Uh oh. Gun ruling will put that new Conservitive SCOTUS majority to the test

9th Circus. I’m not too worried. I just wish they’d actually give a crap about what the 2nd Amendment actually says, instead of what they disinterpret it to mean. (Yes, “disinterpret” is a made up word.)

Do you think that the 2A and the rights that come with it usurp other rights granted under the Constitution?

In other words, the 1A gives the freedom of speech, but the 1A has limits. I’m curious because the way you seem to be interpreting it is that, unlike other amendments, the 2A is absolute and without question in your mind, or is it? I’m asking.

It doesn’t have a rational basis.

I’ve said before that Government can’t control who owns guns, but they might be able to control where they’re taken.

However, banning not just anyone who owns a gun, but people with concealed or open carry permits is going to backfire.

Countries have fixed gun violence by proliferating ubiquity of trained people with guns.

If you don’t allow trained people to walk around armed, the hyper aggressive, hyper motivated sort who commit these attacks will know the places they want to target are vulnerable.

Deterrence is the answer, and this goes in the opposite direction.

The 1st Amendment specifically says: “Congress shall make no law” etc. The 2nd Amendment says: “Shall not be infringed.” Period.

I’m not asking this to be facetious (thought I totally understand if it looks that way), but what about convicted felons? Assume they went to prison, served their time and their parole is complete. Does “shall not be infringed” matter in that instance? Should felons be allowed to purchase firearms once they become citizens again?

I’ll admit that I’m not aware of a clear constitutional context for denying the right to keep and bear arms to ex cons. I do feel that the Founding Fathers of our nation would agree that it is right not to restore all rights automatically just because a convicted felon completes his prison sentence. They may have “paid their debt to society,” but they already broke our trust, and I don’t feel we’re obliged to suddenly trust them again the second they get out of jail. I’m happy with the system of a judge restoring rights (including the right to vote) on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you for the response. I’ll point out however, the scenario I presented wasn’t a convict who just got out of jail, but someone who fulfilled their parole requirements after they got out jail. Fulfilling parole requirements implies trust is restored.

I don’t think it implies it in absolute terms.

Jumping in.

Do you think trust can be re-earned, if so, how?

Yes. As to how, I doubt it can be formulaic; it has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Which is what we have with a judge deciding whether or not to restore civil rights.

After yesterday’s attack on the Capital, we now need a ban on cars and knives.

It has now come to light that the perpetrator was an African-American and a follower of Islam. There will not be much there for the “progressives” to use as a club against Republicans.

This is totally dependent on what someone has been convicted of.

I think it is worth pointing out that there are quite a few rationalizations, interpretations and equivocations for something that explicitly states as Fantasy Chaser pointed out, “shall not be infringed”.