The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

You do not have the right to enter these secure areas, so the restrictions on you doing so does not restrict your rights.

Thus, my statement stands: In the US, we do not restrict the exercise of rights because someone might break the law.

 

Amen.

 

Until it does, the current interpretation stands.

 

Well that sort of naïve ending isn't it He, the lawless will undoubtedly acquire the tools he needs regardless of law and be a murderer just the same! And finally you and I will be treated equally as the lawless gun owners and murderers right up to the second they reveal their true selves..

That's a real nice society you're wishing for there, almost mimics a gestation and childhood only difference is it never ends except for the criminals

 

Why don’t I? Why should the government be able to restrict my freedoms in those areas?

 

It says "KEEP and bear arms." It's not "may only own bearable arms."

The vagueness of the 2nd Amendment is why interpretation is necessary. Pre-Heller, this interpretation was sane. It's off the rails now.

 

If I get it right, we are all to be treated as murderers just to be safe!

 

Except only America seems to have these mass shootings by the lawless on the such a frequent basis. Pretty much every country that has implemented gun control has seen that doing so prices the guns mass shooters want right out of their reach and also puts them behind multiple layers of black market and government undercover agents/informants that make it difficult at best for the socially dysfunctional people who gravitate to mass shootings to get anyone that sell them one.

 

Not possible, it's been the same since the day it was written, off the rails does not apply today

 

Jump the fence to the gold depository at Ft Knox and find out.
"Freedom of movement" does not mean you have the right to go everywhere just like "Freedom of speech" does not mean you have the right to say everything.
Restrictions on actions you have no right to take are not a restriction on your rights.
And so, my statement stands:
In the US, we do not restrict the exercise of rights because someone might break the law.

 

Ask the airmen who indiscriminately dropped firebombs on Dresden.

 

Dubious argument founded upon an unproven proposition.

 

Being in a militia isn't a requirement or prerequisite for "the right to keep and bear arms."

Unless you really torture the 2A it sure does

Being in a militia is an example of how one's individual "right to keep and bear arms" may be used.

It's the ONLY example...and that's because it applies only to that context

 

Tell us how we should assume all women will turn tricks and write our laws with that assumption in mind.

 

Said no honest person, ever.

 

Why shouldn’t I simply be able to walk into the gold depository? Why does the government restrict my freedom of movement there?

I have a right to go anywhere I wish on non-privately owned land UNLESS the government can give a pressing need that overrides my right. For instance, that I or someone else might commit a crime in that area.

 

Ah...so you're comparing something that occurred during wartime to what the rest of us are talking about which is civilians killing innocent people?

 

We shouldn’t. Prostitution doesn’t harm anyone and should be legal and regulated.

 

Your questions do not change the fact you do not have the right to be there.
Restrictions on actions you have no right to take are not a restriction on your rights.
And so, my statement stands:
In the US, we do not restrict the exercise of rights because someone might break the law.

 

Ah, so good people do murder innocent people at certain times?

How about the cop who shot Philando Castile? What he evil?

 

Oh, I see... So, "might break the law" only matters when you think it should.

 

I have a right to freedom of movement on non-private land. That is a right that exists as part of natural rights. The government has restricted my rights and they do so because I may be a potential threat (aka criminal) in certain areas they need to have secured.

We most certainly do restrict rights because someone might break the law.

 

Not all non-private land.
Restrictions on actions you have no right to take are not a restriction on your rights.
And so, my statement stands:
In the US, we do not restrict the exercise of rights because someone might break the law.

 

It’s almost as if matters that are literally life and death are more important.

 

Yes all non-private land. The government restricts my rights because I might be threat in areas they need secured.