The Right To Bear Arms

[2aguy]

Yes and no Bootney Lee Farnsworth and frigidweirdo
1. with citizens bearing arms for defending law, for lawabiding purposes,
that is within the law
2. the question is people who "disrupt the peace" or "threaten security of others"
because they don't have law abiding intent and purpose, but intent to violate laws.
How do we police THAT without violating the due process/liberty/rights of LAW abiding citizens and only screen out the DANGEROUS people who if they got into guns WOULD abridge the right of others to safety, security and protections of the law?

I am reminded of The Minority Report. It is a sci-fi book about these three mutants who could foresee crimes before they were committed, and based on those visions, the person who would commit the crime was arrested and prosecuted for the crime they were going to commit. It was adapted into a Tom Cruise movie about 15 years ago.

It is impossible to predict who would commit gun crimes. Doing so is like the bullshit done in The Minority Report.

I don't understand why some people cannot accept that they cannot act preemptively to prevent potential crime without serious and unjust infringements on liberty.

The question every citizen should ask himself/herself is:

Do I want a safety guarantee or do I want a liberty guarantee?

If one wants a safety guarantee, there are plenty of nations on this planet that are suitable for such a person. It is a delusion worthy of therapy and medication to think that such a guarantee could exist, but I think people should be free to go live a captive, subjugated lifestyle...somewhere OTHER than here. AKA, get the fuck out, you commie.

Actually, that isn't true. Those who commit murder, 90% of them have long histories of crime and violence and most of them have at least one felony conviction. The problem is this....we catch violent gun offenders, and then let them out. They are the ones who end up committing murder with guns. All of the research shows that in a city like Chicago...with 3 million people, there are about 1,500 people who will either shoot someone, or will be shot...and the police know who these people are......so constantly releasing violent gun offenders......repeat gun offenders, back onto the streets with less than 3 years in jail....is causing our gun crime. We need to increase our criminal sentences for gun crimes.....and felons caught with illegal guns. That is how you actually deal with gun violence...not by going after law abiding citizens.

 

[Ernie S.]

Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.

Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That ain't how it works, sparky. We use the ballot box and laws.

That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

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...

Not all of it is about guns.

Guns EXACERBATE the situation.

But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.

Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.

Yea the difference here is that guns are a constitutionally protected right. Because a free society doesn’t exist where the government has a monopoly of force. It may take some time before people wake up one day and realize, “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.” This country was designed to protect the individual above all, not a group of people, not the poor vs rich, not white vs black, not blue colar vs white. You are not to be labeled/defined by some group, no matter what color you are or your background, you are to be judged as yourself, not everyone else around you.

We’ve done nothing but complicate the situation, and we do so to try to eliminate tragedy. There is no way to do that, you may come close with a government using an iron fist to keep its population in line, but that’s a bigger tragedy. We were given the option in this country to not be a victim. And that may mean you may need to use a gun to protect yourself. Most cases you don’t even have to fire it. And if you choose to become an assialiant we have a justice system to remedy that.

And if guns excacerbate the situation, well crime has been dropping like a rock, while gun sales and owners keep on climbing. They aren’t exacerbating the situation now. When does that exacerbation kick in?

And if the economics are an issue, we’ve been using government more and more and more and more and more to try to fix that issue for the past 100 years and it’s only made the situation worse. We keep complicating it. The only thing that does is grow government, since they always need more and more money to fix what they are to incompetent to do, or problems they start themselves.

Are you saying that the UK isn't free?

The other problem I have is that in America people should be waking up every day and saying “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.”

The rich have the govt totally controlled. They control the minds of the people, they tell them they're free, and yet take away their freedoms all the time. Two political parties to vote for, not a choice at all.

When I was going to Hong Kong last year, I read an English speaking Chinese (mainland) newspaper. Basically Beijing is controlling Hong Kong in a manner it should do based on the agreement it had with the UK. Beijing's argument was basically, you want democracy, well here's democracy, you can vote for these three people we've chosen.

My first though was "that's bullshit, they can choose three pro-Beijing people, that's not choice" and then the more I think of it, it's the same in the US. Freedom? Come off it.

 

[sakinago]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

It’s constitutionally protected very clearly. Every single stat from our country and other shows that guns are not the problem, and that gun control is not the answer. If all you have is our murder rate vs their murder rate...apples and oranges. They don’t have anywhere near the drug war that we have, and drugs practically make up 70% of our crime. It makes up even more of our murders.

