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

[g5000]

You are lying to yourself.
Please - continue.

Again, I showed laws requiring safe storage in 26 states. QED.

Your SCOTUS case was in regard to trigger locks and a gun in the home.

There are other safe storage requirements which have not been found to be unconstitutional.

You are lying to yourself. The evidence is right in front of your face and you refuse to accept it.

 

[john doe 101]

Your point would not assist in your obtaining a CCW in California

Just because you havent been arrested doesnt mean you havent broken any gun laws, you illogical moron.

 

[MagicMike]

Of course they infringe…you wake at 3am to find an intruder outside your bedroom door, how fast can you jump out of bed, open your safe, rack a round and take aim? You’re dead before you got to the foot of your bed.

But you still get to possess the firearm without any "infringement" on that right.
Correct?
2A does not specify in which condition you should be allowed to store a weapon in in 2024.....nor does it guarantee any "right" to buy ammo for any modern firearm.
My point is that when you really dig into it it's really an archaic, outdated, incomplete, and functionally irrelevant amendment in the 21st century.

 

[BrokeLoser]

But you still get to possess the firearm without any "infringement" on that right.

Possession of an unloaded locked away firearm does one no good.
The 2nd isn’t confusing at all. It doesn’t say you have a right to bear worthless arms.
Remember, there is nothing confusing about “shall not be infringed”

2A does not specify in which condition you should be allowed to store a weapon in in 2024.....nor does it guarantee any "right" to buy ammo for any modern firearm.

Remember, there is nothing confusing about “shall not be infringed”

My point is that when you really dig into it it's really an archaic, outdated, incomplete, and functionally irrelevant amendment in the 21st century.

Libs have been telling us the Constitution has timed out for decades. Nothing to see here.

 

[Failzero]

It’s a

Possession of an unloaded locked away firearm does one no good.
The 2nd isn’t confusing at all. It doesn’t say you have a right to bear worthless arms.
Remember, there is nothing confusing about “shall not be infringed”

Remember, there is nothing confusing about “shall not be infringed”

Libs have been telling us the Constitution has timed out for decades. Nothing to see here.

living breathing Document

 

[otto105]

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?

Well regulated.

 

[Failzero]

Well regulated.

Militias are cool then ?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Well regulated.

Regulated by who…your Father Government?

 

[Failzero]

Regulated by whom…your Father Government?

Regulated by the Democommies Runnin things

 

[otto105]

Militias are cool then ?

As long as they’re well regulated

 

[Failzero]

As long as they’re well regulated

By their members

 

[otto105]

Regulated by the Democommies Runnin things

By their members

No, by the laws of our country.

 

[LuckyDuck]

As the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use 'all bearable arms" - those in common use for traditionally lawful purposes - why do you believe such a ban does not violate the constitution?

I believe we are having a miscommunication. I believe that all firearms, including military grade small arms should be legal for "law-abiding" citizens.

 

[MagicMike]

Possession of an unloaded locked away firearm does one no good.

Leaving firearms lying around unsecured is far from a "well regulated" scenario.

The 2nd isn’t confusing at all. It doesn’t say you have a right to bear worthless arms.

Until 2008 it didn't even "say" you had any "right" as an individual to possess a firearm in your home for personal protection in the first place.
That "right" just came about through a SCOTUS ruling....a new INTERPRETATION of the old text.
So it's really all about what the courts say, not the old dusty document. It would be good to remember when you are trying to talk about your "right" to own firearms you are not REALLY talking about something James Madison "intended" when he wrote The Second Amendment.
I mean, COME ON!
Be honest here.
If Madison and the others could have looked in a crystal ball back then and seen into the future 250 years at our insane culrure with mass murders and rampant ignorance and plastic, superficial bullshit and 363 million firearms floating around that are ten times more efficient and lethal than what they had back then, they PROBABLY would have said something like "a right to keep and bear arms?
Not NO....but HELL NO!"
And they would have stricken it from the document.
Be that as it may though they didn't have a crystal ball so they had no way of foreseeing the insanity that those vague words in 2A would evolve into 250 years later. We're just stuck with the interpretations of the courts now.
The only thing we can be certain of is that 600 mass shootings a year is NOT what Madison intended when he penned The Second Amendment.

