Summations Only

Try any Supreme Court decision that interprets "a well regulated milita" as "every hillbilly with a trigger-finger". If you're suggesting that I don't have a doctrinaire pick-a-side-and-stick-to-it opinion, you're right.

Another analogy would be drugs. As long as there's a demand, you'll never get rid of them. In Canada, for example, there is relatively little demand for guns, so there are fewer guns and less gun violence.

That's why I always called you a contrarian! You just like the sport of argumentation, it appears. The honesty is refreshing...I eagerly await the contrary response to this post...

Try googling "two Jews, three opinions".

But the 2nd doesn't say that the right of the militia shall not be infringed, it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Why does it mention militia at all if it doesn't mean "the people" who are members of the militia?

I'm not exactly sure, but the phrasing was recycled and then chopped up and re-written and it's a bit of a mess. The prefatory clause is unnecessary and seems to be included as, like, an FYI or something. I dunno, it's weird.But it doesn't matter, when the Constitution refers to "the people" it refers to all individuals and not some subset of them.For reference, here's what the Virginia Declaration of Rights had to say:

quote:

---

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

---

But that isn't the reality today. You do have a standing army. You're not defended by a bunch of Minutemen who keep their muskets hanging over the fireplace. It doesn't make sense to interpret the Constitution in terms of a myth.

It doesn't matter, when the Constitution refers to "the people" it refers to all individuals and not some subset of them.

That seems like a phony self-serving distinction. The wording strongly suggests that it was referring to a subset.

I didn't make it up:

quote:

---

the Court said that the people refers to those persons who are part of a national community,

​

...

​

the Court commented on the meaning of the people in other parts of the Constitution, noting that the phrase appears seven times.
And in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.
source

---

Turns out you don't know what you're talking about.

Around 1- in-5 to 1-in-3 sales are done in such a way that avoids background checks as a requirement. Firearm Owners Protection Act is a Federal law, right? The one that bans the sale of automatic weapons, with exceptions surrounding grandfathered weapons? Good question. Here's my attempt to an answer:1) Ban handguns
2) Band semi-automatic weapons
3) Ban weapons capable of holding more than four rounds
4) Require a licence to hold a firearm. The licence can be free to obtain - but does require meeting various standards such as age, the passing of a short safety examination and possibly a practical test (like having a car). Make showing the licence a requirement for the purchasing of a firearm, and any purchase requires the seller to advise some local authority which licence was used to purchase - name address etc etc.
5) Require insurance for owning a weapon to cover expenses to property and payment of injury claims that may occur as a result of accidents, negligence or deliberate misuse of a weapon. If you are able to afford it, you can become self-insured - perhaps with a fund under a third party's control held in reserve.Number 4 would also include reasons to lose the licence: Committing certain offences for example. Possibly include a points system for more minor offenses - once a certain number of points are on your licence, you lose the licence. Also a path for reacquiring a lost licence should be included.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sure, when you want to argue about guns, then there are natural gun rights. At other times, apparently, there were not.

It turns out, that your supposition about the state of US law is wrong.Yes, it is true that DC v. Heller did say that the 2nd amendment bestows a personal right to others including hillbillies, but the same decision also held that states do have the right to pass and enforce gun control laws.From the opinion in DC v Heller:

quote:

---

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

---

I'll note that the Supreme Court specifically mentioned laws targeting the mentally ill. I'm suggesting that a post of a BS opinion that you won't defend probably is not worth the paper it is printed on. In this case, it seems that you do have an opinion, which is a good thing. However, your opinion can easily be shown not to reflect reality. The Supreme Court has not, in fact, rendered any decision that make it impossible to prevent violently insane people from obtaining guns, provided due process is provided. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Read some of this. I can buy a Kalashnikov with 10 loaded cartriges for 10 bucks at the Komatipoort border post.The crime rate in my country is one of the highest in the world.Guns don't kill people. People with access to those guns do it. You Amcans should reallly look at those gun laws.