NONSENSE: Gun control is constitutional — just ask the Supreme Court
In the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case, the one in which the Court decided that the 2nd Amendment protected the right to have guns, the following was said:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions … possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Although gun control advocates lost the DC vs Heller decision, they continue to try to extract little bits and pieces that give them some home to confiscating firearms to have supreme power over us. Yes, all rights have limits such as with free speech, you can’t scream “bomb” or “fire” in a crowded movie theater. You also can’t use your words to force someone commit a crime or help plan the crime without being part of the crime.
Yes, the Second Amendment has limits, but there should not be an attempt to expand or broaden those limits just because a person is afraid of firearms. In addition, the Second Amendment says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear firearms. With that being said, if there is another method that we deem to be “better” than firearms, we will migrate to that (while still keeping guns.) Arms are a broad category. When you hear of “arms” races between countries, it’s not just about guns. It encompasses any type of weapon that can be used to defend people.
Also, I’m not sure why the NRA always gets blamed for representing people who want to defend the lives of themselves, their families, and friends, and who want to keep the government in check from possible tyrannical behavior (especially if people have the sentiment that the current administration is all the bad things in the world).
Another prized possession that people have is their automobile. Let us suppose that the AAA took the “absolutely no regulation” stance that the NRA uses. No speed limits, no inspections, no driver’s licenses, no traffic lights, and no parking restrictions. Drivers would be free to go as fast as their car could go. There might be some very serious crashes, but so what?
Another asinine point that gun grabbers like to bring up is regulations on automobiles. We’ve already discussed this so you can read about my thoughts on “registering” firearms like cars here and a hilarious video on the effect of regulating cars like we do guns here. I will say though, driving or owning an automobile is not a right in the constitution.
Assault rifles with large clips are “dangerous and unusual” and thus can be outlawed. Clearly many other proposed regulations of guns such as background checks, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, restricting firearms in certain places, and regulation of all sales, would not violate the 2nd Amendment.
Lastly, any writer who calls a semi-automatic rifle and “Assault Rifle” probably believes that’s what the AR in AR-15 stands for. Any writer who calls a magazine a “clip” doesn’t know what the hell they are talking about and should be banned from writing on the topic. (Wait, is that a violation of the First Amendment? Not cool, right!)
Funny note: when you click the link below to read the article, the firearms in their image are not the guns they propose to ban and/or confiscate.