Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

[PredFan]

It is reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. That's it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS has assumed the final say by incorporating the 2d Amendment to its jurisdiction. The 10th Amendment means nothing in this discussion.

 

[PredFan]

Picking myself up one of these sweet babies soon! Chambered in .357 Mag

 

[HappyJoy]

None of those are firearms, so fair enough.
Anything else?

If you want to restrict it to firearms, then it would depend upon the state. Fully automatic weapons I believe require special permits. I think sawed off shotguns are still prohibited.

I also believe gun licensing and in some cases weapon type bans are enforced at the state level.

Are licenses for gun owners and registration for firearms (two sides of the same coin) inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
If so, how?

If you think felons shouldn't own guns then yeah.
Kind of like voting, it's your right, but you still have to register.

How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it?

Oh, I see the confusion, I meant the inherentt part of common sense where we at least try to keep felons and others from owning assault weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you want to restrict it to firearms, then it would depend upon the state. Fully automatic weapons I believe require special permits. I think sawed off shotguns are still prohibited.

I also believe gun licensing and in some cases weapon type bans are enforced at the state level.

Are licenses for gun owners and registration for firearms (two sides of the same coin) inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
If so, how?

If you think felons shouldn't own guns then yeah.
Kind of like voting, it's your right, but you still have to register.

How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it?

Oh, I see the confusion, I meant the inherentt part of common sense where we at least try to keep felons and others from owning assault weapons.

So you agree that firearm registration is not an inherent part of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore not an inherent limit.
Thank you

 

[HappyJoy]

I also believe gun licensing and in some cases weapon type bans are enforced at the state level.

Are licenses for gun owners and registration for firearms (two sides of the same coin) inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
If so, how?

If you think felons shouldn't own guns then yeah.
Kind of like voting, it's your right, but you still have to register.

How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it?

Oh, I see the confusion, I meant the inherentt part of common sense where we at least try to keep felons and others from owning assault weapons.

So you agree that firearm registration is not an inherent part of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore not an inherent limit.
Thank you

No, I disagree with you...in a very inherent way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. That's it.

Yes but...
Is the prohibition of felons from owning firearms an inherent limit to the right to arms?
That is, it is a limit that has always been there, and a limit without which the right cannot be legitimately exercised?
Remember that it was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owning guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are licenses for gun owners and registration for firearms (two sides of the same coin) inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
If so, how?

If you think felons shouldn't own guns then yeah.
Kind of like voting, it's your right, but you still have to register.

How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it?

Oh, I see the confusion, I meant the inherentt part of common sense where we at least try to keep felons and others from owning assault weapons.

So you agree that firearm registration is not an inherent part of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore not an inherent limit.
Thank you

No, I disagree with you...in a very inherent way.

Ok then...
How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it?

 

[HappyJoy]

If you think felons shouldn't own guns then yeah.
Kind of like voting, it's your right, but you still have to register.

How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it?

Oh, I see the confusion, I meant the inherentt part of common sense where we at least try to keep felons and others from owning assault weapons.

So you agree that firearm registration is not an inherent part of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore not an inherent limit.
Thank you

No, I disagree with you...in a very inherent way.

Ok then...
How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?

Why does it matter? Doesn't our system of laws and the Supreme Court "inherently" get to decide what is legal and what is not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it?

Oh, I see the confusion, I meant the inherentt part of common sense where we at least try to keep felons and others from owning assault weapons.

So you agree that firearm registration is not an inherent part of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore not an inherent limit.
Thank you

No, I disagree with you...in a very inherent way.

Ok then...
How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it

Why does it matter?

Apparently, you hold the position that registration is an inherent limit to the right to arms.
I'm looking for your, preferably sound, to that effect.
Thus, I ask:
How is the registration of a gun an inherent part of the right to keep and bear arms?
That is, how is registration a necessary part of the exercise of the right, where the right cannot be legitimately exercised without it?

 

[flacaltenn]

The limits on firepower weren't that obvious to the Founders in the 18th century.. If you know enough history, you know that groups or individuals were allowed to "privateer". And own ships comparable to battlecruisers or heavily armed frigates.

Not suggesting tanks and naval cruisers are fair game. But no one had their shorts in a wad that some private Yahoo had more cannon on board than some Federal warships in 1799...

Agree about the key to our biggest problem being mental condition or competence. But until there are objective screening methods, where you can measure mental incapacities without the guessing of a team of shrinks, I can't trust ANYONE's rights to the chaos and subjective guessing that our Mental Health system does..

 

[PredFan]

It is reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. That's it.

Yes but...
Is the prohibition of felons from owning firearms an inherent limit to the right to arms?
That is, it is a limit that has always been there, and a limit without which the right cannot be legitimately exercised?
Remember that it was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owning guns.

As you said, it's relatively new. I'm not sure that the founders concidered convicted felons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. That's it.

Yes but...
Is the prohibition of felons from owning firearms an inherent limit to the right to arms?
That is, it is a limit that has always been there, and a limit without which the right cannot be legitimately exercised?
Remember that it was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owning guns.

