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

Probably because you’ve started from a different “something” that is being reduced. Namely, the right codified in the 2nd amendment isn’t about levels of firepower (see SCOTUS in Caetano) so this type of comparison is irrelevant when it comes to the scope of the right.

You indicated that recognition presumes the costs are worth the benefits. I’m not sure I agree with that, but you seem to be confident that when evaluating the costs vs. the benefits, the analysis is clear. But if you only look at one side of the equation, then it’s at best premature to draw conclusions.

Willful ignorance is too.

Before Heller the Courts simply hadn’t ruled on it. Per SCOTUS, you had the right to own a gun for personal defense all along. It wasn’t until DC, Chicago and SF tried to ban the possession of all handguns and quite a bit else that the Courts* had* to rule on it.

No, Heller did not change anything, really. Up until then, no large City had tried to ban the possession of firearms for personal defense.

And as I have pointed out in this thread, the First Ad has more real restrictions on it than the 2nd.

*Kiddie Porn
Copyright Infringement
Serious death threats

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. *

So, your OP has a false assumption, thus you have reached a false conclusion.

Nope, I disagree strongly. In a few states, yes. But not on a Federal level.

They didnt have 300 Million guns already in circulation.

They dont have the Gun Culture here in the USA.

And the “It works in this small nation so why not in the USA” is overall a bogus argument.

Gun control has been tried in the USA- and it hasn’t worked.

There are many gun control laws arealy on the books, with CA possible having the strongest- but there is no correlation between states with tough gun control laws and those with lower violent crime or murder rates.

Of course, there’s always an excuse why it didnt/hasnt worked, with the solution always being More Gun control laws. “Hey it has never worked, so we need more of it!”

Of course the same can be said of the War on Drugs.

I have read claims that Mass Shootings would decrease markedly if they were not publicized.

And of course, since the idea of Terrorist activities is to incite Terror, the banning of publizing them would reduce such activities.

We could make simply belonging to certain hate/criminal groups a crime- The KKK, certain violent Muslim groups, Hell Angels, Crips, Bloods, MS13, etc. That would certainly reduce crime.

We could make it a crime to show people how to make bombs.

Now, I don’t think we should do any of those things. But yes, more restrictions on the 1st, etc Ad would certainly reduce crime. Likely more than gun laws.

Oddly the USA is smack dab in the Middle of all nations by Murder rate.

Many nations have much higher rates along with strict gun control, such as Mexico. And many nations have pretty loose gun gun laws but still have lower violent crime rates.
Of course, you can always exclude any such nations from what you consider “civilized”, and therefore you’d be always right.

I missed this earlier. It is false to say that the militia clause was the basis for firearm ownership. It’s false because every time the amendment is interpreted SCOTUS says that the right codified in the 2nd amendment is in no way dependent on the constitution.

From Cruikshank:

It’s nonsense to say that the militia was the constitutional basis for firearm ownership.

That would be great, but since you can’t show that restricting gun would significantly result in fewer people getting killed, the debate continues.

However, I have shown that it is at least as possible that restrictions on other rights would also reduce violent crime just as much.

Would you accept a law making it illegal to simply belong to the KKK, certain violent Muslim groups, Hell Angels, Crips, Bloods, MS13, etc?

Or a law making it illegal to publicize mass shootings or terrorist events?

So what’s your idea?

Gestalt (whom I quoted):

My response was in regards to “limited magazine”. Effectively, no whittling has been done.

Every time? Well, that once, in a ruling upholding Jim Crow, which you go on to cite to us as something respectable and authoritative.

But do please acknowledge that you’re claiming the Second does not, in fact, protect a fundamental right to gun ownership.

More guns per capita = more gun deaths per capita. It’s that simple.

What is not simple is weening Americans off of their belief in guns. Even once the facts are in front of them, they fall back on their special snowflake argument in defence of their belief that they are incapable of changing their course.

Why not let the police continue as they have, without any more reduction in our Rights? Violent crime in going down.

How about more help with mental illness. More aid to poor areas on the uSA, more ways for people in Ghettos to get decent jobs without turning to Drugs and violence?

Why not better prisons, where the fist time offender is not mixed in with hardore violent criminals, and were more attempts at rehabilitation are made?

Why not get rid of this fucking stupid, useless and wasteful war on drugs? Start by legalizing Marijuana across the board.

Except that is not true.

American has the MOST guns per capita, and falls straight in the middle of murder rate by nation.

That is only because you are not comparing apples to apples. Bracket the USA in the middle of the first twenty-six countries on the Human Development Index and see where the USA ranks against these countries on murder rates. I’ll give you a hint – the USA has a far higher murder rate than any of those countries. If you want to be bracketed by ten countries on either side of you based on murder rates rather than human development index, then you are midway between second world’s Kyrgyzstan and third world’s Bolivia. Believing that your murder rate is average is just plain silly, for it ignores context. When placed in context, your murder rate is anything but average – it is abysmal.
Even then you are ignoring the elephant in the room. If guns are so darn effective at preventing murders, then the USA, which is awash in guns, should be the safest country in the world, but as set out above, when it comes to murder rates, the USA is only middling when compared against the world, and abysmal when compared against the top couple of dozen countries with high development indices.

Edit by me

That’s not correct at all. Automatic weapons are legal under federal law and about 40 states.

But they’ve made the process of obtaining one an irritating pain in the nuts, and then the cost of buying one prohibitively expensive for most people. Most simply give up on trying to obtain one or simply cannot afford one. The cheapest one I’ve seen lately was over 24 grand.

It is my observation that there are factions who would like to make this so for any kind of firearm. First by making so many things a disqualifier for owning one, then by making the process for getting one exceeding long and finally by making the purchase unreasonably costly. The end result being only the wealthy and elite will be able to buy/posses firearms legally and the right to bear arms for the rest of us will be meaningless.

But the criminal element will still have their illegal arms. I’m sure we all know how uncomplicated it is to make a gun and powder, or to steal one from somebody that has one legally.

Cherrypicked. According to that list the USA falls in the middle. Or compare Americas- the USA ranks 7th* lowest *out of 50 nations in the Americas.

I never said guns are effective at preventing murder.

Also cherrypicked. You’re just suggesting that physical location in the western hemisphere is more important than economic development or per-capita GDP, which strikes me as particularly arbitrary.

Sure, so let’s go back to the *entire freaken world.

Every damn county. All of them.
I mean,** Muffin** wants to compare us to Andorra and Liechtenstein, who *combined *have a population of a little over 100,000. About that of a large American town. Not city. *Town. * About that of Provo or Peoria.