I am pretty much pro weapon ownership - with caveats on requirements - but there is absolutley no logic towards portraying it as a "god given right" (or whatever other hyperbole you attach to it)
The fact it was an AMMENDMENT means it was an afterthought in the first place
Life, liberty and freedom of expression are what can be classed as "natural rights". Owning an arbitraily constructed piece of wood and metal isn't.
Now significantly any "right" you have, including the right to life, can be removed should circumstances dictate it necessary. The death penalty, self-defence laws and so forth cover this quite explicitly. So with firearm owneership the same applies - hence it is NOT sacrosanct, nor has it ever been
We call it a right because our Supreme Court says it is. We don't have to agree with them (I usually don't), but what they say goes. This makes it a right for us, not a privilage. Even though your opinion is entirley correct in my view.
Personaly, I think we only have priveleges here now, and no rights. This was proven (to me) when they claimed authority to suspend Habeas Corpus from an Act passed by congress. To properly get rid of a constututional artilce (Article 1 sec. 9 in this case), you need a 3/4 vote. Not the simple majority that passing an act needs. Our court system has backed this up.
Playing Devils Advocate (well not really, but bear with me...) why is this right considered inviolate when (a) no other right is and (b) even caselaw shows it can be compromised?
It is bordering on irrational zealotry
Again I reiteirate I a HUGELY pro weapon...how can you be Z-Day ready and not be?....but a system of appropriate checks and balances for ownership is NOT unconstitutional. In fact the original drafting pretty much states that the arming and training of the militia is the duty of the State - hence the restrictions are entirely in keeping with the Constitution
Don't get me wrong, I actually believe in the vast majority of tenets layed out by your constitution - but the very fact it can be ammended shows it is an organic document that needs to change and adapt as society does the same...that is its very beauty
Dogmatic adherence is absolutley not healthy or ultimately useful
I saw a guy on TV that bought some unclaimed storage crates "as seen" in an auction. Turned out that one crate had about 10 pristine new guns in it.
Now...that can't be right can it?
Anyone could have got hold of those guns.
Even if you put a car into auction ownership is still transferred from one person to another so the car can be tracked.
I see. It seemed a lot less structured than that but that could have been TV editing.
At one point they had one crate while another bloke had another from the same lot.
Turned out one part of a gun was in his crate and another part in theirs and vice versa (or part of a "pair" was separate..I can't remember).
They basically just agreed to swap with each other right there in the auction yard so each ended up with what they wanted.
But there already exists limits on that right. If you want to buy a new gun at a gun store, a background check will be done. Why not extend that to private sales? Your right would be no more infringed than buying at a store.
“Shall not infringe” has all ready been compromised and up held which we as the people let go and that’s why many fight any more infringement.
Yea like was stated they had a war going on so they agreed to get things set up and running and add the article (V I believe) to continue the process.
If they repealed the 2nd or if the Supreme Court changes their interruption of it then I would have to comply or go to jail (or hide them really good).
So why do Americans need to pass a driving test before being allowed to drive on the road unaccompanied? Don't you think that an individual should be able to show they can handle a gun properly and responsibly before they are allowed to use one unsupervised?
A free thinking and responsible American adult cannot elect to eat a Kindersurprise egg. But any American adult can buy, own, sell and fire off a deadly weapon unless a court says otherwise? And you're happy with this arrangement?
Are you honestly telling me there is nothing wrong in that thinking? There's nothing wrong in the order of priorities there?