Why don't you just make a quote for of mine and say where you disagree instead of making up your own ideas that you have a prepared answer for. BTW, You have NO NATURAL RIGHT to possess an unregulated firearm. You have a natural right to defend yourself. This is why the decisons in the supreme court has upheld regulation of firearms if there is another way of defending yourself or it is provide for you in particular locals. They recognize for example that at events like MLB baseball games, your right to self defense is aided by security which makes it relevant to BAN firearms of the customers provided it was not done in a discriminatory or capricious way. The same reason is used to uphold the right for Heller to have a handgun ( and only a regulated handgun) at home as it's a natural right for one to defend yourself. The hand gun was allowed if regulated because there is no other way to expect one to be defended in ones home where security was not provided and it would be discriminatory and capricious to ban a hand gun in the home that was allowed with a carry permit elsewhere in the city. Bottom line, natural rights to self defense may or may not include a firearm depending upon the situation. Even Scalia has long held that regulation was appropriate and each case will be determined on it's own merits as well as, the type of firearm to be regulated.
The Bill of Rights both recognizes and protects our natural rights. The 2A recognizes my right to keep and bear arms. Ergo it is a natural right to be armed. Since firearms are the best means of self defense, both at the micro and macro level, this of course makes complete sense. I have no problem with MLB assuming the responsibility for my safety, as long as they are also responsible for failure to do so. If it is reasonable for one to have a handgun in ones quarters for self protection, it is also reasonable for me to have it anywhere I may need protection. More and more states agree with this. Quite successfully I might add. Of course natural rights can be regulated, but only when my natural rights infringe on those of someone else. As explained by the 2A, keeping and bearing arms does not infringe on anyone's rights. ****EDIT**** WTF is a "regulated firearm" by the way?
I don't need to know your qualifications, all I need to do is read your posts. And your posts show utter ignorance of the US Constitution, its history, the process of "incorporation". You don't even know what natural rights are, and that is the basis of the Constitution.
LOL so when someone comes along and blows your pathetic ignorant assertions apart you just become the child in the school-yard .. typical. Obviously I know more about it than you do .. what does it feel like to have a "foreigner" knowing more about it than you do? It's history is irrelevant in the context of modern uea, and again to use history as a defence is nothing more than an appeal to tradition .. a fallacy, perhaps you should look up what a fallacy is, you use them so often. I know exactly what incorporation is. LOL, it would appear you are the one who does not know what Natural rights are .. in fact it would seem you no little to nothing about rights as a whole judging from your comments.
There are no legitimate compromises on gun control. If agreed to, a new compromise will be presented shortly thereafter, and so on until you have a system like the UK. Here's a compromise for you: (*)(*)(*)(*) off.
Firearms ARE NOT the best self defense option in all situations like your little pretense suggests. Even the type of firearm can be regulated at those times when firearms are allowed. In general, regulation increases with population density and/or when associated infringement on others rights occur. Then, firearms may not always be the best option. It is not reasonable for you as a private law abiding citizen to possess a hand gun n ANY situation as you suggest. That is asinine and we can easily come up with better options (or no arm at all) in many situations. AND WE DO , I guess you did not read the Heller decsion. It was only for a handgun that was registered and highly regulated because it conformed to the carry regulations outside of the home. Your natural rights to include a handgun in this decsion does not take president and you cannot lawfully have an unregulated handgun in the home when there exists an overall permit requirement in this particular case. That states and municipalities allow less regulation in some cases is their right. It is also their right to regulate more within the guildlines set forth by the SC. Regulating firearms does not infringe upon your natural right for self defense !
"As explained by the 2A, keeping and bearing arms does not infringe on anyone's rights." Ha ha....like where ? There is interpretation as done by the highest courts...... Bearing arms DOES infringe upon the rights of others, in particular places, under certain conditions and with particular types of arms. "Frighteners" were regulated and infringed upon the rights of others, just by their appearance !!! So don't tell me that there is some magic explanation without interpretation IN the 2A. The 2A is a statement of right that is NOT ABSOLUTE AND WITHOUT REGULATION.
