Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
Really?
The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
Those countries have had a lower crime rates than the US long before they implemented gun control/bans. Since they implemented them, in every single instance, MURDER RATES ALWAYS GO UP FOR THEM. Every single instance. After gun control was implemented in the UK, gun crime doubled within a decade. If you were to eliminate the 5 cities in the us with the highest gun control laws, our crime rates would pretty much equal all those countries you refer too. These countries don’t share borders with countries that are ran by drug lords, they also don’t have the war on drugs and gang crime we do. If you were to eliminate the war on drugs, or magically evaporate drugs, we would overnight become the safest country on the planet. And back to the point the left has no answer too, if guns are the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet there’s an fully automatic assault rifle in every closet...that you can strap on your shoulder while you go out and pick up some coffee.Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.
Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.
When you make it more and more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, all you're doing is shifting the balance of power to criminals and the government.
It is unrealistic to say we can take guns away from society, because the only way to do that would be to turn us into a totalitarian, unfree police state... is that what you want? And even then, criminals will still find ways to get guns, so ultimately, all you're doing is disarming good people, creating sitting ducks, and turning us into a police state where criminals and the government are empowered.
Really?
The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?So you do want to get rid of all guns.
This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
Not necessarily.
I prefer society that is safer.
The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
Really?
The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition do not obey the law, more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.
So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?
But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?So you do want to get rid of all guns.
This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
Not necessarily.
I prefer society that is safer.
The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
It’s a typo, a misspelling. What I mean is I clear. Are you saying I don’t know the definition of either lose, or loose.Loose like let loose your libertyI never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."
The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.
If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?
Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.
Loose again?
Fucking hell
Uh huh?
Look, we're looking at the very essence of words here and you can't differentiate between lose and loose.
But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?So you do want to get rid of all guns.This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
Not necessarily.
I prefer society that is safer.
The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?So you do want to get rid of all guns.
Not necessarily.
I prefer society that is safer.
The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
Time to get an education, me thinks.
Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?Not necessarily.
I prefer society that is safer.
The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
Time to get an education, me thinks.
And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
Let's address the real conflicts and solutions to the real causes and problems
instead of arguing over how to regulate the symptoms "after the fact."
So it’s not about the guns...Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
Time to get an education, me thinks.
And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
But, to summaries.
The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
Do it work? Yes, it works.
Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
So it’s not about the guns...Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
Time to get an education, me thinks.
And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
But, to summaries.
The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
Do it work? Yes, it works.
Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
There is no right to be in the militia; militia membership was an obligation impressed on free white men.
There is no right for citizens to organize themselves into militia, train or drill -- see Presser v Illinois.
.
So far, I have no cause to disagree with any of your reasoning in the above post. Well done.There was both a right and a duty.
The duty was the state needed you.
However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia.
You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
We know this.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
In Congress Mr Gerry used "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty" and Mr Jackson used it synonymously with "render military service". They were worried, in this instance that the feds could prevent individuals from being in the militia if they were deemed to have religious scruples, so they got rid of that particular clause of the Amendment, because they felt that it would be interpreted to give power to the feds to prevent people being in the militia.
The whole text is about that, read it.
Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.
Presser clarifies it. "Shall not be infringed" applies only to the Federal Government, not State and Local governments; however, one could argue (as I do, just to be an ass) that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment's complete ban on infringement to State and local governments (which is a fucked-up conundrum caused by thoughtless/careless drafting and ratifying of the 14th Amendment).The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
Which is rubbish, right?
So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Presser clarifies it. "Shall not be infringed" applies only to the Federal Government, not State and Local governments; however, one could argue (as I do, just to be an ass) that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment's complete ban on infringement to State and local governments (which is a fucked-up conundrum caused by thoughtless/careless drafting and ratifying of the 14th Amendment).The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
Which is rubbish, right?
So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
What a beautiful irony. The very effort to vitiate individual state sovereignty may end up beening the savior thereof (at least partially).
Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.
In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
This isn't so clear cut.
The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
Which is rubbish, right?
So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
That's a nice sentiment. Not Constitutional, but nice.Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.
In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
This isn't so clear cut.
The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
Which is rubbish, right?
So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
