argument presented is unsound.
As usual.

 

Your stupid little statistic doesn't negate what I've said, you stubborn fool.

And no, Heller doesn't address what I'm saying either. "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment ." I'm not saying that; what I am saying is that modern weapons were not present when it was written, meaning that when it was written, its framers could not envision what was to come in modern times, how easy it would be to transport, conceal and use firearms, and how many would die as a result.

 

Because of the petulance demonstrated above, I am about to accept your concession of the point, but first I'll ask:
How so?

And so....?
Rights should be limited to what the people in 1791 could envision?
Seems tome this was addressed by the quote I posted, but if you believe this is the case, explain why.
Clearly, the courts disagree in toto on this point, but maybe you can explain how thy are wrong.

 

Because it is not a matter of how many of the handguns owned by Americans are misused, but rather that so many handgun-related deaths, whether murders or accidental shootings, occur.

And so, this amendment is no longer appropriate. It is having a detrimental effect on our country as it stands. Laws are updated to reflect evolving reality, and I would argue that this one needs that as well. Handguns are too easily and too frequently abused to be so freely available. They greatly endanger the lives of ordinary people and law enforcement.

 

The fact that a -tiny- fraction of guns are misused speaks loudly against your point, whatever it is.
For every gun used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.

Based on what?
What principle behind the right to keep and bear arms applied then but not today?
And you did not answer the question:
Rights should be limited to what the people in 1791 could envision?

Feel free to undertake an effort to repeal the 2nd.
You have a long row to hoe, and you are guaranteed to fail - but if you try, at least you'll have some credibility as to how serious you take your position.

 

The argument is that a lot of people are dying because of guns, especially handguns. It doesn't matter if it's only a small part of the total number that end up causing the problem, the problem still exists and is still linked to handguns.

Rights should be reasonable and not overly detrimental to society. We don't allow people to possess any number of dangerous, military-grade weaponry for that reason. I think we need to be sensible about the overall effects of guns on our society and respond sensibly. I also don't see handguns in particular as something necessary to own to be secure against the government - rifles are better suited to such combat situations. Handguns are only good for concealment.

I do wish people would push for it. That would make more sense than trying to impose restrictions contrary to the 2nd, since they're bound to fail.

 

The number of guns very much does matter, just as the population size matters; for the same reason the -only- relevant statistic is rate of occurrence.
As you know, the rate of gun use is tiny - indeed, it approaches statistical zero.
Thus there is little to no demonstrable detrimental effect on society.

You did not answer my questions:
What principle behind the right to keep and bear arms applied then but not today?
Rights should be limited to what the people in 1791 could envision?

Unfortunately for you, the law says -specifically- that handguns are protected by the constitution.

So when do you start?

 

80 years ago or so...they restricted ownership of automatic weapons...because they were so DANGEROUS

 

Irrelevant to the point made.
But you know this.

 

No where does the 2nd Amendment say any of that .

What it DOES say is "A well regulated militia being necessary" at a time when there was almost no standing Army

 

It also says "the right of the people shall not be infringed".
Not "... the right of the militia..."
Not "... the right of the people in the militia..."
Not "...the right of the people to serve in the militia.."
The right of the people.
But, you know this.

 

Obviously incorrect.

 

Try citing a relevant statistic, where the number gun-related murders are compared to the number of guns
I'll start:
For every gun in the US used to commit murder today, 16,000,000 were not.
Go!

 

You would like that statistic to be relevant since you like how it sounds and it's pretty much the only thing you have to cling to at this point, but again, it isn't.