The government is WELL past overstepping it's constitutional power.

And you get detroit, thats still a shithole.

@RyeNorth Thats to prevent government from basically going "oh yeah, thats also punishable but we didn't write it so shucks for you"

I was merely joking about there not being a 2nd amendment for automobiles "You have the right to cruise around" or something 😛

The reactionary bell breaks.

saywut?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-pennsylvania-cop-carried-an-ar-15-at-a-gun-control-rally-what-happened-next-may-surprise-you

Driving is a privilege, not a right, hence the license requirement. Defense is a right, which therefore should require no license, hence the Second Amendment.

https://www.pcgamer.com/moba-super-monday-night-combat-to-shut-down-because-of-new-eu-privacy-laws/

Driving is not a right, but traveling or freedom of movement is. A car is simply a tool used to enhance that right. You can defend yourself with your hands, a gun is just a tool to enhance that right. Is it not possible to have someone who is so careless with their handling of a gun that they have proven themselves such a danger to other people that they should not be allowed to keep their firearms? At what point does one person's right to self defense trump another person's right to self defense? I've seen and know people who are unfit to own a firearm and it could be argued that taking their weapon away is a form of self-defense, one that is a better alternative to shooting them the next time they don't check their back stop and nearly shoot me.

I'm not seeing anything in the Bill of Rights about freedom of movement. Could you point me to which amendment contains a recognition of that right, explicitly?

Meanwhile, the Second Amendment says shall not be infringed.

i think the main reason for that is that 1776 was a bit before automobiles

and as for a driving license

Who should be entrusted with the authority to judge whether someone be careless? Who says whether someone be unfit to own a firearm?

It wasn't all that long ago that homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. Should we then restrict people who have an alleged mental illness from owning and bearing arms?

society as a whole should, and be moderate about it

If you give the government power to decide, they can declare being conservative a mental illness and take away guns
If you give the people the power to decide, it becomes mob rule

also the 2nd amendment must be preserved at all costs

The vast majority of people who own firearms are very responsible with them. Should we then deny them their rights because of a minority of people who have committed crimes using firearms?

Group punishment?

I know only one of you is guilty of this, but you're all getting punished? That doesn't seem at all like justice.

well your first statement is wrong already, cuz by that logic,

we should ban vehicles, cuz truck of peace people do bad mojo with them

as well as ban fast food restaurants cuz people get heart attacks from them
ban sports, cuz people died there too

My first statement?

well i was agreeing with you, we shouldn't ban guns because a few crazy people went postal

cuz by that logic we should ban pretty much everything

ban windows, cuz people jump outside of them

bridges

Indeed.

or turn into london, where you get knives confiscated

better watch out whilst running with scissors, or the police will arrest you

basically "Because some people have been proven crazy, your society should therefore be treated like children"

Maybe it would be better if everyone were required to learn how to use a firearm and how to be safe with it. Some of them might not be so goddamned scared of firearms after that. Hard to say. But I'm a Texas girl, I've been around Firearms all my life, got my first rifle when I was 12, have been hunting, took Hunter Safety classes, all kinds of nifty stuff. Never felt any desire to go shoot up a school or a theater or any other place like that, never had any desire to shoot anybody. But my experiences when I was in ROTC at least showed me that I would be able to point a firearm at someone and pull the trigger if it were necessary.

its not carelessness that causes "mass shootings"

its people going balistic

@Giovanna Liviana article 13 is usually the one reference for freedom of movement. And while the second amendment says shall not be infringed, it also says a well regulated militia, so which is it?

That was a big deal, too, at least for me, because I had "Never point a gun at someone unless you mean to use it" drilled into my head by my dad for years.

What do you think a "militia" was in 1791?

Before you answer, be advised that the constitution itself refers to a federal army. If the Second Amendment were referring to a government-controlled body of people, why would it not use the same term?

Why use the term well regulated? There is a difference between the state and the federal government.

isnt a milita basically an organised band of civilians formed to protect themselves?

The National Guard is not now and never was a militia.