Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Teallaura]

No it is not a right, that is why you have to have a license and they can take away your ability to drive. It is legally a 'privilege' not a right.

https://driversed.com/driving-inform...t-a-right.aspx

Even if I conceded - Ninth circuit isn't really making me inclined - but so WHAT?!!? NOT UNLIMITED so regulating weapons has been and remains perfectly CONSTITUTIONAL even post incorporation.

There's no reason guns can't be administratively handled in the same manner - especially seeing as they already are to an extent.

[Sparko]

And why should possessing and using firearms be any different than possessing and using a car?

I just said because owning firearms is a right and driving is not.

[JimL]

I just said because owning firearms is a right and driving is not.

And I'm asking you why, says who? What makes owning and using firearms anymore of a natural right than owning and operating a car?

[Sparko]

Even if I conceded - Ninth circuit isn't really making me inclined - but so WHAT?!!? NOT UNLIMITED so regulating weapons has been and remains perfectly CONSTITUTIONAL even post incorporation.

There's no reason guns can't be administratively handled in the same manner - especially seeing as they already are to an extent.

Because the constitution actually says that the government CAN'T infringe on the right. Putting limits and regulations on a right is infringing on it by definition. Yes we do have restrictions but they are unconstitutional as worded in the 2nd amendment.

You can make laws regarding the consequences of using the weapons, but constitutionally you can't regulate the owning of firearms. You can say that you can be thrown in jail for murdering someone with a gun, but you can't say you can't own a gun.

Practically what we are doing is turning a blind eye to the constitution when we regulate guns.

[mikewhitney]

No it is not a right, that is why you have to have a license and they can take away your ability to drive. It is legally a 'privilege' not a right.

https://driversed.com/driving-inform...t-a-right.aspx

Your point is half correct.

"Driving" is a legal term which became the synonym for chauffer. But the control of a car on the public roads is a right -- a right can't be converted into a privilege.

So, use of your car on the public streets and highways, as the normal means of travel for modern times, is a right.

[mikewhitney]

Because the constitution actually says that the government CAN'T infringe on the right. Putting limits and regulations on a right is infringing on it by definition. Yes we do have restrictions but they are unconstitutional as worded in the 2nd amendment.

You can make laws regarding the consequences of using the weapons, but constitutionally you can't regulate the owning of firearms. You can say that you can be thrown in jail for murdering someone with a gun, but you can't say you can't own a gun.

Practically what we are doing is turning a blind eye to the constitution when we regulate guns.

The interesting element here is that 14th amendment citizens are protected from the states infringement of the protected rights of the Bill of Rights. But I doubt we could bring this up in the Supreme Court at this time.

[Sparko]

Your point is half correct.

"Driving" is a legal term which became the synonym for chauffer. But the control of a car on the public roads is a right -- a right can't be converted into a privilege.

So, use of your car on the public streets and highways, as the normal means of travel for modern times, is a right.

uh no. that is completely wrong.

[Teallaura]

Because the constitution actually says that the government CAN'T infringe on the right. Putting limits and regulations on a right is infringing on it by definition. Yes we do have restrictions but they are unconstitutional as worded in the 2nd amendment.

You can make laws regarding the consequences of using the weapons, but constitutionally you can't regulate the owning of firearms. You can say that you can be thrown in jail for murdering someone with a gun, but you can't say you can't own a gun.

Practically what we are doing is turning a blind eye to the constitution when we regulate guns.

Regulation is not infringement. The Court never, ever held that. And prior to incorporation, the states were at perfect liberty to do actual infringement - so no, this isn't a constitutional problem.

[Sparko]

Regulation is not infringement. The Court never, ever held that. And prior to incorporation, the states were at perfect liberty to do actual infringement - so no, this isn't a constitutional problem.

Actually it is. If the regulations prevent you from exercising your right then it is an infringement. There is nothing about the right to bear arms that limits who can own a gun, what type of gun, or how many guns.

[rogue06]

Regulation is not infringement. The Court never, ever held that. And prior to incorporation, the states were at perfect liberty to do actual infringement - so no, this isn't a constitutional problem.

IIRC that was part of what Washington D.C. claimed when their laws were overturned. That they never made it illegal to own a firearm but rather simply regulated it but the court found that their regulations amounted to a ban.

[Cerebrum123]

No, you can't. I haven't ever lost a pet or a friend to an accident involving knives, or electronics - NEVER. The only person I knew who was killed in a car wreck was killed when a fleeing suspect crossing into oncoming traffic years ago - technically, guns were involved, although not being fired. Never known anyone who accidentally poisoned themselves.

But I have been shot at on three different occasions. I have lost more than ten dogs and cats (how the heck do you mistake a ginger cat for a deer?!). I lost a friend and several years before I lost a neighbor.

So no - it's NOT the same.

I've been in more than one car wreck, and lost my best friend to one. I'm still not back to my base line from before the second wreck, and I have permanent damage from the first as well. I know far, far more people who have either been badly injured(including brain injury), or killed in car wrecks than I do of people that have been killed by guns.

[Teallaura]

IIRC that was part of what Washington D.C. claimed when their laws were overturned. That they never made it illegal to own a firearm but rather simply regulated it but the court found that their regulations amounted to a ban.

In that case, yes, but merely regulating is not considered infringement. Sure, it can over step - but it is not itself unconstitutional and never has been.

[Teallaura]

I've been in more than one car wreck, and lost my best friend to one. I'm still not back to my base line from before the second wreck, and I have permanent damage from the first as well. I know far, far more people who have either been badly injured(including brain injury), or killed in car wrecks than I do of people that have been killed by guns.

Just for the record, I don't support gun control on a safety only basis. I support regulation of dangerous weapons and dangerous modes of transportation.

Since cars are already regulated, I'm not seeing the objection here. My point is that I'm not convinced that 'responsible gun owners' exist in the wild - never seen one. But I concede the probability that they do exist enough that I do not support gun abolition.

If I were basing it solely on the idiots I have seen, I'd support global gun abolition... Something about guns makes otherwise sane individuals totally lose their common sense.

[Teallaura]

Actually it is. If the regulations prevent you from exercising your right then it is an infringement. There is nothing about the right to bear arms that limits who can own a gun, what type of gun, or how many guns.

No, it isn't. See my response to Rogue.

[Cerebrum123]

Just for the record, I don't support gun control on a safety only basis. I support regulation of dangerous weapons and dangerous modes of transportation.

Since cars are already regulated, I'm not seeing the objection here. My point is that I'm not convinced that 'responsible gun owners' exist in the wild - never seen one. But I concede the probability that they do exist enough that I do not support gun abolition.

If I were basing it solely on the idiots I have seen, I'd support global gun abolition... Something about guns makes otherwise sane individuals totally lose their common sense.

The underlined can be equally, if not more so applied to cars. People in general can often be really, really stupid. Oh, and guns are already regulated more than cars are, and by a rather large margin too.