The 2A is not supposed to be infringed upon. It’s the only amendment that explicitly says “shall not be infringed”. ANY law restricting the right in any way is an infringement. The amendment doesn’t say you can infringe a little bit. And that’s why I think the SCOTUS is wrong saying you can with 2A.
You didn't demonstrate anything. You don't seem to believe in laws. There are laws against murder and people still murder. Are those laws inane? In Sacramento there were stolen guns, automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, laws against those things are not "inane". Society would not be better without those laws. Picking out where those laws are abused does not demonstrate that they are unnecessary, all laws are abused. How am I deliberately misrepresenting your argument? What gun laws do you agree with? So the National Firearms Act, background checks, age limits on gun purchases are "infringements" or are they sensible restrictions.
1) I don't think anybody really argues for the right to own ground air missiles or nuclear weapons so I think everybody understands there's a limit. 2) criminal behavior and legal gun ownership are not related. You don't risk people behaving criminally by permitting ownership of firearms. 3) there is no real need for extensive training outside of marksmanship and you shouldn't have to prove you're a marksman in order to be able to become a marksman. Guns are relatively simple to use they're relatively simple mechanisms so there's just no need for any specialized training. As far as licensure goes I think that's a problem because if you have to request a license that means you have to request the government let you exercise your rights if there are licenses everyone should be given a license automatically on their 18th birthday that's the only way that would be acceptable and constitutional. So it's not really even value. 4) I don't think people should be held responsible for the crimes of others. As far as towing a vehicle or being ticketed this all has to do with public roadways there isn't an equivalent of a public roadway for operating a firearm so there's no need for any kind of insurance based at fault system. This should be determined by a court of law. 5) this is just some soapbox nonsense about abortion that doesn't really have anything to do with the subject at all.
If it's at the cost of my liberties and it doesn't do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns then yes absolutely anybody with common sense would. The only way you can think of to prevent a criminal from getting a gun is to interfere with a law abiding citizens ability to get a gun then you should be laughed at those two things don't have anything to do with one another.
Yes it is an infringement. It does not matter if I like or do not like a particular law. What matters is what the amendment says. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear and unambiguous. This is a civil right you are wanting removed/severely restricted from me and it’s pretty clear in our founding documents that it shall not, not should, shall not be infringed. In legal speak that means you can’t do it at all. Not a little, not a lot. None. Sadly, courts have allowed it to be infringed upon. Sometimes a little. Sometimes a lot.
Good points: I KNOW YOU’LL BE SHOCKED, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: New Details Emerge on Downtown Sacramento Massacre that Killed Six. "it was a gang-related gun battle on a crowded street." Criminal Gangs in Blue Cities are completely out of control.
That's how it works in the rest of the developed world and they don't have our problem. The right is in denial of that fact and refuses to do anything about it but buy more guns for "personal protection", the need for which they created. That is quite the radical niche belief and I hope very few people would agree with it. There were 5 ghost guns in the 15 guns recovered so far. There is that and the fact is, despite your partisan spin, all urban areas have had increased gang activity. Check out red Fort Worth and Jacksonville. You also left out the fact some of the safest cities are blue.
1) Go live there 2) no it doesn't. You don't control criminals by ignoring criminals completely and controlling people that aren't criminals it doesn't work that way anywhere outside of the hive mind. the fact that you control criminals by ignoring criminals and trying to control people that aren't criminals. I think reality is in denial of that so-called fact because it's not a fact it's insane. it's a niche belief to think that the phrase shall not be infringed means cannot be infringed? You can see that the majority of people in the English speaking world I agree with that because dictionary definitions of these words indicate what they mean. In dictionary definitions are based on common usage. and your solution is to ignore the gangs completely and go harass hunters and hobbyists? Some of the least safe cities are blue New York Chicago Baltimore Detroit LA, Seattle and Portland just off the top of my head.
Isn't Sacramento in CA? CA has required serial numbers on gun kit parts and has for years. It was also illegal for the previously convicted felons to own guns, and it was also illegal to shoot people with them. Let's wait for the facts before you start using these deaths to peddle your political agenda. From what I've read this was a shoot out in a public place between rival gangs. Do we have enough cops on the streets? Do we have enough dedicated to combatting gangs? Do we need more anti-gang laws?
