How is the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms So Heavily Infringed Upon?

The thing is the reasoning

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

has been made utterly obselete by events

You’re absolutely right that Heller increased the scope of gun rights in the United States overall. But overall there are still a lot of federal and state limitations on who bear arms and which arms they can bear.

Depending on the state:
A convicted felon cannot own a gun
An individual with certain mental health records may not be able to own a gun
No one can own a gun with a magazine above a certain capacity
No one can own a gun with a “bump stock”

And federally, no one can own IEDs, automatic weapons, etc.

Thus far the Supreme Court has chosen not to rule on these issues (either because no one brought them before the Court, or because they did and Court declined to take the case). Regardless, this to me indicates a certain general acceptance that various forms of regulation that we’ve placed on the right to bear arms.
Which I think appropriate.

What I think is kind of ridiculous is how 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 became People in the United States who have no criminal history or history of mental disorder are allowed to own personal firearms at semiautomatic or slower discharge speeds with magazines of a capacity that we find acceptable, details to come, and might have to wait 14 days or so to buy them without a huge body of jurisprudence.

To get past all of the silliness, the question really comes down to what “infringed upon” means.

Lots of people would interpret that as meaning that the government can’t ban the civilian ownership of firearms, but that it does not prohibit regulation of said right. In other words, a reasonable interpretation of the amendment would not exclude the idea that we’re not going to allow children, known criminals, and the bug-fuck crazy to have weaponry. And that we can put in place systems to determine if someone is any of those things before they buy a gun.

It also (more questionably IMO) seems not to prohibit WHAT sorts of weaponry are allowed for bearing. Honestly, if you read it from the “it’s to make sure there are militias” perspective, then the ONLY type of guns that should be protected would oddly be the AR-15 style weapons and the Beretta M9 pistols as used by the military. Anything else is outside the purview of militia weaponry in the modern world, IMO. But people tend to look at it more from a public safety perspective and do things like ban guns that are sketchily constructed (“saturday night specials”) and things without any real sporting/self-defense uses like machine guns.

Ultimately though, it’s mostly a state thing these days- between Heller and the other decisions, there’s a firm understanding that the private right to arms is there. Whether or not the states choose to regulate beyond that is up to them.

One of the issues I see is that you have a misunderstanding of the history of the 2nd amendment, and the current state of laws.

The first is definitional. The amendment mentions arms, so certainly arms fall under its protection. Things not arms would not, in a general sense. With our system of dual soverignty, it makes sense that states can impose their own rules as long as they don’t contradict federal law. But where you’ve made actual errors - there have been few SCOTUS gun related cases, but more than two. Cruishank, Presser, Miller, Printz were all at SCOTUS. Why the dearth…possibly because there were few contested issues, few circuit splits, or little appetite to take up cases. There have been fewer excessive fines (8th amendment) cases at SCOTUS than there have been 2nd amendment cases. It’s allowed because SCOTUS sets its own rules, and its own docket. It’s justified because that’s what is setup in the constitution.

I don’t remember where the quote was from, but it goes something like this, ‘the Supreme Court isn’t last because it is right, it is right because it is last’. There is no rule that laws need be philosophically consistent. It’s nice when it happens though.

I’m certain that future crime can be prevented if we curtailed the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments. Terrorists certainly would have their efforts to organize if we limited speech, etc. We can end all terrorism if we really wanted to by simply executing everyone. But those costs are too high so we don’t do that. Currently the US recognizes that the costs are worth the benefits by virtue of the laws it adopts and enforces.

Look forward to being displaced from that claim, assuming you could ever have made it in the first place. In Canada, an adult can possess up to 150 grams of fresh cannabis, while American jails are jammed with people who were carrying less than that, and indeed an American’s personal property can be arbitrarily seized if a law enforcement officer claims to suspect some tenuous connection to drug trafficking, i.e. “civil forfeiture.”

Frankly, I’m inclined to question your country’s actual commitment to the concept of personal freedom.

Sure, there are some restrictions on gun ownership. But the United States in 2018 has just about the lightest restrictions on gun ownership that any country has ever had in history. So I can’t see how you can describe it as “heavily infringed upon”.

And I don’t ascribe this to any special characteristic of the American people. I would say it’s almost entirely due to the Second Amendment.

Actually, no. US is fairly restrictive by world standards. Bans on automatic firearms, bans on purchases across State lines etc.
The US has liberal(!) gunlawa compared to Europe and Australia/Japan, but not so much by world standard.

Every other civilized country has practically resolved its gun violence problems without transforming itself into a terrifying Orwellian dystopia. The US is the only one that clings to asinine arguments like these.

What countries allow people to legally purchase automatic weapons? And I’m not even sure what the equivalent of interstate commerce would be in other countries.

Currently the US [del]recognizes[/del] believes that the costs are worth the benefits . . . .

Recognition presumes that the costs are worth the benefits, which is absurd when one compares against every advanced democracy.

Belief is self-affirming and highly resistant to evidence. God ‘n’ Guns.

The OP misses a crucial point. All of our BOR rights (except quartering troops) are being curtailed. The 4th amendment is violated with DUI checkpoints and being allowed BS reasons to search you and your car. The 5th amendment is violated whenever the cops qua the State are allowed to lie to you to trick you to talk and now if you don’t explicitly say you are invoking your 5th Amendment right you don’thave your right to remain silent. Excessive bails are all around us. The 10th Amendment and states rights are a thing of the past and Congress continually exceeds its enumerated rights. I’m not allowed to have a lawyer dog if I’m being interrogated. Etc.

What’s your “world standard”? I admit I only skimmed this, but stricter gun laws seem to be the norm here:

Common restrictions beyond what’s politically viable in the US are one or more of licenses only given for specific reasons and applications vetted by police, national registries of guns and gun owners, functioning systems for revoking licenses and confiscating guns.

Do you think that there hasn’t been some irresponsible speech coming from our president tjhsst might have resulted in lousy lives?

The 4th and 5th amendment results in murderers going free and sometimes committing murder again.

All rights come with some consequences.

Murder is still illegal even if you do it with a gun. There are no crimes that u can think of that you can get away with because you used a gun. Just like you can’t hide behind free speech when you commit a crime.

The reason we allow regulation is because until recently the regulations were not systematically challenged.

If you could quantify the benefits, then perhaps an analysis can be done.

The error you’ve made is that you think you’ve identified an argument.

If you can’t see having fewer people get killed as being a benefit, there’s no point in continuing with you.

Since “whittling down” means reducing something over the course of a certain time period, and since the amount of firepower a person in the US can own today can far, far, exceed the amount that could be had when the Constitution was written, and dare I say far more than the Framers could ever have imagined, how can you say anything has been whittle down at all?!

I don’t have the experience to do that. Get in touch with someone like Atif Kubursi. In the mean time, I just look at the gun death rates of other first world countries with substantially similar rights (sans gun rights) and freedoms.

That pretty much sums it up.

There are many restrictions on Free Speech.

Kiddie Porn
Copyright Infringement
Slander
Libel.
Serious death threats
Stalking

And yes, as a condition of parole, your right to free speech can be curtailed.

Also free speech is heavily regulated on the public airwaves.

There’s actually more COMMON restrictions on your right to Free Speech that your Right to Bear Arms. Few people want to own a howitzer, but quite a few people like to violate Copyright.