"The right of the people to bear arms ... shall not be infringed."

[IggleDuer]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Spazito (a host of the General Discussion forum).

That being the case, why can gun dealers and manufacturers claim the "right" to charge people for their guns? Isn't forcing people to pay for their gunz a form of "infringement"? Since the 2nd Amendment is about "a well-regulated militia," then guns should be given away by the government. Socialism!

[AndyS]

1. Yeah, it's like a poll tax, right?

It it really is a right how can they charge money to let someone exercise it?

Wouldn't it be sweet if gun capitalism was shut down by the very bill of rights that it has co-opted?

[doc03]

2. We have the right to bear arms but I think the government has the right

to regulate the arms. Can everyone have their own nuke?

[dchill]

4. It's too cold for bare arms...

...but never too cold for your own personal nuke.

[IggleDuer]

5. Regulating guns has been shot down by Congress.

They say it would be "infringing." OBTW Congress passed the assault weapons ban in the '90s.

[maxsolomon]

18. Fully automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since the 1934 NFA.

Illegal to manufacture since the 1986 FOPA.

That's an Infringement but Gunners don't whinge about it for reasons I cannot understand.

The AWB expired, IIRC.

[kwolf68]

3. Ehh dunno

You also have the right to peacefully assemble, but the government is not obligated to transport you there. The government doesn't pay newspapers for their ink and printing presses.

I get it, the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment is folly. The RWNJ want strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, then you can have any gun that was an example of what the founders wrote the 2nd A for. You want a single shot mini ball musket? Have at it.

[IggleDuer]

7. And the Repubs ignore that thing about the "Well-Regulated Militia."

N/T

[marie999]

10. The Supreme Court already ruled on the comma allowing people the right to bear arms.

[Caliman73]

6. Infringed upon by the National Congress.

You have to remember that the 2nd Amendment applies to laws made by the National Congress and implemented by the Federal Government.

The States can make laws regarding arms and there is no provision about private sales people charging for their services. No one gets their firearms for free. The government has to buy them from manufacturers.

[IggleDuer]

8. If I cannot afford the guns that I want, isn't my freedom infringed?

[marie999]

11. No

[ProfessorGAC]

13. I Get Your Point, But...

...there's a big difference between the government not throwing up barriers & mandating free weapons.
There's no truly logical connection between infringement & universal access.

[Zeitghost]

12. Prior to McDonald vs Chicago that was the case

McDonald incorporated the 2nd amendment through the 14th and applied it to the States.

[Caliman73]

15. Not really.

In California, you cannot buy an AR-15 or AK type rifle unless it complies with the State's requirements, meaning that the magazine is pinned into the lower and you have to load it by breaking the action open. You also cannot have a pistol grip (which is how the rifles are designed) and any firearm can only have a magazine holding 10 rounds or less.

Those are restrictions that the state can impose on firearms that do not run afoul of McDonald.

[Zeitghost]

19. Yes really

The 2A being applied to the states is not the same as the states being unable to regulate firearms, just as the federal government can regulate firearms. Despite the claims of the NRA, the SCotUS has not ruled that any regulation is an infringement.

[LiberatedUSA]

9. Is the right to bare arms an argument we will be having...

…after 2022 or 2024…depending on how it all goes as is being predicted? If you are no longer capable of being elected due to a rigged system, you can’t pass gun control. Which you can’t pass anyway, unless you expand the court…which can’t be done unless the filibuster is gutted…which does not seem to be happening.

So let’s all talk about gun control. I’m sure it‘ll all work out.

[maxsolomon]

16. How much did Biden or Clinton talk about it?

About as much as they talked about the homeless crisis.

[hack89]

14. Gun control is a serious matter requiring serious arguments

Yours is not.

The 2A is not about the militia according to the SC, Bernie, HRC, and President Obama. When Obama ran for office the Democratic Party platform explicitly stated that the 2A protects the individual right to own guns. Yours is not a mainstream view.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. +1. Really a stupid Original Post. I say nothing about the poster. . . .nt

[madinmaryland]

17. So people should be allowed to have bear arms? Fried with corn flakes or bread crumbs?

[jimfields33]

20. Don't give them any ideas

I can see them now saying that they should get guns paid by government since other rights are paid by government. Lord that’s all we need.

[keithbvadu2]

21. Require insurance for your guns... No denial of Constutional rights.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215279100

Solution - NRA/gun orgs sell liability insurance…

"Guns: There's a "Free Market" Solution Every Republican Should Love"

Insurance lets the market decide. Profit for the NRA

Solution - NRA/gun orgs sell liability insurance…

Protects the gun owners,the public,and makes profit for NRA and gun orgs.

You can be sure that the NRA and GOA would not take advantage of Americans' SA rights.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. No. You are barking up the wrong bush. Not even a tree. More like a daisy. Why bother w this nonsens

[Spazito]

24. *LOCKING*

Host consensus is this OP doesn't meet the criteria in the SOP for this forum:

Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum.

Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.