Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

According to the following links New Hampshire has the lowest homicide rate in the US, but also receives an F in gun law restrictions.

LINK: Crime Rate by State
url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state]LINK: Strictest Gun Laws by State[/url]

North Dakota is second in lowest homicide rate, also with an F in gun law restrictions.
Then comes Maine in third, also with an F in gun law restrictions.
4th place is Idaho, also with an F.
5th is Rhode Island, but they get a B+ in gun law restrictions.
6th is Minnesota, they get a C+.
7th is Nebraska, which gets a C.
8th is Vermont, which gets a C-.
9th is Utah, which gets a D.
10 is Massachusetts, which gets a A-.

 

Its well known that criminals will vote with the more liberal party. So trying to tie them into the conservative party isn't going to work.

It is interesting that you deny that they are people just like you. Goes to show that you are dehumanizing them.

 

Self defense requires the need of guns.

 

Let’s see the proof.

 

Not in Norway with such a low gun violence rate.

 

I don’t know where you’re getting this sht. Do you personally know a large enough sample of criminals ? Take your pick from the republican administrations. They out number Dems 100 plus to one.

 

https://www.livescience.com/13083-criminals-brain-neuroscience-ethics.html

What science says.....you’re wrong, again.

I don’t hang with criminals. In the Trumps Conservative circle of friends it may be true....not with normal,people.

 

It’s not a human right to own a firearm. That’s a bogus idea.

 

The criminal mind at work.

 

I think from the founding fathers point of view it is meant to be unlimited.

 

"Arms" as the term is used in the 2nd does not include nuclear weapons.
How does the fact you cannot own a nuclear weapon mean the right protected by the 2nd is limited?

 

Ha ha.
Hence the phrase, “on average.” You seem to put all your chickens in statistically invalid states with fewer then a million people. Maine, Idaho and North Dakota. That’s laughable. All three have fewer then half the people in NYC.

 

Nope. As early as the late 1700s, the first gun regulations were established. Of course, back then, the second amendment applied only to the militia. So during our founding fathers time, there was no constitutional personal right to bear arms. None, nada, nix

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-laws-linked-to-less-gun-violence-study-finds

 

Sure but the idea was the standing militia was suppose to protect our rights and freedoms. The founding fathers did not want a professional army paid for by the government. That was the role of the militia which meant those should have access to any arms necessary to fulfill that role.

 

Tell you what, learn to quote properly with everything a person says in one post in your reply post instead of stretched out between several of your posts and I'll provide evidence. Getting 9 notifications for you quoting the same post is annoying and I'm not going to bother to respond to each one over multiple posts. If you can't do this then I'm not going to bother to respond anymore. Keep things in context.

 

I see your going off on a tangent. So, you have no proof.

 

So you agree. The original intent of the 2a was to have an armed militia to protect our constitutionally mandated basic rights. It has nothing then to do with the personal right to own a firearm,....

 

This any

better

 

By not being allowed to own nuclear arms. There are limits to all liberties. For example a limit on the freedom of speech is you can't slander people.

 

Not that they could possibly have known the types of weapons that would exist down the track.

 

What does injury have to do with speech?

 

Any examples?

And what do you think of those?

Why do you specify "right wing terrorist groups" as if left-wing terrorism and other forms of terrorism doesn't exist?

 

That's an odd question.

 

Do you mean physical injury?

 

Not necessarily. You can't slander someone because that causes injury not bodily harm.