1) Do you own or ever have owned an America Love it or Leave it T-shirt? 2) Who's ignoring criminals? We have the largest prison population in the world, with China (w/4Xs the population) coming in second. We make it easy to be an armed criminal because people like everyone in this little echo chamber don't want to be bothered with controlling access. It's harassment! So you agree with sage3030 that National Firearms Act, background checks and age limits are infringements and therefore illegal? That's pretty fringe. Who's ignoring gangs? The police only get there after after the smoke clears or they can prove illegal behavior beforehand. Maybe we need stronger laws against free association? Would you like that? The top of your head is highly unreliable and shows just how partisan you are. Only Detroit is in the top 100 least safe cities and you'll notice half are in red states. What? The ghost guns the gang bangers had were illegal and they did illegal things with them! To your other questions, sure why not. Will that mean guns will be out of illegal hands?
Most of it's unconstitutional - that's the point. Nothing in the Constitution gave the federal government the authority to pass the National Firearms Act.
you are anyone who promotes gun control for everyone but criminals is doing that. You want to screw with hunters and hobbyists I have no idea why that makes no kind of sense. So you're doing that you have no interest in criminality and preventing crime at all your interest is screwing with people that have hobbies you don't like. That's really the whole point isn't it the stupid rednecks that you don't like should have their hobbies pissed on cuz you don't like them.
Yes, a law that has worked well since 1934, let's discard it and bring out the machine guns and exploding pens! 1) Let's promote gun control for criminals by passing more laws.....wait. 2) Incoherent rant.
LOL.. You keep forgetting the real problem for democrats. Folks with guns fight back. See Ukraine and the horror that is inducing in democrats.....
Gun control laws don't control criminals that's not what they're designed to do that's how they're sold to imbeciles.
I never said to repeal it - I just noted that under the legal environment of the time that it was an unconstitutional law. You do know that there are 700,000 registered machineguns in the US, right? If it worked well since 1934, why do so many criminals still have sawed off shotguns? That law that worked so well didn't stop the two Columbine shooters from acquiring short barrels shotguns, and more students at Columbine were killed with those shotguns than with the semiautomatic firearms the two shooters also brought with them. If it worked so well, why did we need the Hughes Amendment?
You chose to make this statement, even though you know it is false. Why do you make statements you know are false?
This is where I ask you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in the "rest of the developed world" and their lower rate of gun-related violence You will then respond by demonstrating your inability to do so - because you know no such necessary relationship exists. As always. You chose to make this statement, even though you know it is false. Why do you make statements you know are false?
Background checks are not there to prevent gun access to criminals but to harass hunters and hobbyist's. I see, how silly of me. Why hasn't it been repealed if it's unconstitutional? But the FBI and law enforcement thinks it has worked well since enacted. Registered firearms to vetted owners seems to work well, let's do more of that. I could make a sawed off shotgun. I don't know why the Hughes Amendment was needed. I specifically asked you which gun laws are you for and got no answer. Was my assumption false, there was no evidence otherwise? No answer exists that you will accept. What has the right done to prevent guns getting in the hands of criminals that makes my statement false?
It's not silly of you. It's either your inability to resist manipulation or dishonesty. Your position isn't about crime. You may be too incompetent to understand that or you may think everyone is just dumber than you. Your position is about bigotry against people like me. Not really. There doesn't seem to be lower criminal activity in Illinois California and NY. Than in new Mexico, Florida, or Utah.
Likely because of the language that that Scalia included in Heller (long standing restrictions) in an effort to swing Kennedy off the fence, and Kavanaugh's acceptance of that in Heller II. At the time, however, it was patently unconstitutional. Do they? Congress certainly didn't. It's illegal. Thus proving that the NFA 1934 doesn't prevent criminal behavior. Why was the NFA 1934 passed anyway? Was it due to the actions by people like Dillinger, Clyde Barrow and Machine Gun Kelly? To harass lawful gun owners.
You know you statement is false. You also know you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim. Thus, the innumerable examples of you running away from the challenge put to you.
Again 100% false, rights cannot be infringed without a overwhelming reason to infringe on any of them, and you have yet to provide a single overwhelming reason to infringe any any right what so ever. Furthermore the Second has a clear statement in it "shall not be infringed." Do you have any idea of what the word "shall" means?
To restrict a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution - like the right to keep and bear arms - the state must demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of the restrictions it seeks. Demonstrate. Because he knows he cannot demonstrate said necessity or efficacy. Instead, he fishes from a slow-moving boat.
