Those who choose to practice a particular right...

Let me examine your list:

Gun control: Violates an explicit clause of the Constitution. IF you want this, file a successful constitutional amendment.

Drinking and driving: Operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a right but a privilege. Contrast this privilege with the right to keep and bear arms. Wondering about the discrepancy? One is a privilege and so is amenable to numerous and sundry restrictions, and also contemplates an active per se criminal act. Simple gun ownership or possession is not a per se criminal act and is explicitly protected by the constitution. Is there an explicit right to DUI or to operating a motor vehicle at all? No? Apples and tree bark you are comparing here then.

Second hand smoke: Active act which directly harms another person and which is mitigated by simple physical distance from a door or window. Not at all analogous to simple possession of a firearm, which involves no other person or their health.

Drugs and narcotics: Arguably a violation of the right to privacy, which is strong enough to allow the killing of one's get and a future citizen in certain contexts. Surely it is then strong enough to weather simple drug possession. Additionally: Is there an explicit per se right to keep and bear heroin? No? Apples and broccoli then.

Pollution: Direct act which poisons the environment in a per se and measurable fashion. Not at all analogous. Worse than DUI really as DUI is a potential harm only and pollution is demonstrable based upon the mere existence of a running machine.

Abortion: You're killing your get. If I walk up to a preggo and stab her in the stomach I catch 2 charges. She pays a doctor to stab her within 20 weeks? That's just good business.
Literally if you'd read any of the cases the reason there is a limit is past viability the government obtains an overriding interest in the carrying to term of its potential citizen.
It becomes illegal because you're KILLING SOMEONE, PER SE, at that point.

Gay Marriage: Obergefell. Heard of it? Laws against gay marriage are void on their face and unconstitutional. Good riddance. " Spare me your moralizing sir, this is a casino. " - anon


If you want to get around the 2A see Art V and pass an amendment.

There are rules Smokey. This is not 'Nam. Mark it zero Dude.

 

Holy f'ing christ you have issues. Not only have I stated multiple times now that I have no issue with how one carries a weapon but I also told you I have a carry permit. It's not my problem you have reading comprehension issues. Get your act together before you engage with me again. Understood?

 

Does "I have no issue with how one carries a weapon" mean you oppose restricting how others carry a weapon? I only ask because it doesn't necessarily mean that and thus requires some assumption, which I'm trying to avoid...

 

I can only assume you're trolling at this point. The only other explanation is you're dumber than a bag of hammers, which I don't believe you are.
Obviously if I have NO ISSUE WITH HOW ONE CARRIES A WEAPON then clearly I'm not for any restrictions. Please go bother someone else with your trolling.

 

But you also refuse to specify that you oppose said restrictions. Do you understand the distinction and why it matters?

You can just say you don't want to answer the question... but I will keep trying to get an answer if you keep pretending like you're answering it when you're not.

As an example, 'I'm not for any slavery' is something someone who might accept their neighbors owning slaves might say to appear reasonable...

 

I’m NOT for restrictions is too hard for you to understand? There is no distinction. Do you understand what “not” means? Maybe that’s the issue. I’ve answers you in many different ways. Is English a second language for you?

 

It just sounds like you're OK with other people making the restrictions, as long as you're not involved.

 

Nope.

 

We already have gun control. Automatic weapons are already limited. Certain caliber weapons are already restriction. The 2A does not impose any such restrictions but we have them anyways. There was nothing about civilians not being able to own military weapons because the founders hated the concept of a government controlled and paid for professional army.

BTW I don't really want to get roped into your particular discussion but I was just trying to point out the concept of "Social Cost" to the op in relation to why people in a society limit others from certain activities. It is a simply concept that is in all entry level economic texts.

 

Yes and we've had unconstitutional edicts and laws before. Even those approved of by the SCOTUS. For an example you might try Obergefell as a very recent example. Or Cohen or Griswold for less recent but still modern examples.

The 2A and the rest of the bill of rights restrict the government, they do not restrict the citizenry.

Your argument boils down to: They are ****ing me now, but then they've been ****ing me before, so I might as well decide I like being ****ed rather than assert my rights and prevent them from continuing to **** me. I'll pass thanks.

