A Challenge To Anyone

I am not making that argument at all. I am making the argument that "shall not be infringed" does not mean there is no limits on who owns a firearm. Remember, the Supreme Court also ruled that illegals do not possess the right to own a firearm and some of the first restrictions on firearms were black slaves cannot own a firearm or that free blacks cannot own a firearm, the Presser case which Heller was based on.

What the Heller case did do was that bans on any type of firearm is now unconstitutional unless it is allowed under the Constitution, which would mean certain types of firearms that are exclusive for military use, for instance, or cannons, tanks, chemical bullets, etc.

Hunting and self-defense are not being argued here and no one is arguing that is the case. Yes, we have a right to defend ourselves in our property from unwanted intruders. However, your life has to be "reasonably in fear of severe bodily harm or injury." If your actions do not meet that threshold under state law, you may be charged. Blantanly obvious is someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night or day while you are there, who do not identify themselves as police, and a few other factors. What is not in reasonable fear of your life is seeing someone mosey along the edge of your lawn and you go and shoot the person in which the person dies. In that scenario, the person may be technically intruding on your property, but by all accounts was not showing you were in reasonable fear of your life. In that scenario, you would be charged with either 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter. You have to apply all the facts in the relevant case to get an adequate understanding of when and when not to use deadly force no matter which state you live in.

 

Hence the right to self defense. No one should have to depend on armed police to save lives. Almost all police officers know that only an armed citizenry can effectively keep the peace.

“More than 91 percent of respondents say it would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime. This is an overwhelming response by those whose job it is to actually deal with this issue on the front lines.

Instead, it is interesting to note that many respondents consider armed citizens as a potential asset in reducing the carnage from a mass murder situation; proactive choices dominate over gun and magazine restrictions and bans.

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).”
POLICE ONE, 2013 Gun Policy & Law Enforcement Survey Results: Executive Summary, And when it comes to finding ways to reduce gun violence and large scale shootings, most cops say a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” isn’t the answer., By Ron Avery, Apr 8, 2013.
https://www.policeone.com/gun-legis...d-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/

 

Gun control schemes always violate the 2nd amendment.
Stop interfering with the right of the people to arm and defend themselves or amend the COTUS and strip them of their rights -- legally.

 

Do you believe voting is a right?

 

I sure do.

 

If schools become untenable targets due to increased security, shooters will find other targets. There's no shortage of them. The fundamental problem is the proliferation of, and easy access to, fire arms.

 

One easy solution: Qualified volunteers, for instance, grandparents with guns playing cards, checkers, chess, Minecraft, Fortnite... at the end of every corridor.

 

Americans traded their faith in God for Guns. In other words, guns are God in America.
Don't believe me? Ask yourself which do we fight for more?

 

Right.

Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment

In their misleading argument that the Second Amendment is in danger of repeal, the authors of the Your View ignored the 2008 Heller decision in which conservative Justice Scalia's majority opinion confirmed only a very limited individual right, namely a "handgun possession in the home ... for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The column leaves out Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
https://www.mcall.com/opinion/reade...amendment-repeal-argument-20180410-story.html

 

Remember you promised us a simple plan and have yet to reveal it. If you have an idea to help you should share it.
You weren't bsing us were you?

 

...come on where is the plan?

 

Nowhere else in the world is the Deep State so in control of government.

 

6 days...still trying to build suspense?

 

That's a misreading of Heller.

John Bash, who helped Scalia write the opinion doesn't think that.

"In the 14 years since the Heller decision, Congress has not enacted significant new laws regulating firearms, despite progressives’ calls for such measures in the wake of mass shootings. Many cite Heller as the reason. But they are wrong.Heller does not totally disable government from passing laws that seek to prevent the kind of atrocities we saw in Uvalde, Texas. And we believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have (intentionally or not) misconstrued Heller.

Some conservatives have justified contested policy positions merely by pointing to Heller, as if the opinion resolved the issues.

the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.Justice Scalia — the foremost proponent of originalism, who throughout his tenure stressed the limited role of courts in difficult policy debates — could not have been clearer in the closing passage of Heller that “the problem of handgun violence in this country” is serious and that the Constitution leaves the government with “a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/supreme-court-heller-guns.html

 

"Heller" is not the COTUS.

 

Scalia is not the COTUS.

 

So, you also have no idea how this all works.

Whatta surprise...

 

The column leaves out Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Scalia's language goes on to explain that an important limitation of this right is for especially dangerous weapons like machine guns. Since that ruling, federal appeals courts have accepted this language in upholding state laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons.

Scalia also made clear that Heller casts no doubt on laws prohibiting possession of firearms in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," laws "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," and other limitations.
https://www.mcall.com/opinion/reade...amendment-repeal-argument-20180410-story.html

 

What's the Repub plan? Agree to do enough to say they did "something" but not enough to matter.

President Joe Biden on Monday said he believes there’s a “realization” among “rational Republicans” that the nation “can’t continue like this,” after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Texas.

Biden, speaking to reporters after his return to the White House, was asked if he believes talks between Republicans and Democrats could produce bipartisan gun legislation after the latest tragedy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tapped Texas Sen. John Cornyn to work with Democrats on the legislation.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/30/biden-guns-congress-00035882

 

Thanks, I don't have the time or patience to do more than I have.

My fave on the subject is Micheal Waldman's The Second Amendment: a biography. He dives deep into it's history. Once you learn about the history, the Right's arguments look hallucinogenically motivated..

Now, off to Trader Joes.

 

IOW, you are a newbie.

 

You can't just wave the Constitution around like it's a magic wand.

It's not.