^^shootings would decrease..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, really, why? I can see having a hunting rifle for sport, but anything else is a foreign concept to me. We are not about to have a shoot out at noon, people whose land was taken aren't coming for you. If you are in a bad neighborhood if thieves and gangs had no guns, they could at best rob you, injure you maybe, but unlikely to kill you. If a young person was a thief and you had no gun, you couldn't kill that person and regret it for the rest of your life after you realize it was just a kid. What are your reasons for wanting to own or having the right to own(at 18 at that) a gun or similar weapon? I can't understand how anybody thinks owning guns and having such an easy access to guns is a good idea. Explain it to me. I see this part of the constitution easily fixed with strict rules for owning a gun and not at all an infringement. I see it as nothing but stubbornness by people who I can't understand.

This is really illogical to me. Do you really think that if guns were outlawed thieves and gangs wouldn't still get them? Of course they would. Mexico would then not only be the main source of drug trafficking, but gun trafficking too. So in that case, if an armed robber breaks into your house, you will have a knife for the gun fight. Also if you're defending your life, regardless of who the perpetrator is, you are not going to feel guilty for taking a life. It's you or them. I'm not a gun enthusiast by any means but don't think your argument holds much water.

Anecdotally I have a few female friends who own handguns cause they just really enjoy shooting. And they are liberal!

Bottom line, there are many reasons.

Situations you speak of are rare and few. Yes, some guns would come, some are already here, other countries deal with the same issue. Most people would shoot themselves first. If guns were not easily accessible, shootings were decrease. Situations in which people need to defend themselves against crime with guns are rare even with so many guns around right now. You shouldn't be able to own a gun because you "enjoy" shooting. You can go to a gun range and shoot a gun they have there for this purpose right now. How many these could be avoided,
Police say Darrell Jerrand Wilson told them he shot the other man in self-defense because he started walking toward him with a “mean look on his face.”
http://www.gainesville.com/news/20180228/gpd-man-26-shot-baby-in-face-man-in-stomach[url]

Anonymous wrote:No, really, why? I can see having a hunting rifle for sport, but anything else is a foreign concept to me. We are not about to have a shoot out at noon, people whose land was taken aren't coming for you. If you are in a bad neighborhood if thieves and gangs had no guns, they could at best rob you, injure you maybe, but unlikely to kill you. If a young person was a thief and you had no gun, you couldn't kill that person and regret it for the rest of your life after you realize it was just a kid. What are your reasons for wanting to own or having the right to own(at 18 at that) a gun or similar weapon? I can't understand how anybody thinks owning guns and having such an easy access to guns is a good idea. Explain it to me. I see this part of the constitution easily fixed with strict rules for owning a gun and not at all an infringement. I see it as nothing but stubbornness by people who I can't understand.

This is really illogical to me. Do you really think that if guns were outlawed thieves and gangs wouldn't still get them? Of course they would. Mexico would then not only be the main source of drug trafficking, but gun trafficking too. So in that case, if an armed robber breaks into your house, you will have a knife for the gun fight. Also if you're defending your life, regardless of who the perpetrator is, you are not going to feel guilty for taking a life. It's you or them. I'm not a gun enthusiast by any means but don't think your argument holds much water.

Anecdotally I have a few female friends who own handguns cause they just really enjoy shooting. And they are liberal!

Bottom line, there are many reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, really, why? I can see having a hunting rifle for sport, but anything else is a foreign concept to me. We are not about to have a shoot out at noon, people whose land was taken aren't coming for you. If you are in a bad neighborhood if thieves and gangs had no guns, they could at best rob you, injure you maybe, but unlikely to kill you. If a young person was a thief and you had no gun, you couldn't kill that person and regret it for the rest of your life after you realize it was just a kid. What are your reasons for wanting to own or having the right to own(at 18 at that) a gun or similar weapon? I can't understand how anybody thinks owning guns and having such an easy access to guns is a good idea. Explain it to me. I see this part of the constitution easily fixed with strict rules for owning a gun and not at all an infringement. I see it as nothing but stubbornness by people who I can't understand.

A 90lbs 70 year old woman, and a 200lbs 25 year old man are made equal with a firearm.

Why do you want to render women defenseless OP?

If a 25 year old man couldn't get a gun, are you then saying elderly frail woman should own a gun to shoot the person meaning her harm since that person is stronger? Isn't that faulty logic and discrimination based on gender, weight, age? If strict checks and follow up checks are in place, then very few people who bother to go through it to own a gun. If nobody could get a gun easily, wouldn't crime go down substantially? And many people who buy guns are more likely to harm themselves and their families than a random 70 year old. How do Italian/Japanese grandmas fair and defend themselves then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.

DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment.