Additionally: What do you think the word "arms" means or the term to "keep and bear arms"? Arms refers most closely to military capable weapons. See DC v Heller if you get lost dear. There was nothing about the populace being debarred the right to keep and bear arms because they had just got through fighting a VERY bloody conflict with 1) the most powerful nation in the world at the time and 2) their friends and neighbors and family members, which was precipitated ultimately by an attempt to remove firearms from the populace. Its not in there for a damn good reason, and there is an outright bar on the government doing so again for a damn good reason.

During the Founders day private citizens owned ships of the line and cannon. You ARE aware that the American Navy was mostly PRIVATEERS until the mid 1800's, right? You DO understand that even vessels not blessed with a letter of marque or a reprisal (two separate concepts which allowed one to reave shipping under certain contexts IE to attack FIRST rather than respond only in self defense) carried cannons and that those ships were owned by private citizens?
Sure you do, of course you do, you couldn't possibly be ignorant of the most basic of historical facts relevant to the issue you're running off at the mouth about. No no, perish the thought.

Want to know what's in all entry level political science textbooks? The Constitution and Bill of Rights. Want to know what they do? Explicitly limit the power of the government, whether it steals powers anyway or not. I raised the specific objections I did for a good reason. Perhaps if you weren't so afeared of engaging on the topic, as you state, you might explore that reasoning and come to understanding.

 

With a FFL sure, but not your everyday run of the mill citizen..

 

LOL, you keep trying

Lets recap, shall we Oh look I clearly stated the proper way.. Soooooo lets elaborate on this a weeee bit shall we WHY, would anyone sell a firearm and take full responsibility for what that firearm and buyer does with it? But hey, there will always be stupid people that do stupid things like sale a weapon the will stay registered to them forever..

"Texas for instance"

Don't worry about apologies, I'm used to uninformed folks calling me out on federal gun laws and such.. In fact I love rubbing their nose in it when challenged.
So thanks

 

Nope, the fear has be "irrational" to be a phobia.

 

I’m confident your posts on mass shootings and intimidation by the sight of firearms have “educated” those here who wish to learn. Thanks for spending the time in that pursuit.

It was a pretty good day. Hope you’re was, too.

 

Prove what specifically?

 

I believe that when my poop turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert.

 

You said.

"There are things called vaccines, antivirals, antibiotics, anti-inflammation drugs, and pain medications. They have been in the news a lot lately with Covid and all.

All are used to save life and add quality of life.

Copper jacketed lead us not the only thing efficiently delivered over distances by firearms."

So lets see this.

 

You mistake me for some who cares what you think.

 

Really? You don’t believe vaccines and antibiotics save lives? Bovine respiratory disease is almost always fatal in backgrounding cattle. Treatment with a good antibiotic like Draxxin is 80-90% effective at preventing mortality. Without an anti inflammatory treatment a cow on pasture will often become non ambulatory and die after a relatively minor leg injury. Drugs like dexamethasone and Banamine not only reduce animal suffering, but often are the difference between survival or death.

Now, animals are often difficult to convince they need medical attention. When in pain, or suffering from respiratory infection, they become obstinate at best and extremely violent at worst. In these cases, moving them to facilities allowing treatment in an environment safe for the animal and the humans involved becomes difficult to impossible.

This is where firearms designed to deliver lifesaving and soothing drugs come into play. Such firearms are designed to accurately deliver the desired drug or vaccine to an animal without disturbing or endangering the animal or caretaker.

One of the best designs of such a firearm is the cap-chur line of cartridge powered rifles. They are designed to save lives of animals and the people caring for them and improve quality of life for both as well.

https://cap-chur.com/product/cap-chur-ss-cartridge-fired-rifle-2/

Does that help?

 

Cool, I'm glad those modified rifles help. Still doesn't negate the fact that guns were invented to kill living beings no matter how much you want it to.

 

Not these guns.

Isn’t it interesting aerial drones were invented to kill humans but nobody wants to ban their use for recreation or business because of this fact.

Of course there’s no logical reason to oppose firearms that are designed to kill either. Sometimes killing is necessary.

 

Well the 2nd says arms, not ALL arms.

 

you mistake me for someone gullible enough to believe random claims on an internet forum

 

Puerile ad hom duly noted FTR and IGNORED since it NEGATED the content of your post.

 

Asinine DEFLECTION that does NOT address the SUBSTANCE of my position.