Abortion rests firmly on children. The killing of them in fact. Do you really want to lose more and more rights? A liberal court guarantees the loss of far more rights. - - - Updated - - - No, the rights have no restrictions. The implementing of law has caused them to be restricted. This is a challenge to the SC to fix those faulty laws.
I won't argue abortion here. There is another forum for that and I don't want to derail this thread any further. The issue at hand is gun training and I believe that it should be mandatory and that it would be found constitutional to do so.
If you think you can be successful at removing firearms, why not start with the demographic that racks up the most statistics? Since 70% of gun crime is perpetrated by those that have criminal rap sheets, why not start with taking guns from gangs and drug dealers? If you are successful, the stats would drop so low that we wouldn't have anything to talk about. If you are not successful, then you have no business to ask the law abiding to become disarmed so they cannot protect themselves from the criminal element.
you don't understand rights. the right to keep and bear arms does not also mean a "right" to menace or shoot others. - - - Updated - - - its actually more like 80% and given juvenile records are sealed and many gun toting criminals are in that 16-18 year range of age, I suspect its even higher
I never said anything about the right to menace and shoot others. Only to BEAR arms. And actually the largest demographic group that is involved in gun violence is males. If you removed the right to own guns from males ( I am not advocating this) then that would stop the vast majority of gun violence.
well given at least 80% of those men who commit gun violence cannot legally own them, your claim is specious.
Rights are not restricted. I urge you to read it stated in the Second amendment and note it does not call for restrictions.
You may play with semantics if you like but currently there are numerous restrictions on the second amendment and every other right and they have been upheld by the supreme court
Felons may not own guns. That is directly from Heller - - - Updated - - - none that I am aware of. That is my point. It is an open question at this point.
This is from the Heller decision (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
I fail to see where Heller rules that the government can withhold my right to carry a firearm without due process.
That is not what due process means. Due process means that your case must be heard by a court. If you are denied a gun license you are always entitled to due process. Take the case to court.
The SCotUS has only ruled on three cases pertaining directly to the 2nd: US v Miller: upheld the registration requirement of, and tax levied on the purchase of, certain firearms by, the NFA 1934 DC v Heller: which struck every law under consideration by the court. McDonald v Chicago: same as Heller. That's it.
As I said there is no ruling which prohibits licensure of guns. There is NEVER a supreme court ruling that say these are the only restrictions that will EVER be allowed on something. That would be ridiculous. LOL
It doesn't. Heller struck every law under consideration by the court; only the ignorant and/or dishonest argue that it upheld anything.
Did you read your own post? UNDER CONSIDERATION. Now you are starting to get angry again so we see the ignorant and dishonest references. Its ok. You'll be fine. LOL
So by your logic we should license free speech (such as this forum) and require you to take grammar, speech, and debate classes in order to exercise the 1st amendment.
that is not a restriction on the second amendment any more than putting convicted felons in jail is a restriction on the right of assembly or free speech. Try again
Of course not. I see no compelling interest in doing so. Lack of mandatory training could directly lead to gun deaths and injuries. I see no such action happening from speech except perhaps in inciting a riot or making terrorist threats which are already illegal. - - - Updated - - - Putting some in jail IS a restriction on rights. You are making my case. Read the quote. They upheld other restrictions as well.
Never mind that Heller in no way ruled on, much less upheld, the constitutionality of the restrictions on felons owning guns, and the case that did was not argued under 2A grounds.
