What it specifically does not say is that the militia should be well regulated. The constitution says only that a well regulated militia is necessary:
"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."
Nowhere in there does it say a militia should be well regulated. Rather it says that a well regulated militia is necessary. This is all. There is no command to ensure the militia is well regulated only a proscription of the infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Presumably, in part, because doing this would then render what was regarded as a well regulated militia impossible.
So when the amendment specifies that a well regulated militia is necessary, where on earth do you propose said regulation was intended to come from? And do you therefore believe that the amendment should ensure unfettered access to firearms without any regulation?
You are not saying that the peoples current ability to buy, keep, and bear arms needs restricting?
I'm saying that their rights are not being restricted. Access is. The industry and sale of firearms is a whole different thing to actual right to purchase. People have the right to purchase cars, but that doesn't mean that laws can't be put in place restricting the sale and ability to drive cars. Do not equate the right to own with restriction of access - they are not the same thing.
I admit that when there is a specific action and intent demonstrated it is okay to limit individual's freedoms in those particular cases. This is regulation. This is the elimination of freedom. But this is for a specific articulable cause.
And in this case it is for a specific, articulable cause that guns cause more gun violence.
The first part is not an issue, let alone the actual issue. It is irrelevant whether or not guns cause more harm than they prevent if the regulation we are discussing is outside of the authority of the government to regulate. The second part--what measures can be put in place to limit the harm by individuals with guns--is most certainly an issue. And we arediscussing that. Some seem to think the government should act outside of government authority to limit guns. I think it should not.
But you have thus far been completely unable to specify exactly where the line is - you accept regulation against owning nukes or bazookas, or for children to own guns, and must therefore believe that these are within government authority to do. Yet you seem extremely evasive on the matter of how much more regulation you would accept before it becomes "outside" of said authority. To me, it just seems a meaningless distinction that you can use to justify existing regulation while dismissing any potential further regulation without reasonable justification. Until you actually draw the line, this argument is meaningless.
For private citizens you believe there are laws regarding the storing of bleach? Cite them.
Bleach is sold with tamper-proof seals and with appropriate product labels as per Federal regulations and guidelines:
Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) Requirements
Irrelevant and missing the point.
Which is why your argument was flawed.
No not does not, and clearly not clearly so.
Once again, it absolutely does. Your semantic word games do not dismiss that fact.
No. The government is allowed to regulate non-military firearms because historically they slid by a case unchallenged in the 30's. (Disregard of course the fact that the weapons they discussed do have military uses). It was held nonetheless in Miller and then in stayed that way. Because Americans did not object and there was no controversy Americans essentially acquiesced that authority. The government has established massive (though some limitations exist) power in the commerce clause, so they can very much limit guns in some respects through that . Felons should be self explanatory. Kids is a little tricky. As long as the laws have exceptions for kids then they are ok. Without the exceptions they are no longer ok. But making broader restrictions than these are problematic. There are surely some categories that still exist that would be less problematic to regulate.
Again, you're getting by by accepting existing regulation with no real, meaningful indication of why you accept that regulation and no further regulation beyond "people accepted it". Are you unwilling to accept the possibility of further regulation in any form?
Only in as much as one can say that regulation of speech is not only possible, but already exists. Again no right is unfettered. But generally speaking, broad regulation of guns is outside the authority of law.
Again, this is ambiguous wording. What counts as "broad regulation of guns"? How is banning access to bazookas or peventing children or felons from accessing guns NOT "broad regulation". Where is the substance to this distinction?
Some I do. But as I said, not challenging a law can show an acquiescence to some authority. Therefore ANY further regulation should be challenged. Even if that regulation does not, in fact, infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I have already acknowledged that depending on Licensing requirements, for instance, a law requiring Licensing may or may not be unconstitutional (i.e. infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms).
I'm all for challenging a law, the question is whether the challenge is actually justified. So far, you have failed to justify an objection to further regulation.
So if you wantto call that regulation fine. However i specifically stated the type of regulation that i said was impermissible. And that is "regulation [that] infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms."
And yet you refuse to say precisely what that would constitute.
It seems you want to strawman me as saying no regulation is permissible.
Then stop tap dancing and tell us what further regulation you would accept.
I said 2, not your second bullet point. was listed as "2) the amendment already states that citizens should be well regulated." If you have a problem following your own labels perhaps you should label more clearly. So no, not a "lie." Cheers though.
I thought you meant the second bullet point - no need to patronize me, it was an honest mistake.
Again, it does not say people should be regulated.
Yes it does.
Re: calling whatever one likes "infringement." That is tricky as well. I would suggest it is similar to "respecting" in the establishment clause. I personally read "infringe" as very broad. There is definitely room for reading "infringe" much more narrowly. But pretty much everyone would read preventing all sales or any possession (and i know you are not saying this) as infringement.
So how much "infringement" are you willing to accept?
I have no objection to regulation of firearms that does not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
Again, this is ambiguous. Be clear as to precisely what regulation you would accept.
Yet again, that's irrelevant. The fact that Japan has a high suicide rate doesn't change the fact that suicides are more likely in households that have firearms.
That is not true. Just because I accept that some freedoms must be necessarily limited does not mean I accept that all freedom should be necessarily limited.
That's not the point. The point is that couching this debate in terms of "freedom" is meaningless and and not an argument, so stop using it. It's just empty, emotive rhetoric.
That is great you think that, now you can empathize with how I feel about what you are doing.
What have I done to distract from the issue?