Sure, there are important limitations. I don't see what this has to do with the affirmation that the right to arms is a personal right. I don't see any issue with the "dangerous and unusual weapons" language. This is why full auto weapons have been banned. I am not certain that the NY/MD/CA assault weapons ban would pass Supreme Court scrutiny if the same standard in Heller was applied to those bans. An AR15 fits the literal definition of "in common use at the time". There is no more common rifle in use. Even the NY/MD/CA does not ban current guns already owned.

I think the point is that many of us believe that semi-automatic weapons are also dangerous, and the precedent for limiting based on that idea has already been established.

I actually think the "common use at the time" is pretty bold on Scalia's part because it essentially allows for gun manufacturers to be the leaders in what weapons become common. The "common use" language has no existence in the text or structure or even history of 2A. Would you agree? Certainly nothing about that could be pulled from the constitution "exactly as written."

Miller sort of does:

Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. The conclusion was in the favor of the NFA.
Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.

DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment.

Sure, there are important limitations. I don't see what this has to do with the affirmation that the right to arms is a personal right. I don't see any issue with the "dangerous and unusual weapons" language. This is why full auto weapons have been banned. I am not certain that the NY/MD/CA assault weapons ban would pass Supreme Court scrutiny if the same standard in Heller was applied to those bans. An AR15 fits the literal definition of "in common use at the time". There is no more common rifle in use. Even the NY/MD/CA does not ban current guns already owned.

I think the point is that many of us believe that semi-automatic weapons are also dangerous, and the precedent for limiting based on that idea has already been established.

I actually think the "common use at the time" is pretty bold on Scalia's part because it essentially allows for gun manufacturers to be the leaders in what weapons become common. The "common use" language has no existence in the text or structure or even history of 2A. Would you agree? Certainly nothing about that could be pulled from the constitution "exactly as written."

Anonymous wrote:No, really, why? I can see having a hunting rifle for sport, but anything else is a foreign concept to me. We are not about to have a shoot out at noon, people whose land was taken aren't coming for you. If you are in a bad neighborhood if thieves and gangs had no guns, they could at best rob you, injure you maybe, but unlikely to kill you. If a young person was a thief and you had no gun, you couldn't kill that person and regret it for the rest of your life after you realize it was just a kid. What are your reasons for wanting to own or having the right to own(at 18 at that) a gun or similar weapon? I can't understand how anybody thinks owning guns and having such an easy access to guns is a good idea. Explain it to me. I see this part of the constitution easily fixed with strict rules for owning a gun and not at all an infringement. I see it as nothing but stubbornness by people who I can't understand.

A 90lbs 70 year old woman, and a 200lbs 25 year old man are made equal with a firearm.

Why do you want to render women defenseless OP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.

DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment.

Sure, there are important limitations. I don't see what this has to do with the affirmation that the right to arms is a personal right. I don't see any issue with the "dangerous and unusual weapons" language. This is why full auto weapons have been banned. I am not certain that the NY/MD/CA assault weapons ban would pass Supreme Court scrutiny if the same standard in Heller was applied to those bans. An AR15 fits the literal definition of "in common use at the time". There is no more common rifle in use. Even the NY/MD/CA does not ban current guns already owned.

Anonymous wrote:Strict gun regulation doesn't have to be an infringement, imo. Why aren't people outraged with 21 drinking age infringement? Just as one example? Why is taking the confederate flags in the South not considered an infringement? It seems to be as long as there is a powerful lobby and an industry to back up and shell money to politicians, right to bear arms without much limitations will be there because there is corruption.

Four federal appellate courts have upheld state and municipal bans on assault weapons and magazines. SCOTUS did not grant cert in any of these cases.

Strict gun regulation doesn't have to be an infringement, imo. Why aren't people outraged with 21 drinking age infringement? Just as one example? Why is taking the confederate flags in the South not considered an infringement? It seems to be as long as there is a powerful lobby and an industry to back up and shell money to politicians, right to bear arms without much limitations will be there because there is corruption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.

DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment.

Blackstone said the prohibition was as to "dangerous *or* unusual" weapons rather than "dangerous *and* unusual."

"[T]he offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton[.]"

And, yes, Scalia's vaunted "originalism" wasn't in evidence during the Heller decision.

Conservative Judicial activism.

Loosely Strict Textualism

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.

DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment.

Blackstone said the prohibition was as to "dangerous *or* unusual" weapons rather than "dangerous *and* unusual."

"[T]he offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton[.]"

And, yes, Scalia's vaunted "originalism" wasn't in evidence during the Heller decision.

Conservative Judicial activism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.

DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment.

Blackstone said the prohibition was as to "dangerous *or* unusual" weapons rather than "dangerous *and* unusual."

"[T]he offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton[.]"

And, yes, Scalia's vaunted "originalism" wasn't in evidence during the Heller decision.

Anonymous wrote:Op, your question is irrelevant. As a constitutional right, the why doesn’t matter. At all.

There's no Constitutional right to own a semi-automatic rifle. So now you're going to have to think harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.

DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment.