General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe least abridged "right" in America is the right to own a gun
Free speech has limits. The right to love who you choose how you choose has limits. The right to smoke has limits. The right to booze has limits. The right to drive has limits. These and other limits are adjusted with time and circumstance.
Not only is the "right" to own a gun the least abridged, it has, over the last 20 or 30 years, become increasingly less abridged.
The time for limits on guns is long past due.
The Supremes are wrong about this granting individual people the right to own guns. I am amazed that the right wing strict constructionists blew this one so badly. In the context of the time it was written, this was about the right of the (plural) people (the total citizenry) to maintain a well regulated militia. When we started standing up a serious, professional military (yes, the technical start of the military predates this, but it was, indeed, that "well regulated militia" alluded to in the amendment) the need for the militia ended.
By the way, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has, in my mind, a far greater imperative that gun ownership. Many who own guns have not seen fit to afford to some groups of their fellow citizens, those particular rights. (See, eg,: Marriage, Same Sex, Illegal).
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Guns are more regulated than most of our rights.
They are probably not regulated enough, but are obviously more regulated than books and newspapers.
These ridiculous statements make the GD look like a zoo
Loudly
(2,436 posts)We could take care of the gun and ammo problem with fifty words or less.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)More pages of statute are related to regulating firearms than any other constitutionally related issues.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)Seriously
The extra commas make the RKBA clause subordinate to the militia clause.