Which again, an assault rifle ban isn't the same as "banning all firearms". Just like banning someone from owning a tank isn't a "bannibg all vehicles".
Do you not see how precedent work. They chip away. Jesus just look at England; they can’t even carry pocket knives. And an AR15 is the most common rifle in the US, so it’s significant.
There's a ban against libel. Does that mean the government is going to chip away at our right to Freedom of Speech?
That’s a false equivalency. Libel has a victim. Firearm ownership does not.
Please just answer the question. I'm getting tired of repeating it.
Should private citizens be allowed to purchase nuclear weapons? Or are there certain weapons that should be restricted in the interest of public safety?
That’s an irrelevant question. A ridiculous hypothetical.
Yes. I'm saying anyone who is unable or unwilling to operate and store a firearm safely shouldn't be allowed to purchase one. That goes for mass murderers, children, and people who are just to apathetic.
What if a local cop or law enforcement doesn’t like someone for whatever reason? Who makes that determination? Does personally bias play into that decision? “Oh I don’t think they’re willing to store a gun properly, so they don’t get one.” What the appeal process?
I get that you are emotional. I get that this is something that you are passionate about. But if we're going to continue this discussion, please take a deep breath and collect your thoughts for a sec before diving back in.
I’m not emotional. I’m just shocked someone could have this little understanding and foresight.
Your rights can be curtailed and restricted, even if you haven't committed a crime. I can't write libel in the newspaper, even if I haven't committed a felony. I cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater, even if I haven't broken the law. Our rights are constantly curtailed in the interest of public safety. It's called "living in a society".
Libel has a victim. Shouting fire has victims through disturbing the peace and potentially causing injury. Firearm ownership does not. Just stop with false equivalencies.
You just said that you don't believe felons should have a right to own a firearm. That is restricting someone's Second Amendment right in the name of public safety.
OMG are you trolling me? Felons relinquished some rights when they broke the law.
Again, freedoms and rights can be restricted in the name of public safety. How many more times do I have to repeat this before you understand it?
And how many more times must explain that private firearm ownership doesn’t compromise public safety. My neighbors have no idea about the guns I own.
Yes. The purpose was to make sure the people, who would compose the militia, had access to firearms.
Our current "militia" (the National Guard) already has access to firearms. The purpose of the Second Amendment has already been achieved.
The meaning doesn’t change because we created a national guard. Again The 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service.
I do still think private citizens should have the ability to own and operate firearms. I just think that a certain level of responsibility and safety is required before you should be trusted with that responsibility.
But only certain guns because clearly you don’t have an issue with banning the most popular rifle in the country.