I don’t believe it is either. But since it is a right, it cannot be taken away based merely on an accusation. If it can be, then let’s talk about other steps that we can take to make ourselves safer from suspected terrorists. Let’s renew warrantless wiretaps, for starters.
There is precedent. Civil forfeiture laws allow police to seize property and cash from those accused of crimes (or even suspected of crimes). The IRS can seize property and bank accounts sans any court judgement, and you have to prove you are innocent.
Does the Supreme Court believe that anything is an absolute right?
Really? Prove me so. Start with something simple. Let’s see… How about showing how people slaughtering other people in Chicago shows greater respect for others?
Which is something the libertarian-minded right has been working to end for a long time. Wish we had allies.
But if you do support such stuff, then warrantless wiretaps shouldn’t be controversial for you.
‘Due process is what’s killing us right now’ - Joe Manchin
Damn that 5th amendment anyway.
If “people slaughtering other people” is bad, then less of it is good, right?
I apologize that the facts don’t match your narrative. This can be avoided in the future by being less fucking ignorant.
I found a table showing homicide rates from 1950 to 2014. Interestingly, the homicide rate was lower in 2014 than in 1950. And that’s even without any corrections to the data to account for the fact that historically murders of minorities may not have been properly reported or tracked.
The 1950’s are only talked up as a golden era because certain unnamed low information, low IQ individuals get too much of their information from Fox News.
I hate multi-posting, but here’s historical murder rates from 1910 to 1944. The current murder rate is less than it was at any time from 1910 to 1944, and is less than half what it was at some points during the prohibition era. How many of those killings were happening in Chicago, do you think?
Clothahump? Good luck with that. Even if he had any inclination to learn, he shows no ability to retain information for more than five minutes.
I would agree. Except owning guns is not a right unless you’re a member of a well-regulated militia.
I seem to remember the Supreme Court said different.
Then you would think that the authors would have said “militia members” instead of “the people”.
The amendment uses the words “the right of the people”.
If that doesn’t apply to everyone, then who does it apply to in the other amendments that use that wording? Is that subject to change? Can a court decree that “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment only applies to approved Political parties?
If you want to discuss the exact wording of the Second Amendment, consider the part after the first comma, … the right of the people to [COLOR=“Purple”]keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/COLOR]
One could argue that the right to load and fire is not covered by those verbs, but that would plain be specious and silly: arms is understood to mean useful weapons.
However, it is not obvious that those words encompass “get”, “trade”, “bestow” or “sell”. Which is to say, yeah, you can have all the guns you want, but your right to obtain them is not unambiguously protected from infringement.
Given that interpretation, there’s pretty much nothing you can’t do to someone on the terrorist watch list. You can’t put them in jail and that’s about it.
Huh? How does that follow?
Well, if you can take away anything that isn’t a right without due process, and you interpret rights extremely narrowly as you have just done, then that doesn’t leave a lot beyond the reach of authorities based just on suspicion.
Just a quick update:
It’s a clear landslide in the making - Republicans lead Liberals 29,650 to 4,817. If commentary has any correlation with ‘Stupid Ideas’ it’s not even a contest. 
On the other hand, if you interpret the 2nd as extremely broadly as you seem to do, it takes away my rights, as touch upon by “… insure domestic Tranquility … and secure the Blessings of Liberty …” in the preamble. The society that gundamentalists crave conflicts with the society that I would prefer, how should we reach accord? To I have to slaughter gun nuts in order to eventually start to feel safe? Because if I threaten their guns, I expect they will be eventually inclined to use them to silence me.
Also, one might consider the context of the amendment, not, as has been done to death, in terms of the difference in weapons technology, but in terms of availability. A decent musket would have cost you $10~15. An actual rifle 4 to 5 times that. Most Americans would struggle to set aside that kind of money. There were gunsmiths, not so much store shelves loaded with affordable guns. So, in terms of keeping the Second in sync with the times, the aspect of trade is a nontrivial consideration.
I mean, the Second Amendment very well may protect my right to have SAMs, hand grenades or thermonuclear bombs, but it certainly does not protect my right to get my hands on those kinds of things in the first place. Much less sell them.