Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

I hope you're right and that is what the lower courts end up doing (or end up being forced to do by the Supreme Court).

But I'm sure that there are extreme leftist judges who are searching for ideas on how to misinterpret it.

 

I don't think you understand Strict Scrutiny.

Strict Scrutiny means that if the government can justify a gun restriction as satisfying a compelling government interest, that gun restriction is allowed.

If the government cannot justify a gun restriction as satisfying a compelling government interest, then that gun restriction is ruled unconstitutional.

This is an oversimplification. There is a bit more to it than that. But that is the gist of it.

Define core tenant.

It is true that the main purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to ensure that people are able to arm themselves when they are called to militia duty.

But it is also true that the right to keep and bear arms has always protected the ability of people to use their arms to privately defend their homes from criminal attack.

Even if self defense is not counted as a core tenant, it is still a valid part of the right to keep and bear arms.

I agree completely. Limiting the right to keep and bear arms to members of an organized militia would definitely be an infringement.

It is the entire people who have the right to keep and bear arms.

I cannot see how a large strategic nuclear weapon that produces lots of fallout would be much use to a militiaman who was fighting to repel a foreign invasion.

 

Not necessarily. If someone is making an argument about "the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment", case law would not be relevant unless it was from the time of the Founding Fathers or earlier. Anything that a court says today will not change what the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is.

Also, if someone is making an argument about "how they would prefer to see the Second Amendment interpreted", case law need not apply. In that case they are simply stating their own preference. There was such a question "where would you draw the line" earlier in this thread.

 

True, but the questions of "what the courts are willing to do" and "what the correct interpretation is" are two different things.

I don't see any Constitutional basis for excluding grenades and bazookas from the Second Amendment. But I agree that the courts will never rule that way.

I will be surprised if they rule in favor of machine guns for that matter.

But it seems likely that they will rule in favor of letting everyone have semi-auto-only AR15s with 30 round magazines.

 

There is no need to use namecalling.

People are correct to refer to restrictions against certain types of guns as a gun ban.

It may not ban all guns. But it certainly bans some of them.

Nonsense. Multiple people have addressed your topic in full.

I addressed it, again, just above.

 

I agree completely. The question of membership in any sort of militia is irrelevant.

It is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Not even close to being a myth. It is completely true.

But you are misstating it.

Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

People who do not have the right to keep and bear arms, are not free.

Clearly a bogus list.

Who cares? People who are killed with guns are not "more dead" than people who are killed with other kinds of weapons.

Fake news. Never happened.

Fake news. You are linking to a site that is infamous for its lies and dishonesty.

That does not change the fact that the UK unjustifiably bans some guns, and also unjustifiably bars some people from having guns.

That's nothing to do with the UK's gun laws.

The fact that some people in the UK are allowed to have some guns does not change the fact that some people in the UK are unjustifiably prevented from having guns.

Neither does it change the fact that all people in the UK are unjustifiably prevented from having some kinds of guns.

 

God bless the NRA for protecting our freedom.

The NRA has not created any fear.

Conservatives at least are thinking perfectly fine. I can't speak for the left though.

 

Nonsense. No such reason exists.

Fake news. Carrying guns in public does not result in high death rates.

Only serfs have to convince their lord that they have a good reason before they are allowed to buy a gun.

Free men go buy a gun if they feel like doing so, and it is nobody else's business.

This talk of need is "serf speak".

Free men buy guns if they choose to do so. Need is irrelevant.

The UK can restrict people from having guns even if the person in question is safe.

Fake news. Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

A "handgun" that has to be as long as a rifle isn't really a handgun.

You've spoken in favor of banning some kinds of guns.

Forbidding a weapon unless it is changed into a different weapon is banning that weapon.

 

The only people who use such tactics are gun control advocates.

No myths here. Why do you think we provide police officers with guns?

Again, why do you think we provide police officers with guns?

When Australia abolished their freedom by preventing people from having guns for self defense, the result was a massive five-year-long crime spree where armed robbery and unarmed robbery rates were doubled.

So what? People who are murdered with guns are not "more dead" than they would be if they had been murdered with some other kind of weapon.

Fake news. No such increase.

Meh. So what?

Again, people who are murdered with guns are not "more dead" than they would be if they had been murdered with some other kind of weapon.

Fake news. No morbidity is caused by firearms.

 

Keep in mind that the accusations against the NRA are all orchestrated by gun control people in an attempt to damage the gun rights movement.

No facts were present in the post that you replied to. The group VPC is infamous for their many lies.

 

I would.

I oppose violating people's civil liberties (especially when there is no reason for doing so).

It would not save any lives at all. Not to mention the fact that it is hardly their fetish weapon.

So in other words, everyone needs to keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump) because the left means to stack the courts with justices who will allow our civil liberties to be violated.

 

Justified by whom?
330M people in the USA, you'll never get 330M ppl to agree if something is justified or not.

True? Or Assumed?
Valid according to who/what?

What if the foreign invader has such a weapon?

 

Who you vote for is your own personal choice.

 

The courts (and ultimately, the Supreme Court) would decide that.

It is actually easy enough to see if a justification for a restriction exists or not.

True.

All humans have a natural right to defend themselves if they are under attack and an agent of the government is not present to defend them.

And as early as 1541, English law expressly allowed for people to use guns to defend their homes from criminals.

According to the law.

It would not be much use to them. It would cause too much long-term radioactive contamination to be a useful battlefield weapon.

 

The point you raised about the threat that Democrats pose to everyone shows the importance of choosing Republicans.

 

Maybe I was saying vote for libertarians. Who knows. Do as you like. This is an important issue for you. Not so much for me since I don't think either side is particularly interested in doing a meaningful thing about it. It is just a vote farming issue.

 

Both sides do something meaningful about it:

The left violates people's civil liberties. The right protects people from the left.