There Have Been 5 Major Shootings in the U.S. in the Past Week Alone

Children's books aside, I doubt many would agree that shredding the constitution is "what is right". You know a civilization is spoiled once they forget the reasons their freedoms are important.

 

Heh, I don't doubt that you think that. Would be pretty much on par with everything else I've seen from you lately.

 

So you're saying that even though less guns = less violence, in any rational interpretation, since you don't have the existence of a parallel universe to calculate exactly how much less, it's not worth doing.

For me it's great, I don't bear any arms. I think have a few knives and a machete, but i could probably do without them. But this doesn't even come close to responding to why your argument is absurd. Frankly there's not much a logical relationship between your first sentence (the assumption that violence will remain constant despite lack of guns) and the second (it's not worth the costs even if it does).

Anyway, yeah 30% less violence with a repeal of the second amendment would be huge- the benefits are astounding, millions of lives saved/not maimed/injured, reduced health care costs, less prisons, less crime, higher property values overall etc - in terms of economics, it's a massive win. The los of gun industry related jobs are probably irrelevant.

But anyway, the false choice between repeal and prohibition or nothing is not very helpful here. As I've advocated many times, a market-based solution is what would be most helpful. We need to regulate firearms so that hteir true cost is borne by those who consume, make and profit from them. Right now it's an externality that is pushed off onto others. Once that happens, supply & demand will naturally be constrained.

 

When was the individual right to bear arms recognized as an affirmative right under Amendment II?

Reality indicates that this occurred in 2008, DC v. Heller.

Was there another case that I and all of the rest of the world missed?

Can you provide the citation?

 

The quality of your posting has really declined sharply.

 

It was always assumed to be an individual right, an assumption that wasn't challenged till 2008 (slightly before that actually) at which point it was confirmed.

 

Oh I get it - it was always magically "assumed" jsut not by any court of law or anywhere in the history of American jurisprudence. And in fact most courts that addressed the issuse expressly rejected it.

You're beyond your depth Bobby - wikipedia won't save you now. Retreat.

 

It was assumed to be an individual right because that's how it was written. There wasn't a need to confirm that, yes, it's an individual right until 2008 because there was no need to. Honestly, is this the best you can do? It's also magically "assumed" that the right to free speech applies to people named Jose but that fact won't be specifically confirmed by any court of law till someone foolishly tries to challenge it.

 

Do you guys see these increased shootings and school reports of violence as maybe the new attitude we seem to have instilled in our students: BULLYING IS BAD, REPORT BULLYING, NO TOLERANCE ON HAZING. I remember growing up in middle school, I was bullied badly in the 6th grade by some upperclassmen, but when I went home to tell my parents (and I know, I was blessed to have parents that were actually home to teach me life lessons instead of strayed away at work), they didn't report it to the school, or tell me to run away from the guy. They taught me to face it and deal with it (not in a violent manner). Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the new generation of kids IMO are not equipped to deal with bullying, stress, and problems that face kids in the transitioning stage of becoming adults. Partly due to parents not being home anymore, partly due to the overall attitude we seem to have against hazing. At my college, some frat kids got criminal charges for making one of their pledges do push ups... PUSH UPS.

 

Name a court that assumed this in another case. Just one.

 

Again, it was assumed for almost the entirety of American history....there was no need for it to be confirmed by a court directly. You seem to be under the impression that every single law automatically ends up in court to determine exactly what it means....that's not the case. Most laws are accepted at face value and only end up in court when someone violates or challenges it.

 

So it was just assumed that a right existed, except there is no evidence of it, and there is evidence of courts and the DOJ explicitly rejecting the idea, and the DC law in Heller was on the books in some form for nearly 40 years.

I'm going to repeat:

Name a court that assumed this in another case. Just one.

 

It was assumed that the wording of the amendment meant that it was an individual right, there was a law that violated the amendment and once it was challenged it was struck down because the amendment ALWAYS was an individual right. The fact that the law was on the books for 40 years is irrelevant and actually proves my point, no one challenged the law till 2008 that doesn't mean it was constitutional for 40 years, it was always unconstitutional but until it's challenged, it's taken at face value.

Honestly, try harder.

 

Name a court that assumed this in another case. Just one.

 

Until there is a challenge, there isn't a court case. It's like you don't fundamentally understand what the court did in 2008, they didn't say that the second amendment is an individual right "from now on" they merely confirmed that it has always been an individual right "unconnected with service in a militia".

They didn't invent an individual right, they confirmed it.

 

there were a number of cases challenging firearm regulations in the past few hundred years - challenges asserting this right - they were rejected, and this "silent assumption" was never recognized until 2008.

Honestly, bobby the great, you could have found this out by wikipedia.

 

If it's unconnected with service in the militia then it's not being taken at face value because that's what the amendment actually says. The actual amendment has been bastardized. It's just another BS argument to say that the 2nd amendment can't have restrictions as the 1st amendment surely does.

The entirety of the pro unlimited gun rights argument is weak as we've seen in this thread arguing about cars, drugs, on to Hitler, love it or leave it, and then it's just my right. Throw out all the strawmen and red herrings and you've got nothing that speaks to the necessity for unlimited gun rights.

 

No right is absolute, which is why numerous regulations are and have been constitutional. If you read the actual decision instead of just a Wikipedia page, you'd see that it said