Remember, there is nothing confusing about “shall not be infringed”

But those aren't the only words in the text.
How about "A well regulated militia?"

Remember, there is nothing confusing about “shall not be infringed”

See above.

Libs have been telling us the Constitution has timed out for decades. Nothing to see here.

It doesn't appear that you know much about The Constitution if you think it's a "lib" thing to view the COTUS as a dynamic, living document. It isn't. It's actually a prominent, legal philosophy.
As Trump is fond of saying, "almost EVERY legal scholar agrees!"

 

[BrokeLoser]

Leaving firearms lying around unsecured is far from a "well regulated" scenario.

Like leaving knives just lying around in a drawer?

Until 2008 it didn't even "say" you had any "right" as an individual to possess a firearm in your home for personal protection in the first place.
That "right" just came about through a SCOTUS ruling....a new INTERPRETATION of the old text.
So it's really all about what the courts say, not the old dusty document. It would be good to remember when you are trying to talk about your "right" to own firearms you are not REALLY talking about something James Madison "intended" when he wrote The Second Amendment.
I mean, COME ON!
Be honest here.
If Madison and the others could have looked in a crystal ball back then and seen into the future 250 years at our insane culrure with mass murders and rampant ignorance and plastic, superficial bullshit and 363 million firearms floating around that are ten times more efficient and lethal than what they had back then, they PROBABLY would have said something like "a right to keep and bear arms?
Not NO....but HELL NO!"
And they would have stricken it from the document.
Be that as it may though they didn't have a crystal ball so they had no way of foreseeing the insanity that those vague words in 2A would evolve into 250 years later. We're just stuck with the interpretations of the courts now.
The only thing we can be certain of is that 600 mass shootings a year is NOT what Madison intended when he penned The Second Amendment.

I agree, the Constitution was/is grossly misinterpreted and often abused by courts and legislators. Take the 14th for example and birthright citizenship…there’s no way in hell our framers would allow a pathway for trespassers to fuck over core Americans and steal U.S. citizenships for their children. Like the Heller and Roe cases the court will eventually get the 14th right with a retroactive clause.

But those aren't the only words in the text.
How about "A well regulated militia?"

You obviously have no idea of the original intent of the 2nd.
Our great founders were referring to We The Armed People as that well regulated militia, they wanted you to be armed to prevent a government from turning tyrannical.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
The founders intent is made crystal clear by the third and fourth phrase.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let me know what else you’d like me to teach you?

It doesn't appear that you know much about The Constitution if you think it's a "lib" thing to view the COTUS as a dynamic, living document. It isn't. It's actually a prominent, legal philosophy.
As Trump is fond of saying, "almost EVERY legal scholar agrees!"

hahaha…poor lib.
The U.S. Constitution is the absolute blueprint and operators manual for all that we are.
Look, there’s no doubt the framers fucked up in several ways…If they could do it all over again they would have made sure this nation stayed all white and likeminded. They would have made sure leftism could never take root in America…they would know now that our diversity is our demise.

 

[BrokeLoser]

No, by the laws of our country.

What would be the point in a militia if it’s “regulated” by the power it‘s created to defend itself against?
Think once purple hair.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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

Fortunately they did envision the horrors of leftism.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

"Abridged" and "infringed" are not absolute, and this should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example. Child porn, another example. Libel and slander, yet more examples.

Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has also upheld some gun safety laws.

Laws which prohibit dangerous people from owning firearms, for example. Safe storage requirements, another example.

Two parents are going to prison for not safeguarding their guns from their maniacal son.

Why do your gun laws never work?

 

[otto105]

What would be the point in a militia if it’s “regulated” by the power it‘s created to defend itself against?
Think once purple hair.

Read the amendment.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Read the amendment.

I did…embarrass yourself and explain it to me.