Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Each one of those items you mentioned meet the very definition of the word "infringe".
Try again.
No, even the founding fathers knew that restrictions were needed on gun ownership. Its why states and cities could and did ban firearms in their towns.
You have to get a license to drive a car, that isn't infringement on a right, we have lots of restrictions on freedom.
Like not yelling fire in a crowded theater. By your definition, that should be legal.
No, even the founding fathers knew that restrictions were needed on gun ownership. Its why states and cities could and did ban firearms in their towns.
You have to get a license to drive a car, that isn't infringement on a right, we have lots of restrictions on freedom.
Like not yelling fire in a crowded theater. By your definition, that should be legal.
Uh, driving a car is not a right specified in the constitution.
What is a license? It is nothing more than a governmental permission slip. It is unconstitutional to require license to exercise a right.
As for your yelling fire in a theater comment: that is penalizing an action, not requiring a license or permission to exercise a right. Punish those who misuse their arms, that's perfectly legal and constitutional but adding barriers to purchasing or carrying guns meet the definition of infringement.
Each and every gun control law on the books violates the 2nd amendment and they need to be abolished immediately.
No, even the founding fathers knew that restrictions were needed on gun ownership. Its why states and cities could and did ban firearms in their towns.
You have to get a license to drive a car, that isn't infringement on a right, we have lots of restrictions on freedom.
Like not yelling fire in a crowded theater. By your definition, that should be legal.
Please cite an example of a town banning firearms during any of the founders' lifetimes.
Neither is owning a AK47, just says "right to bear arms", arms of the day were single shot hunting rifles.
Should we really go to exactly what they said?
Yes, and while we are at it, let's do away with freedom of the press in any form of media other than those papers printed using the methods of the late 1700's. No religions unless they were practiced durin that time frame either.
If they meant muskets, it would've said muskets, unless you think the people who actually founded the nation weren't intelligent enough to foresee advances in technology and industry long after all of them were dead.
The argument you are sadly attempting to make is infantile and produced only through an obvious lack of knowledge about the people who actually wrote the document.
Where does the government get the power to own anything other than " single shot hunting rifles"? In this country, all governmental power is derived from the people, and we the people cannot delegate a power we do not already have.
Like not yelling fire in a crowded theater. By your definition, that should be legal.
Facile argument, invalid, and I wish people would stop using this comparison. You're claiming that there is (or should be given that the 2nd Amendment protects the ownership of firearms) a 1st Amendment protection on shouting fire in a crowded theater. However there is a presumption on that.
Is there actually a fire, if there is then no offense has been committed.
Is there an actual hazard, that would mean that it could be reasonable for someone to shout fire, so that they induce the people in the room to leave for their own safety.
Is there a valid reason to believe that there is a fire, even if there was not, for instance smoke billowing from some area that cannot be clearly seen.
The theater is private property, and thus not under the auspices of federal law, if the theater owner has a regulation that yelling fire in his theater is perfectly legal, then there is nothing illegal about it provided he ensures that this discrepancy is posted for patrons to see.
Even if someone shouts fire in a crowded theater, they cannot be prosecuted if it cannot be established that there was a malicious intent in shouting fire, and there must be injuries sustained (personal or financial) in the events that followed.
If we look at only point 5, then there is already something similar in regards to the 2nd Amendment, if you shoot (at) someone with your firearm with malicious intent, then you are guilty in the commission of a crime.
This isn't an infringement, because the second only protects the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't protect you in their employment, their employment is governed by either the laws of hunting, laws of self-defense (or if there was some legal justification for killing someone in other than self-defense, those laws), or laws of land use that define when it is legal to discharge a firearm. None of those laws infringe the 2nd because the second only prevents the federal government (and now under the 14th Amendment privileges and immunities clause to the states) from infringing right to keep and bear arms.
Surprising .. Alaska is at the top of gun deaths...
Not really a surprise, we have 3 months or so of near darkness and seasonal disorders are certainly an issue, in 2010 there were 19 murders by firearm across the state, there are 722,718 people living here. That's a murder rate of 2.6/100,000 so one assumes the remaining 18.3/100,000 were suicides and/or accidents, and in the winter here, it's pretty easy to commit suicide, just go outside in your jammies for a couple of hours, you'll be dead by the end of it a gun just makes it easier.
By comparison DC had 99 murders by firearms for a population of 617,996. That's a murder rate of 16/100,000, and a 4.4/100,000 rate for suicides and/or accidents. (Figures from 2010 UCR)
Alaska has no firearm restrictions other than Federal Restrictions, DC still has some of the most heinous firearm restrictions in the US. So why do people want to increase regulation of firearms again...?
I don't think you made the argument you expected to make...
Please cite an example of a town banning firearms during any of the founders' lifetimes.
it may not have been in the founders lifetimes, but up until the 80s the town of tombstone made firearms illegal. that was done 130 years before. and yes the constitution applies to territories as well as states.
The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the several states to control their militia's, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia’s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no standing army, and there was very real concern that the Constitution ceded too much power to Congress. See The FederalistPapers, No. 46 (James Madison, Jan. 29, 1788). However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
