Ante up anti gunners...what will you allow for normal gun owners, what do you want?

[oldsoul]

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.

I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:

• Shall not be infringed.
• shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
• shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
• Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
• shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.

See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID

All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.

The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

It has that one qualifying phrase.

Ok, I'll give you that, but consider this:

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous."
The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
Meaning of the phrase
So, a "well regulated Militia..." at the time of the 2nd adoption would NOT include the Government.
So, to reword it, A [properly functioning] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...
See how that differs from: A [government run] militia...

 

[oldsoul]

As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.

I disagree with that. All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.

Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination? Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?

We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.

I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.

Where is your "line in the sand" then? At what point to restrictions become "unreasonable"?

Hard to answer.

It's easier to answer what I consider reasonable.

Unreasonable would be banning ownership of guns for any reason other being a felon, history of violent domestic abuse or mental health issues.
Unreasonable would be banning magazines of 10 rounds or less.
Unreasonable would be requiring a lengthy or expensive training period - I think there should be a one-time educational component, like with getting a license to drive, pass a test, and that's it and it should be free.
Unreasonable would be anything that publishes private information on gun owners publically.
A 3-day waiting period is reasonable imo, mostly because it might limit impulse buying out of rage, or suicidal desires. More than that would be unreasonable.

Ok, I agree with you on what you have stated would be unreasonable. Would you find it reasonable to limit voting to those who have attended a " one-time educational component, like with getting a license to drive, pass a test, and that's it and it should be free."? If not, what makes guns different? They are both constitutionally protected rights. Would it be reasonable to institute a "waiting period" before one is "allowed" to publicly speak? If not, again, how is that any different?

 

[oldsoul]

That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......

For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.

If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that. Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.

Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........

Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...

The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings. Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.

There is NOTHING in the COTUS that gives the federal government the power to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Nothing that says that they can pass any law so much as even restricting that right. Regardless of what the politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court's opinion is, the fact is, it's not there.

 

[Coyote]

For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.

If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that. Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.

Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........

Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...

The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings. Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.

There is NOTHING in the COTUS that gives the federal government the power to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Nothing that says that they can pass any law so much as even restricting that right. Regardless of what the politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court's opinion is, the fact is, it's not there.

Multiple SCOTUS' over the years have disagreed with you.

 

[oldsoul]

Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........

Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...

The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings. Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.

There is NOTHING in the COTUS that gives the federal government the power to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Nothing that says that they can pass any law so much as even restricting that right. Regardless of what the politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court's opinion is, the fact is, it's not there.

Multiple SCOTUS' over the years have disagreed with you.

Well, I guess that settles it then doesn't it, because the SCOTUS has never reversed it's self right? Those deified justices have NEVER gotten it wrong, right? Saying "because SCOTUS says so," carries as much weight with me as someone standing in a garage and saying "I'm a car." Show me some argument, don't just repeat what someone else has said. Think for yourself.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.


Hey...guess what...the right to own a gun is the same.....you have to be a certain age, you can't be a felon and you might need to provide an I.D.

Why are you complaing? Guns and voting already are restricted...

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.

The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns. I own guns. My husband owns guns. Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating. Every right has limitations - none is unlimited. Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.

Yes....and under the 14th Amendment....registration and licensing of gun owners is also unconstitutional....

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........

Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...

The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings. Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.

There is NOTHING in the COTUS that gives the federal government the power to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Nothing that says that they can pass any law so much as even restricting that right. Regardless of what the politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court's opinion is, the fact is, it's not there.

Multiple SCOTUS' over the years have disagreed with you.

No, actually they haven't ....Scalia cites the various laws in Heller.....

 

[2aguy]

As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.

I disagree with that. All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.

Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination? Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?

We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.

I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.

2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right

Wrong.......we believe in common sense restrictions...which you guys do not....if you are a criminal, you can't buy, own or carry a gun....if you are dangerously mentally ill, you can't use a gun either........if you commit a crime with a gun, you will be arrested....you must be 18 to own a long gun and 21 to own a pistol....and to carry a pistol.....

So....which restrictions don't we support?

 

[2aguy]

As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.

I disagree with that. All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.

Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination? Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?

We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.

I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.

Where is your "line in the sand" then? At what point to restrictions become "unreasonable"?

Hard to answer.

It's easier to answer what I consider reasonable.

Unreasonable would be banning ownership of guns for any reason other being a felon, history of violent domestic abuse or mental health issues.
Unreasonable would be banning magazines of 10 rounds or less.
Unreasonable would be requiring a lengthy or expensive training period - I think there should be a one-time educational component, like with getting a license to drive, pass a test, and that's it and it should be free.
Unreasonable would be anything that publishes private information on gun owners publically.
A 3-day waiting period is reasonable imo, mostly because it might limit impulse buying out of rage, or suicidal desires. More than that would be unreasonable.

Your first point w already have.

What reason is there to limit normal gun owners from having a normal magazine for their pistol or rifle?

any training period would be the same as a literacy test for the Right to vote.......

3 day waiting periods have not been show to do anything.

 

[2aguy]

Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.

Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.

I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:

• Shall not be infringed.
• shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
• shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
• Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
• shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.

See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.

My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID

All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.

The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

It has that one qualifying phrase.

Sorry.......it has nothing to do with the Right that the people have regardless of the militia.........it doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.....

 

[oldsoul]

I just had a very interesting realization. All this talk back and forth about the 2nd amendment, and the "arguments" presented by those who want more control over guns has caused me to become slightly less likely to accept ANY control over who has and uses guns. I am beginning to see more and more clearly why we need more and more people in this country armed as soon as possible.

Restrictions I would accept:

• Must be an adult to purchase a firearm of any kind.
• State level background checks for violent criminal history, crimes involving a gun, and serious mental issues.
• Safety device, such as a trigger lock, included with all firearm purchases.
• Massive minimum penalties for those violating gun laws, and/or using a gun while committing a crime.
• Three strikes and your out. Three crimes, at different times, involving a firearm, and you leave prison in a body bag.
• Felons not allowed to possess a firearm, ever.

There may be others I am not thinking of at this time.