Federal judge rules handgun laws violate Second Amendment

What would be the point? They'd just find another cliff to use. Focus on the people. Not the tool used.

 

Yep, just like we need to deny active shooters access to school houses.

 

I think this judge made the right decision. All rights within the constitution apply to all adults citizens. Should we limit all other rights by ages past adulthood as well? That’s laughable

 

Who says? That is what this discussion is all about. Who says minors do not have the right to bear arms? Aren't rights inalienable to all? Don't all have a right to self defence, or a right to fight off a rogue government?

 

Fence off all the cliffs. And if the people find another way to kill the people.....remove the people's access to that other way...yes?

 

How are you going to deny access to their own fists? Access to stones? Sticks? There are millions of ways to kill people. Have fun trying to deny access to even a quarter of those ways. Its a useless endeavor. Better to focus on the People as that is where the problems and causes come from.

 

The thread is actually about adults, not minors. It was those that are against gun ownership that made it about children using fallacies. The argument about minors has already been settled:

 

Sure, but I am talking about the capacity to kill en masse. You know that.

 

So...you are conceding that State Law can lawfully impact on the Constitution, specifically the 2nd?

 

Your example of someone killing someone else via driving the car off a cliff is not about "en masse". But why focus on killing "en masse"? Far more people are killed on an individual basis than are killed "en masse".

 

Nope. State Law may be Constitutional, but that doesn't mean it impacts the Constitution. And what's this got to do with what I said?

 

I made no mention of a car. Imagine the Pied Piper...or lemmings if you like.

 

Can a State lawfully enact legislation which prohibits a person under 21 from owning a gun?

 

why do civilian police officers have weapons you claim designed to kill en masse?

 

no, that's unconstitutional.

 

Because they have been issued tem for the job...or are allowed to have them...for their job.

 

they aren't allowed to kill people en masse-civilian police have essentially the same rules of engagement as other civilians do-though in a few jurisdictions, police may fire upon a fleeing felon though that is getting more and more restricted. cops basically can only shoot in order to prevent the target from inflicting severe bodily injury on others. this is an area that I know inside and out since I have defended police, sheriffs, and federal agents in shooting matters and I was forced to defend myself with a firearm.

 

I agree...I also say that it is equally unconstitutional for a state to legislate that a ten year old may not buy and possess a gun.

The Richmond, Virginia Judge made that quite plain.

"The right to bear arms does not vest at age 21."

It follows that the right vests at no specific age, and is there at the moment of birth (or conception if you are a pro lifer.)

 

I am referring to the fact of the possession of a gun. Cops have one because it is part of their job.

 

why? states had that power until the second was incorporated but I can guarantee you no federal judge will rule that the second overrides a state's law preventing a minor of 10 years old from buying a handgun-or voting-or having the power to contract, enlist etc

 

and homeowners have them since it is their right. Citizens are more likely to be first responders to a criminal attack than cops

 

Because, as per the Richmond Judge, and the Constitution, the right to bear arms does not vest at age XX.

 

Sure....but the citizens are not using the weapons as first responders. They are using then to kill kids en masse.

 

one out of a million or less.

 

You're right we should probably make it the exact same age that you think a person is old enough to decide to chemically castrate themselves... So would that be like 3 years old?