re: The 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons -This Right May Also Be Reasonably Regulated

Regulation is talking about the troops so that when called up in war they would become a militia that was well regulated.

quote:

---

I will answer this the way that the strict " shall not be infringed" crowd answers all of these types of questions.... Why not? If you can put forward any answer to my question of "why not", then you are making an argument for restrictions on a 3 yr. old owning a gun, hence my original point.

---

Toddler firearm ownership, check

I thought we were now on the "we must read and interpret the constitution exactly as written at the time it was written" phase now when it comes to birthright citizenship? And there is no debate on intent? Funny how we always break back down to debate the only amendment that ends with "shall not be infringed".

With that said... did Americans have the same weapons the Continental Army did at the time the 2nd was written? And who exactly was considered "the militia" say, on the night of Paul Revere's ride to alert of advancing British troops?

quote:

---

You need a better argument.

---

It’s the only argument I need Shawn!

quote:

---

If you are in the camp that believes there should be no regulations on what type of weapon or who can possess such weapons, then you are fine with a 3 year old owning a gun. If you are not fine with a 3 year old owning a gun, then you support federal oversight and restrictions on gun ownership.
I use this example to point out that the OP is correct - the 2A should be reasonably regulated by the federal government.

---

A 3 year old doesn’t own anything. I had access to guns at 6-7 and got a shotgun for Xmas when I was 9. I bought an HK 93 when I was 17, technically my mother had to buy it for me because of 18 to purchase law. You would probably say that is too young for a person and want the government to regulate it more because some 12 year old urbanite is robbing and shooting people in Chicago.
Reasonably regulated is relative, I can name more than a few in government that are unreasonable. What AOC sees as reasonable “common sense” I see as ridiculous and infringing on our present day rights. The path to change the constitution is 2/3 votes of both houses and ratified by 3/4 or presently 38 states. I am willing to accept that outcome if it happens, until then, no.

quote:

---

If you are in the camp that believes there should be no regulations on what type of weapon or who can possess such weapons, then you are fine with a 3 year old owning a gun. If you are not fine with a 3 year old owning a gun, then you support federal oversight and restrictions on gun ownership. I use this example to point out that the OP is correct - the 2A should be reasonably regulated by the federal government.

---

You really thought you were onto something there, didn’t you?

quote:

---

If there was a need to overthrow the modern government, there’s no way personal arms can reasonably counter the modern DoD.

---

I was told that the government could be overthrown by uninvited people occupying the capital building.

quote:

---

I was told that the government could be overthrown by uninvited people occupying the capital building.

---

And unarmed as well. We almost lost our entire democracy to a couple thousand unarmed people.

In the next breath hundreds of millions of armed citizens are no threat to the government.

Bottom line: if you’re a law abiding citizen, you have a right to own guns and use them in legal circumstances.

Overthrowing the government is 100% illegal. You can try it but you better win, else you likely forfeit your life.

As far as meaning goes, nothing has any true and enduring meaning except the meaning you give it.

There’s no need to debate any of this really. It’s dead simple.