As you said, it's relatively new. I'm not sure that the founders concidered convicted felons.

Correct - It cannot, therefore, be an inherent limit, as it if were, it would have always been there.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The limits on firepower weren't that obvious to the Founders in the 18th century.. If you know enough history, you know that groups or individuals were allowed to "privateer". And own ships comparable to battlecruisers or heavily armed frigates.

Not suggesting tanks and naval cruisers are fair game. But no one had their shorts in a wad that some private Yahoo had more cannon on board than some Federal warships in 1799...

Agree about the key to our biggest problem being mental condition or competence. But until there are objective screening methods, where you can measure mental incapacities without the guessing of a team of shrinks, I can't trust ANYONE's rights to the chaos and subjective guessing that our Mental Health system does..

Which is why when we talk about mental incapacitation, we're talking about a condition demonstrated through criminal activity. When Leftists talk about it, they're talking about mental health evaluations that "predict" mental instability with a gun.

Kinda like precrime.

 

[PredFan]

It is reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. That's it.

Yes but...
Is the prohibition of felons from owning firearms an inherent limit to the right to arms?
That is, it is a limit that has always been there, and a limit without which the right cannot be legitimately exercised?
Remember that it was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owning guns.

As you said, it's relatively new. I'm not sure that the founders concidered convicted felons.

Correct - It cannot, therefore, be an inherent limit, as it if were, it would have always been there.

I'm sorry if I jumped into another conversation, I only read the OP and unless I misunderstand, it didn't mention or imply inherent limits.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It is reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. That's it.

Yes but...
Is the prohibition of felons from owning firearms an inherent limit to the right to arms?
That is, it is a limit that has always been there, and a limit without which the right cannot be legitimately exercised?
Remember that it was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owning guns.

As you said, it's relatively new. I'm not sure that the founders concidered convicted felons.

That's because most of the people we turn out into the streets they hung by the neck until dead.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The limits on firepower weren't that obvious to the Founders in the 18th century.. If you know enough history, you know that groups or individuals were allowed to "privateer". And own ships comparable to battlecruisers or heavily armed frigates.

Not suggesting tanks and naval cruisers are fair game. But no one had their shorts in a wad that some private Yahoo had more cannon on board than some Federal warships in 1799...

Agree about the key to our biggest problem being mental condition or competence. But until there are objective screening methods, where you can measure mental incapacities without the guessing of a team of shrinks, I can't trust ANYONE's rights to the chaos and subjective guessing that our Mental Health system does..

Which is why when we talk about mental incapacitation, we're talking about a condition demonstrated through criminal activity. When Leftists talk about it, they're talking about mental health evaluations that "predict" mental instability with a gun.
Kinda like precrime.

Yes -- they want to limit the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding because they might commit a crime.
When that happens with free speech, it's called "prior restraint" and violates the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. That's it.

Yes but...
Is the prohibition of felons from owning firearms an inherent limit to the right to arms?
That is, it is a limit that has always been there, and a limit without which the right cannot be legitimately exercised?
Remember that it was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owning guns.

As you said, it's relatively new. I'm not sure that the founders concidered convicted felons.

Correct - It cannot, therefore, be an inherent limit, as it if were, it would have always been there.

I'm sorry if I jumped into another conversation, I only read the OP and unless I misunderstand, it didn't mention or imply inherent limits.

Understood.

 

[PredFan]

It is reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. That's it.

Yes but...
Is the prohibition of felons from owning firearms an inherent limit to the right to arms?
That is, it is a limit that has always been there, and a limit without which the right cannot be legitimately exercised?
Remember that it was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owning guns.

As you said, it's relatively new. I'm not sure that the founders concidered convicted felons.

That's because most of the people we turn out into the streets they hung by the neck until dead.

Well, there IS that.

 

[flacaltenn]

The limits on firepower weren't that obvious to the Founders in the 18th century.. If you know enough history, you know that groups or individuals were allowed to "privateer". And own ships comparable to battlecruisers or heavily armed frigates.

Not suggesting tanks and naval cruisers are fair game. But no one had their shorts in a wad that some private Yahoo had more cannon on board than some Federal warships in 1799...

Agree about the key to our biggest problem being mental condition or competence. But until there are objective screening methods, where you can measure mental incapacities without the guessing of a team of shrinks, I can't trust ANYONE's rights to the chaos and subjective guessing that our Mental Health system does..

Which is why when we talk about mental incapacitation, we're talking about a condition demonstrated through criminal activity. When Leftists talk about it, they're talking about mental health evaluations that "predict" mental instability with a gun.

Kinda like precrime.

exactly.. The idea of a "treated" mental case is not a safe bet either with all the prescriptions that are written and potentially abused. And evals based on interviews and even guidelines in the Diagnostic Manual are not accurate or safe.

But the GOOD news is -- that our ability to DETECT and MEASURE many of the abnormalities are getting much better with all the work in the TRUE science of NeuroBiology. And soon, we might be able to quantify these conditions and monitor them more accurately..

In the meantime, we have to get some kind of disclosure of "commitments" and psych discoveries made in conjunction with legal preceedings..