Can you cite the Constitutional provision for restricting the 2nd amendment in a general sense, as AWB's and other restrictions do?
The constitution is
not the CFR. It is not even the USC. Laws have always been interpretted and the Constitution has always been interpretted.
As noted earlier the discussion around "free speech" has limitations. It is not an unlimited right.
Going all the way back to John Stuart Mill who espoused a very broad freedom of speech, he still noted
"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
Up to Schenk v United States and Holmes decision (often short handed to "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater").
I think people can reasonably discuss the limits of which these things are applied and how much of a "danger" is present in a supposed "clear and present danger", but the fact remains these ideals listed in the Constitution are not immune to interpretation.
The Constitution does not address every eventuality or application. For this reason we have laws and the CFR to help in applying laws.
The Constitution is a written document. Don't hold me responsible for what it says. If you hold the Founding Fathers in incredulity... well, that's your misfortune.
"Incredulity"? Do you think the Founding Fathers meant for the COnstitution to be the sole source of legal decision in the US?
Even the
Founding Fathers themselves seemed to be OK with a "living" constitution! HEre's a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the topic:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
This is a topic that has been discussed at length by legal scholars since the founding of the Republic.
WHich of us is "incredulous"?
This sentence is incoherent.
Actually, technically speaking, while you may
disagree with my sentence, or you may find some technical error on my part, it is
not incoherent. It was clearly phrased and outlined in a linear fashion my intended meaning.
Please, if you wish to have an adult and reasonable conversation, I suggest you learn how to read, or you moderate your own snark.
Uh... that IS infringing. Limiting=restricting=regulating=infringing. All different ways to say the same thing. Show me where in the Constitution it says that the RKBA can be regulated.
And this takes me back to my interpretation of your original point which is that any limitation is unacceptable to you. Which opens the gates of hell in application. Let toddlers have guns (or are you of the opinion that they are not Americans?) Let the mentally ill
of any level of affectation have guns (or does one cease to be an American when one develops schizophrenia?) Let the parolee out on his or her "second strike" have guns! (Or does one cease to become an American upon incarceration?)
I see
nothing in the constitution which bars these individuals from their duly annointed 2nd Amendment rights!
So what if you had a hunting license?
It is dispositive against her claim of my "fear" of guns.
There are plenty of people who hunt and/or own certain types of guns that they believe to be relatively safe and non-threatening, who simultaneously hold the same fear of so-called "assault weapons" which in reality pose absolutely no greater threat than any other firearm.
So I take you have had not formal gun safety training? Who in their right mind that has had gun safety training thinks of
any gun as "relatively safe" and "non-threatening"???? (Please tell me you don't own any guns if that is the kind of gun safety training you got. The kind I got taught me never to point a gun toward another person even if I was sure it was 'unloaded' and that effectively no gun is to be treated as 'non-threatening'.)
Do you actually trust politicians?
Yes. I trust them just as much as I trust any other person. If they show me they should not be trusted I will not trust them. But I do not
start out assuming someone is a liar if I simply disagree with them.
Perhaps this is the problem. If one starts off afraid of their fellow citizens and the people they themselves "hire" to be their representative then perhaps there is an underlying problem that should be addressed before we give that person a gun.
I certainly do not know what you mean by "stark raving mad". I'm asking you to define it because I don't know what you're talking about. "Stark raving mad" is not a diagnosis found in the DSM, and I never heard of this condition when studying psychology.
So
according to you, at what point in the DSM IV does one cease to be an American undeserving of the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
Are you saying we should deny everybody the right to defend themselves with firearms based on your belief that you personally wouldn't have the stomach for it?
Well considering how many studies have found that guns in the home are more often used to kill loved ones (accidentally or on purpose) or used in suicides, I guess I'm making more of a point about
the logic behind increasing the prevalence of guns in our society.
If someone doesn't have the confidence to change the oil in their car, should we ban people from conducting their own automotive maintenance?
Good question! If people are prone to dump used motor oil in the creek out behind the garage then yeah, let's do that. There are limitations on things like that, especially when it can possibly harm others.
So why don't we leave it up to the individual to judge their own ability to use a firearm in self defense?
Oh, I don't know! Because maybe people are too sure of themselves until the rubber meets the road and in the process we load up our citizenry with guns because we are Americans and inherently distrust and fear our neighbors and wind up shooting ourselve or our loved ones with those guns?
But hey, why not "run the experiement"?
Allow them the freedom to handle, purchase, possess and train with a firearm and evaluate their own capability.
I know you will hate this question, but I'm a trained chemist. WOuld you be oK living beside me in our neighborhood if I felt confident I could handle having a couple pounds of plutonium in my house or out in the shed out back?
Give me the freedom to purchase, possess and enjoy my plutonium. I promise that I know the danger of putting a critical mass together and flooding your home with neutrons sufficient to kill you and your family within 2 weeks. I'll keep two buckets of Pu(VI) solution, each 1/2 a critical mass and I'll keep 'em far enough apart.
What was the purpose of this comment? To demonstrate your inability to have an honest intellectual discussion?
It's called a "Joke". You may wish to look it up between bouts of hiding in the bathroom with a copy of the Constitution.
Would you like me to explain the joke? You see, many people who love guns a lot are quick to point out how anything can be used to hurt other people, so since we were talking about TV's I thought I'd play that one up.)
It's unjust, and it is ineffective as a crime control measure. Guess what: if I really wanted to carry a handgun in Suffolk county, or in NYC where I frequently work... I could go buy one illegally. Just like any criminal who wants one does. But, being a law abiding citizen, I don't. Criminals are not affected by gun control. I AM.
Criminals
would be affected by gun control if we, as a nation, didn't have the highest density of gun ownership of any developed country on earth. Statistically it means MORE GUNS, and MORE GUNS means EASIER ACCESS to guns (just mathematically).
But on top of that for some odd reason our love of guns has resulted in us being among the most trigger happy people on earth. It's almost like we have evolved into GUN-BASED HOMINIDS. Almost no other developed country has the gun homicide rate we do.
I know the studies are fruaght with uncertainty but generally I wonder why we stand out among developed nations in terms of gun homicides, gun deaths and gun ownership. Could there
possibly be some correlation? I don't know. HOnestly I dont'. I've seen both sides of the debate. But there is something wrong with us.
Something dreadful.
Maybe there's something to that old saw from the Bible about those who live by the sword. We have made a national religion of the "sword" in our love of guns. And it looks to me we are dying by it too.
These are implements of war. War is waged by governments.
I think you better re-read that Second Amendme you talk about so much. Specifically focus on this sentence:
"A well regulated militia...".
And I will also point out that guns were initially developed for war. While some utility for hunting is obvious, the development of
semi automatics like your precious AR-15 and
full automatics have almost no utility in hunting and are, ipso facto, "implements of war". Just an FYI.