What restrictions infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

[M14 Shooter]

This is primarily for those who believe we need more restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

Like it or, not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, to possess all "bearable arms", and to use those arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Consequently, the 2nd Amendment protects that right from infringement by state and federal governments.

Similar to the 1st amendment’s “abridged”, the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” lays down an exceptionally powerful protection for the right to keep and bear arms; it, necessarily and intentionally, takes a great many policy choices off the table.
Indeed, “shall not be infringed” does not allow for any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it rejects any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Thus, the questions:
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you consider an infringement?
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you believe violate the constitution?

 

[JWBooth]

What restrictions infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?​

All of them. No exceptions.

 

[TNHarley]

What restrictions infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?​

All of them. No exceptions.

/thread

 

[JGalt]

If current military weapons are excluded from the Second Amendment, then First Amendment rights should also be restricted to only meetings in the public square, town criers, and antiquated hand-cranked printing presses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If current military weapons are excluded from the Second Amendment, then First Amendment rights should also be restricted to only meetings in the public square, town criers, and antiquated hand-cranked printing presses.

Few, if any, weapons have a more reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, are a better example of ordinary military equipment or could better contribute to the common defense than the M4 carbine.

 

[Donald H]

This is primarily for those who believe we need more restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

You don't get to say for who these questions are meant.

The only restrictions on guns that needs to be eliminated is the restrictions against full automatic rifles, or commonly known as machine guns.
There are no other restrictions that can be universally enforced across the entire country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't get to say for who these questions are meant.

I see you still hate free speech.

 

[JWBooth]

You don't get to say for who these questions are meant.

The only restrictions on guns that needs to be eliminated is the restrictions against full automatic rifles, or commonly known as machine guns.
There are no other restrictions that can be universally enforced across the entire country.

Half measures are still capitulation

 

[JWBooth]

 

[M14 Shooter]

View attachment 947616

In 1791, private citizens owned armed warships.

 

[JWBooth]

In 1791, private citizens owned armed warships.

As it should be. I'd be satisfied with a Viet Nam era PBR.
I'd paint "Street Gang" on the transom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As it should be. I'd be satisfied with a Viet Nam era PBR.
I'd paint "Street Gang" on the transom.

I'll take a WW2-era LCT.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As it should be. I'd be satisfied with a Viet Nam era PBR.
I'd paint "Street Gang" on the transom.

 

[Edgetho]

I see you still hate free speech.

Not all free speech, just ours.

 

[JWBooth]

Shit,, now I gotta go pull up the movie on which ever streamer has it this month. Prime I think.

 

[MagicMike]

This is primarily for those who believe we need more restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

Like it or, not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, to possess all "bearable arms", and to use those arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Consequently, the 2nd Amendment protects that right from infringement by state and federal governments.

Similar to the 1st amendment’s “abridged”, the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” lays down an exceptionally powerful protection for the right to keep and bear arms; it, necessarily and intentionally, takes a great many policy choices off the table.
Indeed, “shall not be infringed” does not allow for any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it rejects any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Thus, the questions:
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you consider an infringement?
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you believe violate the constitution?

As a gun owner myself I am under no illusion that the authors of our U.S. Constitution intended or envisioned a scenario involving guns playing out across the country like we see today.
If they had had any idea they either would not have included 2A in the document....or it would be full of caveats and exceptions.
Every dumb son of a bitch in the country, people who shouldn't be trusted to even operate basic kitchen appliances, many of whom I wouldn't trust to take my goddamned garbage out, having the same rights as me to own deadly firepower?
Naw.
HELL NO!
That is NOT what they intended.
393 million firearms floating around in society without a good handle on where exactly any of them are at any given time?
No.
That wasn't the intent either.
600 mass shootings a year (an average of almost 2 a day) for the past 3 years?
Uh-uh.
Not what The Founders intended when they wrote The Second Amendment.
Which is why NONE of the shit going on today with respect to guns is even covered by the 2A.
This "right" to possess and carry firearms for personal protection didn't even exist prior to the 2008 D.C.vs. Heller case.
It's not like it's ACTUALLY "enshrined" in The COTUS.
That's just NRA post 2008 propaganda.
What it really is is SCOTUS fashion....a currend trend.

 

[JWBooth]

As a gun owner myself I am under no illusion that the authors of our U.S. Constitution intended or envisioned a scenario involving guns playing out across the country like we see today.
If they had had any idea they either would not have included 2A in the document....or it would be full of caveats and exceptions.
Every dumb son of a bitch in the country, people who shouldn't be trusted to even operate basic kitchen appliances, many of whom I wouldn't trust to take my goddamned garbage out, having the same rights as me to own deadly firepower?
Naw.
HELL NO!
That is NOT what they intended.
393 million firearms floating around in society without a good handle on where exactly any of them are at any given time?
No.
That wasn't the intent either.
600 mass shootings a year (an average of almost 2 a day) for the past 3 years?
Uh-uh.
Not what The Founders intended when they wrote The Second Amendment.
Which is why NONE of the shit going on today with respect to guns is even covered by the 2A.
This "right" to possess and carry firearms for personal protection didn't even exist prior to the 2008 D.D. vs. Heller case.
It's not like it's ACTUALLY "enshrined" in The COTUS.
That's just NRA post 2008 propaganda.
What it really is is SCOTUS fashion....a currend trend.

 

[rampart]

This is primarily for those who believe we need more restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

Like it or, not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, to possess all "bearable arms", and to use those arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Consequently, the 2nd Amendment protects that right from infringement by state and federal governments.

Similar to the 1st amendment’s “abridged”, the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” lays down an exceptionally powerful protection for the right to keep and bear arms; it, necessarily and intentionally, takes a great many policy choices off the table.
Indeed, “shall not be infringed” does not allow for any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it rejects any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Thus, the questions:
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you consider an infringement?
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you believe violate the constitution?

several big republicans have been found liable for defamation, proving that even 1st amendment rights carry responsibilitie4s ansd consequences..

what makes the 2nd amendment more sacrosanct than the 1st?

 

[TNHarley]

several big republicans have been found liable for defamation, proving that even 1st amendment rights carry responsibilitie4s ansd consequences..

what makes the 2nd amendment more sacrosanct than the 1st?

Yeah, if it breaks other laws.
That is not a very good comparison.

 

[d0gbreath]

The bump stock ban is the only one that I can think of. I believe that that was a trump thing.