Rigby5
Diamond Member
Statement 1: "Not at all original, but it's amusing that you believe you're the first person to come up with it."
Response: Not meant to be original, it is a fact that 2aguy is out of touch with reality.
Statement 2: At what point do you believe criminals will start obeying the laws you demand?
Response: a) Never, I don't demand, since I have no authority to do so; b) Criminals disobey the laws, that is by definition; c) Guns today are regulated, don't pretend they are not; d) The 2nd A. does not allow everyone the Right to own, possess or have in their custody or control "arms", incl. firearms. It can be revoked, and thus is a privilege; "shall not be infringed" is a fantasy.
Wrong.
The right to own a gun has been ruled to be an inherent individual right.
It is an extension of the right of self defense, but made even stronger by the need for an armed population in order to defend village, state, and country as well.
The fact a right can be over ridden does not make it a privilege.
For example, if you try to rob a bank, someone can shoot you dead and legally over ride your right to life.
That does not mean your right to life was a privilege that can be arbitrarily revoked.
It means that when rights come into conflict, laws can make some rights subordinate to others.
The right to own firearms can not legally be infringed by the federal government.
Felons were allowed to be armed until 1968, and that federal law is totally illegal in my opinion.
That was almost 200 years when felons were allowed to be armed.
{...
Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances.
...}
There is no basis in law for any federal firearms legislation.