 

[Humorme]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

Your Right to Life - which means the Right, Duty, and Obligation to provide for your own safety preclude any legitimate government from outlawing guns.

Alcohol and cars cost more lives, but we aren't proposing to outlaw those... and you don't need alcohol. A gun? This happened in my neighborhood:

gwinnett woman kills intruder - Bing video

 

[Humorme]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

It’s constitutionally protected very clearly. Every single stat from our country and other shows that guns are not the problem, and that gun control is not the answer. If all you have is our murder rate vs their murder rate...apples and oranges. They don’t have anywhere near the drug war that we have, and drugs practically make up 70% of our crime. It makes up even more of our murders.

You're right and people need to look at the facts:

"Results of the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) showed that an estimated 22.6 million, or 8.9% of Americans, aged 12 or older, were current or past month illicit drug users, The survey showed that just behind the 7 million people who had used marijuana, 5.1 million had used pain relievers. It has also been shown that only one in 6 or 17.3% of users of non-therapeutic opioids indicated that they received the drugs through a prescription from one doctor. The escalating use of therapeutic opioids shows hydrocodone topping all prescriptions with 136.7 million prescriptions in 2011, with all narcotic analgesics exceeding 238 million prescriptions. It has also been illustrated that opioid analgesics are now responsible for more deaths than the number of deaths from both suicide and motor vehicle crashes, or deaths from cocaine and heroin combined. A significant relationship exists between sales of opioid pain relievers and deaths."

Opioid epidemic in the United States. - PubMed - NCBI

"Approximately 80 percent of the global opioid supply is consumed in the United States."

Americans still lead the world in something: Use of highly addictive opioids

Now, I could take up some bandwidth and show you that most gun violence is linked to these drugs along with SSRIs, heroin, etc. Is the law saving people from deaths by drugs? Wouldn't society be better served working on the drug issue than attacking the Constitution?

 

[sakinago]

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.

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...

Not all of it is about guns.

Guns EXACERBATE the situation.

But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.

Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.

Yea the difference here is that guns are a constitutionally protected right. Because a free society doesn’t exist where the government has a monopoly of force. It may take some time before people wake up one day and realize, “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.” This country was designed to protect the individual above all, not a group of people, not the poor vs rich, not white vs black, not blue colar vs white. You are not to be labeled/defined by some group, no matter what color you are or your background, you are to be judged as yourself, not everyone else around you.

We’ve done nothing but complicate the situation, and we do so to try to eliminate tragedy. There is no way to do that, you may come close with a government using an iron fist to keep its population in line, but that’s a bigger tragedy. We were given the option in this country to not be a victim. And that may mean you may need to use a gun to protect yourself. Most cases you don’t even have to fire it. And if you choose to become an assialiant we have a justice system to remedy that.

And if guns excacerbate the situation, well crime has been dropping like a rock, while gun sales and owners keep on climbing. They aren’t exacerbating the situation now. When does that exacerbation kick in?

And if the economics are an issue, we’ve been using government more and more and more and more and more to try to fix that issue for the past 100 years and it’s only made the situation worse. We keep complicating it. The only thing that does is grow government, since they always need more and more money to fix what they are to incompetent to do, or problems they start themselves.

Are you saying that the UK isn't free?

The other problem I have is that in America people should be waking up every day and saying “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.”

The rich have the govt totally controlled. They control the minds of the people, they tell them they're free, and yet take away their freedoms all the time. Two political parties to vote for, not a choice at all.

When I was going to Hong Kong last year, I read an English speaking Chinese (mainland) newspaper. Basically Beijing is controlling Hong Kong in a manner it should do based on the agreement it had with the UK. Beijing's argument was basically, you want democracy, well here's democracy, you can vote for these three people we've chosen.

My first though was "that's bullshit, they can choose three pro-Beijing people, that's not choice" and then the more I think of it, it's the same in the US. Freedom? Come off it.

No the UK isn’t free, neither are we.

And no we aren’t controlled by the rich, yes the rich are in bed with both side of govt. but that’s what happens when you give government a shit ton of power. If government doesn’t have that power, than the rich can’t really buy the government, since government can’t do much to tip the scales in their favor. And our own government mispeant 1 trillion dollars last year (one year alone)...that’s a full third of the annual tax revenue, that’s 5% of the nations entire GDP. Now that’s not on the rich...that’s on our government. And let me make this clear, when I say mispeant, I don’t mean wasteful spending, I’m talking about payments made, or double payments made here in there, that were never supposed to be made. Again that’s not on the rich, that’s on government. You want to get rid of the rich buying govt, cut government. Restrict them, then they can’t do this bullshit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

Your Right to Life - which means the Right, Duty, and Obligation to provide for your own safety preclude any legitimate government from outlawing guns.

Alcohol and cars cost more lives, but we aren't proposing to outlaw those... and you don't need alcohol. A gun? This happened in my neighborhood:

gwinnett woman kills intruder - Bing video

Well, the problem here is that you could defend yourself with a whole host of weaponry. For example, I could defend myself with a F-15, Artillery, Mortars, all kinds of things that are banned.

I agree there's a right to defend yourself, this doesn't mean that you have a right to anything that you can defend yourself with.

No, I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. I'm saying they should be restricted. Just like drink driving is illegal. And more should be done to stop it from happening.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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...

Not all of it is about guns.

Guns EXACERBATE the situation.

But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.

Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.

Yea the difference here is that guns are a constitutionally protected right. Because a free society doesn’t exist where the government has a monopoly of force. It may take some time before people wake up one day and realize, “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.” This country was designed to protect the individual above all, not a group of people, not the poor vs rich, not white vs black, not blue colar vs white. You are not to be labeled/defined by some group, no matter what color you are or your background, you are to be judged as yourself, not everyone else around you.

We’ve done nothing but complicate the situation, and we do so to try to eliminate tragedy. There is no way to do that, you may come close with a government using an iron fist to keep its population in line, but that’s a bigger tragedy. We were given the option in this country to not be a victim. And that may mean you may need to use a gun to protect yourself. Most cases you don’t even have to fire it. And if you choose to become an assialiant we have a justice system to remedy that.

And if guns excacerbate the situation, well crime has been dropping like a rock, while gun sales and owners keep on climbing. They aren’t exacerbating the situation now. When does that exacerbation kick in?

And if the economics are an issue, we’ve been using government more and more and more and more and more to try to fix that issue for the past 100 years and it’s only made the situation worse. We keep complicating it. The only thing that does is grow government, since they always need more and more money to fix what they are to incompetent to do, or problems they start themselves.

Are you saying that the UK isn't free?

The other problem I have is that in America people should be waking up every day and saying “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.”

The rich have the govt totally controlled. They control the minds of the people, they tell them they're free, and yet take away their freedoms all the time. Two political parties to vote for, not a choice at all.

When I was going to Hong Kong last year, I read an English speaking Chinese (mainland) newspaper. Basically Beijing is controlling Hong Kong in a manner it should do based on the agreement it had with the UK. Beijing's argument was basically, you want democracy, well here's democracy, you can vote for these three people we've chosen.

My first though was "that's bullshit, they can choose three pro-Beijing people, that's not choice" and then the more I think of it, it's the same in the US. Freedom? Come off it.

No the UK isn’t free, neither are we.

And no we aren’t controlled by the rich, yes the rich are in bed with both side of govt. but that’s what happens when you give government a shit ton of power. If government doesn’t have that power, than the rich can’t really buy the government, since government can’t do much to tip the scales in their favor. And our own government mispeant 1 trillion dollars last year (one year alone)...that’s a full third of the annual tax revenue, that’s 5% of the nations entire GDP. Now that’s not on the rich...that’s on our government. And let me make this clear, when I say mispeant, I don’t mean wasteful spending, I’m talking about payments made, or double payments made here in there, that were never supposed to be made. Again that’s not on the rich, that’s on government. You want to get rid of the rich buying govt, cut government. Restrict them, then they can’t do this bullshit.

Ah, great. You have guns, but you're not free, yet it's the guns that.... what do the guns do?

Yes, you are controlled by the rich, MASSIVELY.

The issue with government is that the people have rolled over and given up.

 

[2aguy]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point.

The people who pose a threat with guns are the ones who right now, cannot buy, own or carry them, according to current law.

why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

The people who are committing those murders.....already can't own, buy or carry a gun, under current law. They have already had their guns taken away from them.

You want to take guns away from the 16 million people who carry guns, but don't use them for crime or murder...you want to take guns away from 90 million homes where they are not used for crime or murder....

Let's see...can you tell which number is bigger....

9,616 gun murders in 2015.......16,000,0000 people lawfully carrying guns for self defense....

Can you tell us which number is bigger and by how much?

9,616 gun murders in 2015.....close to 400,000,000 guns in private hands that were not used for crime or murder.

Can you tell us which number is bigger and by how much?

So....why should the owners of 600,000,000 guns in 2017 give them up, because fewer than 9,000 people who can't own, buy or carry them use illegally acquired guns to commit crimes?

