What is more dangerous?

[The Emerald Legion]

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, which states clearly that restrictions aren't kosher.

No the 2nd amendment doesn’t say that. Restrictions within reason are fine. 21+ with an background check including DV and state funded firearm training and you should be able to own any gun you want below military grade

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia is a military force recruited from the civilian populace. Typically in a time of need. Usually with whatever equipment they happen to bring with them.

So, the ability to recruit military units from amongst the civilian populace was considered of vital importance to the founders.

Because of that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe is to act in such a manner as to limit something.

It very very plainly says the government has no right to limit the aquisition of arms by citizens.

Nowhere does it say reasonable restrictions are fine. Nowhere at all.

[Diopolis]

No the 2nd amendment doesn’t say that. Restrictions within reason are fine. 21+ with an background check including DV and state funded firearm training and you should be able to own any gun you want below military grade

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia is a military force recruited from the civilian populace. Typically in a time of need. Usually with whatever equipment they happen to bring with them.

So, the ability to recruit military units from amongst the civilian populace was considered of vital importance to the founders.

Because of that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe is to act in such a manner as to limit something.

It very very plainly says the government has no right to limit the aquisition of arms by citizens.

Nowhere does it say reasonable restrictions are fine. Nowhere at all.

If you accept Marbury v Madison, then the supreme court has the right to define what it means, and it's said that reasonable restrictions are acceptable.
I don't accept Marbury, but then again I also believe in state nullification.

[The Emerald Legion]

Not really? Marbury vs Madison just held that the Constitution is actually law.

It doesn't say that the court can define it any way they please.

[Thermodolia]

No the 2nd amendment doesn’t say that. Restrictions within reason are fine. 21+ with an background check including DV and state funded firearm training and you should be able to own any gun you want below military grade

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia is a military force recruited from the civilian populace. Typically in a time of need. Usually with whatever equipment they happen to bring with them.

Under US Law the entire population of the US is the militia.

So, the ability to recruit military units from amongst the civilian populace was considered of vital importance to the founders.

Because of that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe is to act in such a manner as to limit something.

All rights have limitations. You can’t say fire in a crowded theater and expect no repercussions. You have to be a citizen in order to vote. You have to be at least 18 to own a firearm.

Those are reasonable limitations on rights. What you are advocating for is just nuts

It very very plainly says the government has no right to limit the aquisition of arms by citizens.

Nowhere does it say reasonable restrictions are fine. Nowhere at all.

You are inferring the wrong damn thing though. SCOTUS has time and time again stated that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t include reasonable restrictions like age limits

[Thermodolia]

Not really? Marbury vs Madison just held that the Constitution is actually law.

It doesn't say that the court can define it any way they please.

You really need to not say things that can be fact checked with ease.

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution permits.

The bolded part clearly states it’s up to the courts to interpret what the constitution means. Therefore “shall not be infringed” doesn’t include reasonable restrictions as interpreted by several SCOTUS rulings.

Class dismissed

[Grinning Dragon]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia is a military force recruited from the civilian populace. Typically in a time of need. Usually with whatever equipment they happen to bring with them.

Under US Law the entire population of the US is the militia.

So, the ability to recruit military units from amongst the civilian populace was considered of vital importance to the founders.

Because of that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe is to act in such a manner as to limit something.

All rights have limitations. You can’t say fire in a crowded theater and expect no repercussions. You have to be a citizen in order to vote. You have to be at least 18 to own a firearm.

Those are reasonable limitations on rights. What you are advocating for is just nuts

It very very plainly says the government has no right to limit the acquisition of arms by citizens.

Nowhere does it say reasonable restrictions are fine. Nowhere at all.

You are inferring the wrong damn thing though. SCOTUS has time and time again stated that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t include reasonable restrictions like age limits

The "fire in a theater" is misquoted and misused and stems from an ignorant analogy by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes during U.S. v. Schenck and is not only one of the most disgusting free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

As to the age limit on firearms, the 18 yr old age for long firearms is federal law when purchasing from an FFL, some states have laws regarding ownership and or purchase(private party) for firearms for those under 18.

[Birdax]

A gun is not dangerous but if it is misused, it can be.

Pretty much this

[Thermodolia]

Under US Law the entire population of the US is the militia.


All rights have limitations. You can’t say fire in a crowded theater and expect no repercussions. You have to be a citizen in order to vote. You have to be at least 18 to own a firearm.

Those are reasonable limitations on rights. What you are advocating for is just nuts


You are inferring the wrong damn thing though. SCOTUS has time and time again stated that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t include reasonable restrictions like age limits

The "fire in a theater" is misquoted and misused and stems from an ignorant analogy by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes during U.S. v. Schenck and is not only one of the most disgusting free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

As to the age limit on firearms, the 18 yr old age for long firearms is federal law when purchasing from an FFL, some states have laws regarding ownership and or purchase(private party) for firearms for those under 18.

