Isn't the entire alleged constitutional right to guns also described as "well-regulated"?Licenses, stricter background checks, and anything further is constitution breaking.
Isn't the entire alleged constitutional right to guns also described as "well-regulated"?Licenses, stricter background checks, and anything further is constitution breaking.
yes, which is what the background checks and licenses are for.Isn't the entire alleged constitutional right to guns also described as "well-regulated"?
Well.The right to own arms.
Making it so you can't own most arms, that's restricting your right to own arms, and therefore is bad.
Committing crimes or being mentally ill should be grounds for losing rights, but you can't restrict certain arms since that's constitution breaking.
It's not well regulated.yes, which is what the background checks and licenses are for.
if that's not well regulated, i don't know what is.
I agree.Taser is safer than a weapon designed for killing.
Less people die with a shot of a taser than firearms
I'd argue the opposite, not specifying any arms means that they can't ban any.Well.
Regulated.
Militia.
Also
Arms' definition is weapons and ammunition; armaments.
So...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The constitution never said what arms couldn't be restricted.
Thus:
You could fully restrict guns, give everyone the right to keep and bear shortswords, and suddenly everything is fine.
Do some research.
I don't know man, background checks and licenses seem well regulated enough to me.It's not well regulated.
Regulating guns like we do cars would also fall under "well-regulated."yes, which is what the background checks and licenses are for.
if that's not well regulated, i don't know what is.
so tests and licenses? that's it?Regulating guns like we do cars would also fall under "well-regulated."
lol freedom of firearm , its made to kill stuffs , it should only be allowed to people with the training and the need for it but not as a Civillians defending itself because you will end up with too many people getting it .some with mental issues they might not even know they have and they just look normal . making it available to the public is something with way more negatives than positives .In Brazil the defense argument for "freedom of firearms" is because criminals here have lots of guns so it is fair to "good citizens" have guns too.
with that argument, no more modern tech, since that wasn't around in 1776!Honestly, if everyone in the US is so tissy about "right to bare arms". Go with 1776 tech then...
Since we talk about guns, sure! I wouldn't mind if you US citizens all just used muskets instead of Machine guns for defense. The modern stuff can be kept to the Police and the Military.with that argument, no more modern tech, since that wasn't around in 1776!
Eh, no more smartphones, in fact, nothing except a quill and pen, horse drawn carriages, and that's it!Since we talk about guns, sure! I wouldn't mind if you US citizens all just used muskets instead of Machine guns for defense. The modern stuff can be kept to the Police and the Military.