Observations on the anti-gun crowd

[Concerned American]

Doesn't adress why your perception of your constitutional rights, a perception that even this Supreme Court doesn't share, should be more important than the tens of thousands of lives lost yearly, due to guns.

Wrong, not due to guns. Guns by themselves cause no harm to anyone. Start convicting the PEOPLE who are using the guns to create havoc. More people were killed in one single incident using a rental truck, fertilizer and diesel than any mass shooting in the US ever, but you want to blame guns.

I am there.

Doesn't adress why your perception of your constitutional rights, a perception that even this Supreme Court doesn't share, should be more important than the tens of thousands of lives lost yearly, due to guns.

Lives that aren't lost in other countries with more restrictive laws, including mine.

Thanks for that---you aren't an American. IDGAF, what your opinion is. You have no standing in MY domestic issues. BTW, if guns cause gun crime as you assert, please explain Switzerland.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The government as a matter of routine balances personal freedom against the public interest, it doesn't matter if that freedom is drinking alcohol, taking drugs or driving a car. Their are limits on that freedom. So I'll ask again, what excludes weapons from those kinds of restrictions?

The SC said so.

As previously quoted:

(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22.

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.

Thus:
The right to own and use all instruments that constitute bearable arms is not subject to interest balancing or means-end tests you suggest.

 

[Concerned American]

it doesn't matter if that freedom is drinking alcohol, taking drugs or driving a car.

None of those are 'rights.' Two relate to drugs and the third is a privilege not a right. The 'right' to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the bill of rights of the constitution. Run along, you have no clue and you still haven't responded to my question about Switzerland? 1 in 4 Swiss own weapons and they don't have noticeable gun crime--maybe because they hold criminals accountable. Wow, such a novel approach.

 

[Leo123]

If everyone open carried, there would be a lot less crime because, by far, most gun owners are law-abiding American patriots.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't on purpose. That would introduce my own framework into the discussion.

In my experience that just makes people talk past oneanother both giving their opinion without ever adressing the other persons view.

If you're interested. I think the second amendment doesn't make sense in today's context, and should be amended.

As my personal view on guns. Their shoukd be extensive background checks on guns, and a person has to show they can handle guns safely.

Having passed those check the possesion of hunting weapons should be unrestricted because there's many peoply who use hunting as a means to feed themselves. Hand guns should be allowed for personal defense although I think doing so is a bad idea.

Long guns not designed for hunting should be banned.

I don't know how many words that is, but I have no problem stating my opinion.

I think the second amendment doesn't make sense in today's context, and should be amended.

And the First Amendment should be changed in the same way, right?