It is legal Precedent not President. Prove that a firearm, is not the best overall General purpose instrument for self defense. What is your source ? What are better options ? Or how is no option better ? Any Regulation or restriction on the Right to keep and bear Arms is an infringement.
Then please explain what weapon is better at self defense, as your little pretense suggests. Please explain how, as population density increases, my owning and carrying a firearm infringes on anothers rights, then explain to us HOW it infringes on their rights, and what rights I'm infringing on. Heller did not address licensing since it was not addressed by the plaintiff. The only infringement on my right to keep and bear arms is taking them onto private, state, or federal land where those institutions have decided they do not want to allow firearms. I would argue however, that if someone removes my ability to defend myself, they should then be accountable if they do not assume the responsibility of defending me. Licensing and registration serves no purpose, and will not stop criminals. Criminals, in fact, cannot be prosecuted for NOT registering their firearms as per the 5th amendment. So the argument then becomes, if criminals cannot be made to register their firearms, what then is the purpose of registration?
According to that argument, fat people infringe on my pursuit of happiness. I demand they be registered. Carrying a firearm, particularly concealed, does not in any way infringe on the rights of others. If you want to say it does, please tell me which of their rights we are infringing on?
Looks like someone didn't bother reading my post. My proposal doesn't add any gun restrictions. It places further restrictions to other walks of life and the only way to win those freedoms back is to loosen restrictions on guns.
It's too much regulation when you guys aren't free to sell your guns to anyone, even those who can't pass a background check when buying a new gun from an FFL dealer. Your idea of too much regulation is when you can't sell your guns to ANYONE regardless of whether they are qualified. You will argue for every private seller the right to sell guns to criminals, the under age and the insane.
Such a dishonest argument. Please post one link to anyone who has suggested selling firearms to criminals, the under age or the insane. Then, when you can't, we'll patiently wait for your apology.
You infringe upon my Rigjts to carry a gun with a permit when businesses legally create gun free zones in response to your ideal, constitutional carry. More and more businesses which just don't want guns in their establishment are creating gun free zones. My right to carry for my protection has now been infringed upon by lax laws. The more regulated guns are to permit carry, the safer we become when only the trained and regulated are allowed to carry. The SC recognizes that and allows any state and municipality to regulate firearms.
Well when your safe cozy little gun-free zone is intentionally targeted by those looking for government-disarmed targets, I'm willing to bet on what thoughts will be going through your mind. Meanwhile, where I live, I pass people in stores openly carrying. When I see these people I stop and thank them for letting anyone intent on ill know we live in a "victim-free" zone. If you really want to be safe, try Oakland. I hear California has some awesome gun laws. Let me ask you one final question. Please name one murderer or mass shooting event in which you think the perpetrator cared about getting a permit.
If you are against universal background checks for secondary sales, you support the free avenue of gun trafficking to criminals, the underaged and the legally mentally restricted. Anyone agaisnt universal background checks gets no apology from me and should get no apology from anyone who is informed. Many of you engage in private sales without background checks and have no idea if the buyer is qualified.....and you're happy to not know, just to conduct the sales. That deserves no apology. The rest of you who DONOT engage in private sales are aware of it going on and who is doing it. You get no apology either. If you deny that secondary sales need to be regulated, then your shear ignorance of how criminals aquire guns should be evidentiary that you should receive no apology. Ignorance is no excuse. No apology....you don't deserve one as no one does who puts the sales of guns as priority over the number of gun deaths by the unqualified using guns that have passed through your unregulated dealings or with your consent. Your constant bickering about your "natural" right's is just a way of taking the responsibility off your shoulders where it belongs. Gun owners need to the held accountable...that includes you. You get no apology. Don't hold your breath waiting for one.
Why don't you just ask a question instead of putting words in another's mouth. UBCs should be necessary along with permits to possess a gun outside of the home or off your property unless you have a valid hunting licence in an appropriate location to hunt. Anyone without a sanctioned permit to carry a gun outside of the home should be in violation of a FEDERAL law. Anyone in violation of making a secondary sale without a BGC should be in violation of a FEDERAL law.