That’s a restriction though. Which the OP said are all unconstitutional

[Kowani]

Voting has no restrictions? Ahahahah-Get out of your fantasy world, mate.

[Grinning Dragon]

A gun is not dangerous but if it is misused, it can be.

This still doesn't make the firearm dangerous, its misuse is caused by a human being, ergo it's the human being that is dangerous.

[Grinning Dragon]

The "fire in a theater" is misquoted and misused and stems from an ignorant analogy by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes during U.S. v. Schenck and is not only one of the most disgusting free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

As to the age limit on firearms, the 18 yr old age for long firearms is federal law when purchasing from an FFL, some states have laws regarding ownership and or purchase(private party) for firearms for those under 18.

That’s a restriction though. Which the OP said are all unconstitutional

As long as you've known my posting here, I too view all gun control laws as unconstitutional, so I do side with that sentiment, as well imo all of those laws do not meet strict scrutiny.

[Thermodolia]

That’s a restriction though. Which the OP said are all unconstitutional

As long as you've known my posting here, I too view all gun control laws as unconstitutional, so I do side with that sentiment, as well imo all of those laws do not meet strict scrutiny.

What im saying is that a law saying that you have to be at least 18 to buy a firearm, not owning one, is not unconstitutional. But it’s still a limit and a restriction on guns

[The Emerald Legion]

As long as you've known my posting here, I too view all gun control laws as unconstitutional, so I do side with that sentiment, as well imo all of those laws do not meet strict scrutiny.

What im saying is that a law saying that you have to be at least 18 to buy a firearm, not owning one, is not unconstitutional. But it’s still a limit and a restriction on guns

I mean, there's really no way to correctly interpret "This right shall not be limited." as "Some limitations are ok." It's the supreme court basically saying they're right because noone is watching the watchmen.

[Kannap]

Should they be legal I’d say yes. Unrestricted? Hardly.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, which states clearly that restrictions aren't kosher.

I mean, if we're taking the words literally or just interpreting them however we want, I'm going to need you to turn your firearms into the police collection bins in exchange for your grizzly bear arms.

[Kannap]

Should they be legal I’d say yes. Unrestricted? Hardly.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, which states clearly that restrictions aren't kosher.

Also that's a silly notion. It's illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater and cause a mass panic, which is a regulation of my freedom of speech, therefore we must repeal the 1st amendment while we're repealing amendments for silly reasons.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

This sounds like a bad who would win meme.

[Kannap]

This sounds like a bad who would win meme.

Frail human body versus high speed danger metal? My money's on the bullet.

[Thermodolia]

What im saying is that a law saying that you have to be at least 18 to buy a firearm, not owning one, is not unconstitutional. But it’s still a limit and a restriction on guns

I mean, there's really no way to correctly interpret "This right shall not be limited." as "Some limitations are ok." It's the supreme court basically saying they're right because noone is watching the watchmen.

Dude are you seriously suggesting that it should be legal for anyone to buy a gun at any age? Do you realize the consequences of that?

[Kannap]

I mean, there's really no way to correctly interpret "This right shall not be limited." as "Some limitations are ok." It's the supreme court basically saying they're right because noone is watching the watchmen.

Dude are you seriously suggesting that it should be legal for anyone to buy a gun at any age? Do you realize the consequences of that?

In an alternate timeline, Toys-R-Us stayed in business by selling ammunition and firearms to toddlers.

[Kavagrad]

What Is More Devastating?!

The Brogue Kick POTUS or the KO MACHINE GUN?

[The Emerald Legion]

I mean, there's really no way to correctly interpret "This right shall not be limited." as "Some limitations are ok." It's the supreme court basically saying they're right because noone is watching the watchmen.

Dude are you seriously suggesting that it should be legal for anyone to buy a gun at any age? Do you realize the consequences of that?

Little to none? Children typically don't have the money for guns, and if the parents are willing to pay, all that's changed is that the minor is actually buying the gun, rather than the parent buying the gun and then handing it to Junior.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

This sounds like a bad who would win meme.

Frail human body versus high speed danger metal? My money's on the bullet.

Trump does more damage than one machine gun.

[Free Arabian Nation]

A machine gun can't authorize nuclear strikes, killing millions (if not billions) of people, with the press of a button.

Unless you're CNN, then they totally do

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

A machine gun can't authorize nuclear strikes, killing millions (if not billions) of people, with the press of a button.

Unless you're CNN, then they totally do

Trump can't do that either.

[Free Arabian Nation]

A machine gun can't authorize nuclear strikes, killing millions (if not billions) of people, with the press of a button.

Unless you're CNN, then they totally do

Trump can't do that either.

I mean, true. But you get my hyperbole. The president is a bit more than just an overglorified 4-year puppet of the Congress.

Then again, I am not American. So... I could be wrong about everything. If so, sue me.