Good guys with no guns more successful at stopping bad guys

No you can't. Gun control makes ownership a privilege determined by someone else. That's not how rights work...

 

That is your opinion. SCOTUS disagrees and I will go with their opinion in this case

 

Not according to Heller...

 

Actually Heller SUPPORTS that gun control is valid and appropriate in some circumstances

 

I'm not sure how you can make that interpretation...

 

From Scalia himself in the majority opinion

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

Heller was about the individual's right to keep and bear arms, it was not a sanction to infringe upon individual rights...

 

Did you read the post? How could you miss it so badly? That is FROM the Heller decision.

 

The Heller decision does far more to enhance and empower the individual right interpretation, than it does to support firearm-related restrictions. Trigger locks and storage mandates are unconstitutional on the basis they interfere with the right to self defense. Modern firearms and other defensive implements are constitutionally protected. Prohibitions on any firearm that is in common use for legal purposes are unconstitutional even under the most lenient standard of scrutiny.

 

It also says SPECIFICALLY that the government has the right to restrict firearms. IN BLACK AND WHITE

 

Except for the simple fact that is says no such thing. It does not state that government is free to restrict firearms in any manner whatsoever, and it most certainly does not say that government has a right to do something. Governments do not have rights, they have limited powers and authorities that are restricted in terms of scope by the united states constitution.

 

Where did I say in any manner whatsoever? Please point to the exact quote please

 

In the claim that government has the right to restrict firearms.

Unless the earlier claim made by yourself about all rights having restrictions, means that the ability of government to restrict firearms is significantly limited in terms of scope.

 

Well Scalia says the government DOES have the right to restrict firearms in Heller. You lose

 

Cite where Heller stated that the federal government, or even state governments, actually have rights. Show that the word "right" was actually utilized in describing the authority of government to do anything.

 

Ok power if it makes you feel better. Do you deny the government has this power? Yes or no?

 

Thus demonstrating another falsehood on the part of yourself.

Based on what the united state supreme court has said in Heller, as well as McDonald and most recently Caetano this power is extremely limited in terms of nature and scope. Based on the plain language of these three rulings, the federal government cannot compel the manner in which someone stores a privately owned firearm when it may interfere with their right to self defense, it cannot outlaw an entire class of firearms, it cannot prohibit the ownership of firearms that are in common use for legal purposes. In fact it is quite questionable just what government can do in terms of regulating firearms.

 

So it does have the power. Got it. You lose

 

Pray tell how so? Exactly what does this power entail? What is government authorized to do when it comes to regulating firearms?

 

Lots of stuff.

 

Elaborate on what this amounts to in real world terms. What specifically does this authority entail, when the united state supreme court specified that the second amendment is not subject to a judicial balancing act against "public safety" or any other vague concept of thought?

 

Boy you ask for a lot and refuse to provide anything when asked. I do not work for you. LOL

 

It was your claim that government has the authority to regulate firearms. It is being asked for just what this authority entails, and what government can actually do according to your interpretation of the matter.

 

Yep. the government can regulate firearms and I have no intention of listing exactly all the ways they can. LOL

 

For what possible reason?