Anyone who thinks reasonable regulation of guns is unconstitutional is a second amendment ignoramus

[unblock]

The fact of the matter is that it is well-settled law that reasonable regulations are perfectly constitutional.

Even without looking at case law, a moment’s reflection makes this obvious. Everyone knows there are a ton of regulations on the *first* amendment.

You can’t tell “fire” in a crowded theater;
You can’t libel or slander;
You can’t threaten, extort, or blackmail;
You can’t conspire to commit other crimes;
Etc.

Everyone know this and everyone’s fine with it, or at least recognizes such restrictions as constitutionally permitted. Yes, *unreasonable* restrictions are unconstitutional, but reasonable restrictions are permitted.

Because the constitution has multiple provisions that sometimes have to be balanced against each other.

And so it is with the second amendment.

There’s certainly room for debate on what constitutes reasonable and effective and wise regulation, but other than fairly extreme restrictions, almost any reasonable proposal to regulate guns is constitutionally permitted.

[cos dem]

1. You can't own machine guns, Hellfire missiles, or atomic weapons.

These are all classified as "arms". So, if you're going to argue that the 2nd amendment applies to "arms", wouldn't it logically apply to all of these things?

If you want to take the "originalist" approach, then shouldn't the 2nd amendment only apply to muzzle-loaded weapons, which were the technology at the time it was written?

[PoliticAverse]

2. Actually in most states you can own "machine guns". n/t

[cos dem]

3. I suppose it's more accurate to say that ownership is highly regulated.

There goes that word again.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

[BigmanPigman]

4. I like the last 3 sentences of this ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

I had posted this yesterday and basically what I guess needs to happen is that the lawmakers need to actually/finally make a law that creates a new precedent so that it can be used in the future to refer back to. This damn thing needs to be updated and made current. The Founding Fathers weren't looking into crystal balls and able to see how guns work and what they are being used for today by citizens, not a militia that was using muskets to fight the enemy and rifles to hunt animals when they didn't have a supermarket down the street and a freezer to store food.

[world wide wally]

6. Ammosexuals pretend that the entire Amendment only consists of the last 13 words.

They completely ignore the first part of it and pretend it means NO regulation at all in spite of the fact that the word "regulated" is used.

[unblock]

7. Its a red herring. Even if the second amendment was just those 13 words,

Hell, even if it specifically said it was an individual right, the constitution would *still* permit reasonable regulation.

Just as reasonable regulation is constitutionally permitted regarding speech, which is clearly an individual right.

[Sophia4]

5. Thanks. Well said.

You have to get a permit to march a crowd down a city street.

You should have to get a permit to carry a gun down a city street.

And that's just the beginning.