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

[BluesLegend]

"...shall not be infringed" needs no context

It does in fact. The 2nd was written because at that time the masses were prohibited from owning any arms so that the powers that be could brutalize the people at will. The framers wanted to make sure that shit wasn't going to happen here in America.

 

[Failzero]

(Only allowing me to Purchase 1 Firearm per month Handgun Or Long Gun ) ( forcing me to do BGC to buy Ammo And only for Firearms registered to me ) ( making it illegal to loan a Weapon or give ammo to a friend ) ( Banning vast numbers of Firearms by Model or Manufacturer or Caliber or configuration )

No one thinks these seem harsh ???

 

[john doe 101]

Anyone doubt any of these ?

You think loaning a fire arm should be legal? You don't belong in any society.

 

[john doe 101]

It does in fact. The 2nd was written because at that time the masses were prohibited from owning any arms so that the powers that be could brutalize the people at will. The framers wanted to make sure that shit wasn't going to happen here in America.

Unfortunately, the Founders did not envision the development of things like nuclear weapons.

 

[Failzero]

You think loaning a fire arm should be legal? You don't belong in any society.

If I’m at the range teaching my Grandsons to shoot I’m not allowed to let them shoot one of my 22 LR Rifles or pistols ( or give them ammo for them )

 

[john doe 101]

If I’m at the range teaching my Gransons to shoot I’m not allowed to let them shoot one of my 22 LR Rifles or pistols ( or give them ammo for them )

Imagine that. Did you get dropped on your head as a child?

 

[Failzero]

Imagine that. Did you get dropped on your head as a child?

No I live in California and that is the Law

 

[Failzero]

Did

Imagine that. Did you get dropped on your head as a child?

your wife tell you you have a small cock ?

 

[john doe 101]

No I live in California and that is the Law

You seem like the type that doesnt necessarily follow the laws. And probably due to that someone will suffer because of it.

 

[john doe 101]

Did

your wife tell you you have a small cock ?

What does that have to do with the fact you seemingly dont understand why loaning people guns isnt a good idea. I was just trying to figure out why you're so fucking stupid.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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

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

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

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

Technically, the Second Amendment was not put into our Bill of Rights for the purpose of "personal self-defense." It was put there because the fledgling government recognized the importance ordinary citizens contributed to the Revolutionary War, when those ordinary citizens formed regulated militias in their respective states, for the purpose of ending the tyrannical rule of England's monarchy.
In short, keep the civilians armed so that they could rise up, form militias and fight to preserve "freedom" in their states.
The modern government should have never been allowed to restrict law-abiding civilians from possessing standard military small-arms.

 

[JGalt]

How long have you known that you are gay?

Suck my dick, leftist faggot.

 

[john doe 101]

Suck my dick, leftist faggot.

Is this how you prove you're straight, by telling another male to do that?

 

[Catsnmeters]

You can buy it at any Jack in the Box

No no no. Your thinking of the mustard jack, not mustard gas.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

Hell, I'd be happy with a disarmed one with "quaker cannon" in place of the real guns. They look like real fun boats, Even Jeremy Clarkson (mostly) had fun in one on the cable version of Top Gear.

 

[TheYellowKing]

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

They aren't see

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)​

The Problem​

Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old man from Chicago, wanted a handgun for self-defense but was not able to get one under local law. A city ordinance required all handguns to be registered, yet Chicago refused all handgun registrations after a 1982 citywide ban. McDonald argued that the Second Amendment applied to the states as well as the federal government and that this ban was unconstitutional based on the rulings in Heller. The City of Chicago argued that states should be able to regulate firearms based on local conditions.

The Ruling​

The Supreme Court held that Second Amendment protections apply at the state level through “selective incorporation” under the Fourteenth Amendment. SCOTUS repeated that individual self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment. Meaning, the constitutional right to bear arms (and its protections as stated in Heller) prohibits states from enacting bans on handguns for self-defense in the home. This Second Amendment Supreme Court case decision overturned the Second Amendment rulings in Cruikshank and Presser.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016)​

The Problem​

Jaime Caetano was charged with owning an illegal weapon after displaying a stun gun during a dangerous encounter with her abusive ex-boyfriend in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld the state prohibition on stun gun possession, stating stun guns weren’t protected by the Second Amendment because they were:

1. “Not in common use at the time” of the amendment’s enactment;
2. Dangerous and unusual as a “modern invention”; and
3. Couldn’t be easily adapted for military use.

The Ruling​

This Second Amendment Supreme Court case is often left off most lists because it didn’t impact any gray areas. When SCOTUS took the case, the facts were so clear they were able to issue a per curiam decision (issued by the court rather than a specific justice) without even having to hear oral arguments. To put it in perspective, from 1946 to 2012, SCOTUS issued a per curiam decision in only 7% of cases.

The Court made it clear the SJC’s reasoning for upholding the Massachusetts law violated the Second Amendment, based on both the decisions in Heller and McDonald. They repeated that the Second Amendment protects weapons for self-defense purposes and not just for military reasons, and it applies to weapons “that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” SCOTUS also clarified that simply being a “modern invention” did not make it dangerous and unusual.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion, also scolded Massachusetts for failing to protect its citizens from others who are dangerous, reminding us that the Second Amendment protects our right to defend our lives when the states “are unable or unwilling” to do so:

“If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

 

[MagicMike]

A "gun owner" ya sez? Ok Fudd.

View attachment 947692

I live in an open carry state.
I often carry a BIG fudding .357 on my hip when I am in the woods at my cabin and in the surrounding communities.
Most people around these parts don't even give open carry sidearms a second glance.
Now I'm not sure I would trust any adult who posts stupid, fucking cartoon memes on public forums with guns though.
See....that's what I am talking about. We need a reliable way to separate stupid people from their firearms.

 

[whitehall]

Nobody seemed to notice restrictions on the 1st Amendment in the late 40's when a former KKK member appointed to the supreme court by FDR created the "separation of Church/State" that had no basis in the Constitution. The dirty little secret is that democrat regimes will chip away at the Bill of Rights if we let them until there is nothing left.

 

[BluesLegend]

No no no. Your thinking of the mustard jack, not mustard gas.

Oh it's gas!

 

[Catsnmeters]

Oh it's gas!

Duh! Who doesn't get gas after the mustard jack.

Follow it up with a couple 99 cent tacos and even you will agree a gas permit may be in order.