Posted by dahsdebater on 1/30/2013 3:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2013 8:05:00 PM (view original):Again, you're falling into the fallacy that everyone who favors gun control continues to fall into, and most opponents just let it go. Even the courts have done it. The 2nd amendment doesn't just protect the "right to keep and bear arms," it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Limitation of arms is infringment. I don't see how you can argue that it isn't.
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/29/2013 7:43:00 PM (view original):Why do you believe the "right to keep and bear arms" MUST be interpreted as the "right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms"?
The right to K&B arms isnt a throw away. You need to show a clear reason to take it away.
There is not evidence to support any gun ban would help. I am no talking about loose theories, I am talking about actual evidence.
My points about gun effectiveness is to show the idea that banning any type of weapon will somehow prevent a crime or even make it less severe isnt based on logic.
The end point is the same people who have always wanted to ban private arms are at it again, and it will only harm America.
Do you believe that if HCAWs are banned, that the government's next step will be to send tanks to your neighborhood to oppress you?
That all comes down to interpretation.
Joe Citizen can legally own weapons such as a handgun, shotgun, shooting rifle. I'd be surprised if Joe Citizen can legally own a nuclear weapon.
Has his "right to keep and bear arms" been infringed upon if he cannot own a nuclear weapon?
To me, "infringed" means that the government cannot make the process so onerous that Joe Citizen finds it nearly impossible to legally own any "arm".
Besides, there are already a number of restrictions on ownership. Can a convicted murderer, who has been freed after serving his time, legally own a gun? (I honestly don't know for sure, but would think not). If not, then has his Second Amendment right been infringed upon?