As for your assumptions that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee that we have a right to own a gun, without exception, is in error. The amendment is quite clear. It does not pose any restrictions.
Wrong. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights includes the implied words “reasonably” and “unreasonably.”
While the First Amendment reads absolutely: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .” what it really says is: “Congress shall make no law . . . unreasonably abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .”
If you don’t believe that, then publish a magazine with pictures of adult males having sex with nine-year-old girls and, when you’re arrested, tell the judge that the laws against child pornography are unconstitutional because the First Amendment says absolutely that Congress may not make any laws abridging the freedom of the press. See how far that argument gets you.
Hint, you will be spending a long time in prison in spite of your belief that the First Amendment’s language is absolute and prevents the government from passing any laws that limit the freedom of the press.
There are many, many examples of laws prohibiting speech that are constitutional.
Try to marry two women at the same time and when you’re arrested tell the judge that the laws against bigamy are unconstitutional because without limitation the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]” and that you are a sincere believer in the branch of the Mormon religion that believes in polygamy and therefore the law is unconstitutional. It won’t work.
As far as the courts are concerned, the First Amendment actually says, “Congress shall make no law . . . unreasonably prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion].”
What is reasonable and unreasonable is determined by balancing both the harm and the benefit from the law in question coupled with a demonstrated “compelling state interest” in passing and enforcing the legislation.
So, as far as the courts are concerned, what the Second Amendment actually says is: “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be unreasonably infringed.”
It doesn’t matter in the least that you don’t like that. That’s always been how the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts.
The passage re “well regulated” actually describes how a militia would be SUPPLIED, not restricted.
Nonsense. No, “well regulated” does not mean “well supplied.” It means a militia with a formal chain of command, with appointed officers, rules of discipline, and all the other structural aspects of a formal military organization. Read the Federalist Paper 29, “Concerning The Militia.”
“Well regulated” was a shorthand way of referring to the state militias with a formal organizational structure.
The word “regulated” never has and never will mean the same thing as the word “supplied.”
. . . people need an absolute right to defend themselves and each other from such tyrants.
That opinion has nothing to do with the genesis of the Second Amendment, which was enacted to provide armed men to fill the militias to be used by the Federal Government to quell insurrections and repel invasions — Article I, Section 8.
What you mean by “tyranny” isn’t necessarily what others mean by it.
Terrorists define tyranny as laws they don’t like passed by voters who hold opinions they disagree with. Terrorists want guns because they were outvoted and couldn’t get their way at the ballot box.
My cat has an absolute right to have her claws.
Obviously, untrue. Not only do many people legally declaw their cats, consider what happens when a bear or a mountain lion or a shark kills a human. It is hunted down and killed. There is no actual right of animals to keep their claws or attack humans in spite of you your opinion.
Machine guns are NOT illegal, they are heavily regulated by taxes and permits.
If I’m found with a machine gun without obtaining the permits (which the government may refuse to give me) and paying the tax I will go to jail. That means that in spite of the language of the 2nd Amendment the government can and will lock me up for possessing an automatic rife.
You can tell the federal judge all day long that the 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to own an automatic rifle and that any law that criminalizes that ownership is unconstitutional. He will tell you that you are wrong and you will go to jail.
This nation was actually intended to be more like what Switzerland is (or was).
I doubt there is any proof of this claim. I don’t think Madison or Hamilton mentioned Switzerland even once.
How about this — go to Switzerland and, without getting any permits, registrations, passing a gun-safety test, background check, etc. let them catch you with a loaded AR-15 or carrying a concealed weapon and see what happens to you. The answer is prison.
Freedom isn’t given to us by the government. It’s taken away by the government. That’s what people are brainwashed about.
There are millions of black people who are proof that you are wrong about that.
Secondly, you can have all the opinions about freedom and what you ought to be able to do and shouldn’t be prevented from doing that you want. But when you take the step “I should be able to use a gun to get to do what I want,” when you claim you have a right to grab a gun in order to impose your ideas about tyranny and freedom on the rest of us, you’ve gone off the rails.
When people talk about freedom and then jump to the idea that it involves having a gun, they are really saying that they want to use guns to get their way by force when they can get it at the ballot box.
You have a right to your vote. And if you and the people who agree with you lose the election, you just have to suck it up.
When people start claiming that even though they lost the election they are entitled to get their way with a gun, they aren’t freedom fighters.
They are terrorists. And they have no place in this or any other country.