The 2nd Amendment argument is moot.

[bullimiami]

There are already many laws restricting guns.
Can’t have grenades, can’t have rpg, can’t have a missile launcher, can’t have an M16 and on and on.
So there are restrictions and there is no constitutional right to bear arms or there would be no laws restricting them.
What we have is an interpretation and it is subject to change.
It’s far past time for a serious reinterpretation.

[X_Digger]

1. By that reasoning, restrictions on parades means the right to assemble doesn't exist. n/t

[bullimiami]

2. And that strengthens the point.

The right to peaceably assemble doesn’t give unlimited rights.
There are still laws and regulations.

Again subject to interpretation.

Maybe I should have said unlimited rights to bear arms.

[yagotme]

4. That sounds a lot better.

They are restricted. 1934 Act, 1968 Act, 1986? Act. And those are the big ones.

[X_Digger]

12. Who is that claims that the second is unlimited? That's a straw man. n/t

[X_Digger]

14. The bill of rights doesn't "give" shit.

Rights exist outside the bill of rights. No rights are granted by the BoR.

e.g. The right to travel*- a well-established right that appears nowhere in the BoR.

Civic lessons for everyone!

*"Travel" is not about hopping on a greyhound, or an air plane, but the right to move freely among and between the states.

[hunter]

6. The second amendment is more comparable to the three-fifths clause of the Constitution.

There's no place for it here in the 21st century.

There aren't any slave rebellions to put down, and no ragtag armed militia is going to stand against the massive war machine of a failed democracy.

[yagotme]

3. Well, technically you CAN have an M-16...

It's expensive to buy, paperwork to fill out, strict background checks, $200.00 tax stamp from the Feds, strict regulations about transport, approx. 1 yr wait for paperwork approval.

[bullimiami]

5. Ok point taken. Still there are restrictions just differences of opinion where to put them.

[yagotme]

7. Some say "Melt them all".

Any truly analytical person would know that that would never happen. Problem is, to find the middle ground. Unfortunately, people from both sides will never agree on a "middle".

[bullimiami]

8. I would welcome what Australia did.

[yagotme]

9. Not enough money for compensation,

they also banned pump shotguns, with little to no effect on crime. Biker gangs supposedly made homemade submachine guns in machine shops.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. No "rights" are absolute, and the right to bear arms even less so, since it was...

an invented right responding to the times. It's not generally recognized by other nations, nor is it in any of the Declarations of the Rights of Man. It is an American right, not a human right.

However, this has no more effect on the true believers than asking about food or waste removal on the Ark has on some other true believers. They have set answers and change the subject as fast as they can when this is brought up. Or, they just shut down and refuse to discuss, claiming they won an you are too stupid to see it.

The NRA has jumped the shark, and we can't argue with them, but we can expose them and talk to the vast middle. Millions of Americans collect guns and/or shoot them for sport or hunting without causing anytrouble. We have to try to make them our allies-- I have no doubt they are horrified by some of the things being said.

[Cha]

11. I agree.. Moot. It's the Gun Manufacturers,

the NRA, Gun Stores, Gun Lobbyists, Gun owners but not all.. etc etc interpretation.

[Shanti Mama]

13. It doesn't say "all arms"

A right to bear arms doesn't define which, how many, etc.

[jmg257]

15. Yep if the 2nd really meant something, we'd all have M16s, ARs, M9s, etc.

Those being the exact weapons most associated these days with maintaining effective uniform militias.