Do you see how dumb your argument is when the actual numbers are shown?

And when the truth is shown....that as more Americans bought, own and carry guns....our crime rates went down, not up, can you see how silly your argument is?

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

Your Right to Life - which means the Right, Duty, and Obligation to provide for your own safety preclude any legitimate government from outlawing guns.

Alcohol and cars cost more lives, but we aren't proposing to outlaw those... and you don't need alcohol. A gun? This happened in my neighborhood:

gwinnett woman kills intruder - Bing video

Well, the problem here is that you could defend yourself with a whole host of weaponry. For example, I could defend myself with a F-15, Artillery, Mortars, all kinds of things that are banned.

I agree there's a right to defend yourself, this doesn't mean that you have a right to anything that you can defend yourself with.

No, I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. I'm saying they should be restricted. Just like drink driving is illegal. And more should be done to stop it from happening.

They are already restricted.....felons and the dangerously mentally ill cannot buy, own or carry them.....enforce that, and 99% of our gun crime problem goes away.....but you guys won't do that......

 

[Cecilie1200]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

Okay, a couple of things.

1) There is no world in which I would be interested in you defining "sensible", let alone mandating it.

2) In what way would a ban on "assault weapons" - presumably as opposed to weapons which are used to tickle people, I guess - or anything else have stopped the Las Vegas shooter? I mean, if the extremely clear laws against killing people wasn't a deterrent, what makes you think he'd have said, "Oh, wait, it's ILLEGAL for me to have these guns. I'd best get rid of them"?

3) If I didn't make this question entirely clear in my previous point, what the fuck exactly is an "assault weapon"? What do you leftist twerps even mean, or think you mean, by this?

4) Where were high-capacity magazines even mentioned in the story you're presumably responding to?

5) What appreciable difference do you honestly think reloading - or, since the man obviously came well-stocked and prepared, merely changing to a second, already-loaded magazine - would have made?

6) Do you even realize how clueless about guns your remark about "ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use" makes you sound? I'm hardly an expert on firearms, but even I know you just telegraphed your ignorance about various types of weapons in that one sentence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

you're an idiot. almost every modern handgun used by civilian police is semi auto. stupid moron.

I'm trying to figure out if Lakhota is somehow thinking that "semi-automatic" refers to super-special, extra-dangerous military-esque weapons, or if he/she/it (can never remember, probably because I don't care) thinks the answer is to only allow civilians to own antique muzzle loaders for historical interest, or exactly what the hell this is all about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

No, you leftists WANT the Constitution to exist only in the context of its case law, because that means the law is whatever you tweekoids "feel" it should be at the moment, and whatever you can get a handful of unelected oligarchs to mandate. Unfortunately for you, that is not even remotely the nation that our Founders set up, or that people want to live in. Maybe go find a nice dictatorship somewhere that's already established to live in, instead of trying to impose one on the rest of us.

What clearly confuses YOU is that you're busy panicking over what you think conservatives believe, rather than ever actually taking the time to listen to us and comprehend what we say. Am I going to waste time even discussing your amusingly pathetic notion that we believe any right is "unlimited", just as though it was actually a serious, thoughtful statement? Guess.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

The people are the people, if it had meant militia over people, it would’ve said militia.

Precise usage of English is beyond the skills of most Americans, and nearly all leftists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.

Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.

Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.

 

[westwall]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.

Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.

Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.

Nope. Machineguns are technically protected by the US V Miller decision. SBR's and SBS's though, are subject to regulation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Free speech may be limited by government when government can demonstrate a compelling reason to do so, limitations that are content-neutral – yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater will likely cause injury or death, unrelated to the content of the ‘message’ attempting to be conveyed.

After more than 100 years First Amendment jurisprudence has become comprehensive and inclusive, affording lawmakers the ability to craft legislation that comports with the First Amendment – that is not the case with the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving; in the coming decades it will likewise become comprehensive and inclusive.

As that process advances governments and the courts must be allowed to play their respective roles in determining what laws comport with the Second Amendment and what laws do not, where measures placing limits on the Second Amendment right are neither un-Constitutional nor ‘anti-Second Amendment’ until the Supreme Court alone rules that they are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings. There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to willingly give up our rights. Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution. It is also legal now to propagandize the public. Watch this video:

Nonsense.

There is no ‘effort’ – ‘concerted’ or otherwise – to get the public to fear and hate guns, the notion is ridiculous, delusional, and dishonest.