Are these 'infringements'?

So you don't actually believe that all "anti gun activists only pretend they care about public safety" and were only saying it to attack people you don't like.

I never said it would have made it better, only that the people proposing it could have thought so (legislators are demonstrably capable of being idiots) and I agree that it was more likely a matter of spite, but that was aimed against their political opponents, not gun owners in general and not due to a lack of care for public safety.

 

Feel free to do so - I wont stop you but unfortunately your gun lobby has been trying to interfere with Australian politics for years, not to mention some of the more illogical bulltwang arguments pro gun filter their way to countries outside America. I am not against Americans owning guns but I am very much against ridiculous unfounded myths that only serve to increase mortality and morbidity

 

Except that, and I agree it should be some sort of equivalence but it is not. Look at the countries eg UK and Aus that have strict gun control, there isn’t a huge amount of illegal guns in either country. Now Aus’s laws on abortion are variable but abortion is the same rate across all states and the UK actually does have laws outlawing abortion but a high level of legal abortions occurring - so why does one lot of laws work and not the other?

 

Are there other words in the amendment that you are leaving out? Such as the practice should be “well regulated”?

 

For a militia.
I don't think abortions need to have anything to do with a well regulated militia.

 

you do understand that passing a gun ban before there were lots of guns is very different than passing a gun ban in a country that has 400 Million guns-thousands of machine shops and thousands of miles of open borders

 

what do you think "well regulated" means and what impact does that have on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

same question to you-what impact do you think "well regulated' as applied to a militia have on the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

 

so are you part of the counter reformation? You do know your attempts to apply Australian laws to the USA are ridiculous and unfounded myths as well?

 

wow you sure misconstrued what I said.. I believe the politicians who are anti gun and the leaders of grifter groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, Sandy Hook Promise and the Gifford gun grabbers are motivated by something other than public safety

 

Seems to me I included more than enough regulations in the OP. If you think that isn't well enough regulated, feel free to propose some more...

But first, do you think any of those regulations mentioned would 'infringe' on the right to access abortion?

 

Its about consistancy of law. Do you think the regulations in OP would 'infringe' on a right to access abortion?

 

nothing at all to do with abortion.

 

I don't think they apply.
Abortions have nothing at all in relation to the 2nd Amendment.

If fact, I don't think the constitution or other documents even discuss abortion or healthcare.
Except for maybe, the pursuit of happiness. Or Liberty. Or life.

And as at least one other poster already stated. HIPPA laws.

The right to have medical records not be made public.

 

Did you miss where I said in the OP "suppose", "might" and "if"?

 

yet you made a big deal out of well regulated-what does that have to do with the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no constitutional right to an abortion

 

Its not a false equivalency because an infringement of a right is an infringement regardless of what the right protects, be it abortion, guns, weed, speech... If there's regulations you think are necessary that would infringe on the right, then the constitution needs to be amended to allow for them. Until it is, we're just making unlawful laws and undermining the purpose of putting limits on democracy and the very concept of the law itself.

 

It doesn't actually 'prove' anything. But it does strongly suggest that A LOT of people find it problematic that they would eagerly support infringing one right while oppose infringing another, depending probably on which side of the aisle they inhabit. People hate it when they're confronted with their own intellectual inconsistencies (some might call it hypocrisy)

 

I assume people still got abortions anyway. Just like people will still get guns anyway.

Sad that you are NOT in the least bit TRYING to answer the fundamental question of the thread that you are so interested in otherwise participating in...

 

All items have regulation on them, no clause exists in the constitution that is absolute.

I don’t think tracking abortions (like medical records already do) would be an infringement. Nor do I think limiting certain procedures if they are more likely to cause injury to the mother or cause unnecessary pain to the fetus.

Limiting the number they can get would be an infringement, as would waiting periods.

An abortion permit doesn’t even make sense but one could argue they need to demonstrate the understanding of the procedure and what is occurring so “education” as long as it is not overly burdensome would be fine.

Medical professionals would still need to have insurance for the product or service they are selling and it would need to be highly regulated.

So with that said, why should we not have a database of registered firearms? Why should we not require a certain level of education around them?

 

Because those are all infringements. But clearly you dont think so...

 

I explained how they are indeed not in both scenarios
But you are entitled to your own opinion

How does tracking a purchase infringe on someone’s ability to purchase it?

Does requiring a background check infringe on the right to bare arms? What about not allowing felons to have them? What about preventing them at presidential rallies?

 

Yes, all are infringements. Tracking serves no purpose other than trying to regulate ownership. To be clear, Im not opposed to some regulations, rather I am opposed to passing unconstitutional regulations. The constitution clearly (imo) forbids virtually all of our guns regs, and our tolerance of them undermines the constitution. Its a living document that we can and should amend. Ignoring it for expediency just undermines its purpose and renders it ultimately useless.

 

The USSC disagrees with you.

I would not want to live in a country with such barbaric gun laws. We already have the highest rates of gun violence of all of our peers by a significant margin and ending background checks would only exacerbate that issue.

 

I don't agree with the USSC on everything, and I bet you don't either.

Rights are more important than safety, mainly due to the tendency that when rights are ignored, NO ONE is safe.