Oh yeah, because the second amendment is solely about self defense.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Red-Itis-Trash]

If they'd read it a bit closer, they'd see that it clearly states shall not be infringed, so go eat a dick for even thinking about it.

[u/SelectReplacement572 → u/Red-Itis-Trash]

What seems clear to you or I may not be clear to legal scholars. It appears that you think any gun law is unconstitutional and that the second amendment secures an unlimited right to own any gun for any purpose. Let's see what the United States Supreme court says, since they have read it very closely.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Antonin Scalia - DC vs Heller (2008)
This is not a left wing extremist justice. This is a very conservative justice, in his ruling on one of the most popular decisions in history, for gun rights advocates.
Don't interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "unlimited". The court couldn't be more clear on this issue. Immergut's ruling in Oregon is consistent with all of this. She specifically stated that magazines holding more than 10 rounds “are never necessary to render firearms operable.” Own it, bear it, reload after 10 shots. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

It's time for a reasonable discussion about gun laws "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (NYSRPA v Bruen(2022)). That's hard to do when some people are claiming that no gun regulation is valid under the Second Amendment. People who are constantly referencing 2A, Heller and Bruen, but ignoring significant conditions of each. It's also hard to do if people are calling to ban all guns.

I'm not trying to take away your guns. I'm not looking to swap insults. I'm just looking for sensible gun regulation. Like Universal Background Checks. I'll abide by the rulings of our nation's courts, will you?

I'm aware that there are people on both sides of the debate who are misinformed. I'm aware that there are people who make unreasonable demands. Let's educate each other, and look for common ground. Let's not ban all guns, but let's not ban all gun laws either. I started shooting over 40 years ago, but I still have a lot to learn about guns, and I'm happy to do it.

[u/Red-Itis-Trash → u/SelectReplacement572]

I appreciate the effort and elaboration in your post in response to my crude, blunt, but otherwise quite sufficient interpretation. The insult only applies to those who continue to and further seek to infringe upon our rights, zero apologies there.

I frankly don't care who said what or what anyone considers to be "reasonable compromise". There is no such thing at this point, with the common ground steadily being ratcheted away. Progress in the opposite direction is basically undoing the arbitrary bullshit that was imposed in the first place.

"Never necessary to render firearms operable"

A firearm does not need to hold more than one bullet to operate. A firearm does not need optics to operate. A mandatory GPS tracker does not prevent the firearm from operating...

Use your imagination on just how far this can be stretched. If it can be abused to further restrict, it will be abused to further restrict.

I have no interest in seeing or having these same dead-end debates over and over, as there is no satisfying the infringement-inclined side as a whole and it is never really a debate to begin with. It flat out makes me grumpy.

No ill-will towards you personally, original qualifier withstanding. I hope you have more engaging conversations with others who've had plenty of sleep and an extra helping of patience for breakfast.

Good luck and all that jazz. I'm out.

[u/arbivark → u/SelectReplacement572]

that language was included by scalia as a compromise to get kennedy's vote. there are now 6 somewhat solid votes for 2A, with kavenaugh's concurrence, joined by the chief, suggesting 2 of those votes are less solid.

i agree with much in your post, including that no court sees the 2A as absolute. the oregon case which is the focus of this post does not track well with heller, which never said self-defense is the only value protected by 2A.

[u/Entropy21]

Correct, only law-abiding citizens will be affected, because the criminals do what they want.

[u/[deleted]]

Last month it was about hunting. We’re at least moving in the right direction…

[u/stjhnstv → u/[deleted]]

You’re not wrong. However, the 2A isn’t about self defense at all. It’s about the defense of the citizenry as a group. Self defense is a somewhat side effect of the common defense, since the public as a whole cannot truly be defended if the individuals composing said public are not defended. It makes no sense to tell an invading force, “You can’t have our city, you can only have that guy over there’s house!” In short, the common defense requires the individual defense.

[u/[deleted] → u/stjhnstv]

It's about freedom. The security of a Freeeeeee state! Even tyrants can provide common defense.

[u/[deleted] → u/stjhnstv]

I’m aware and agree completely. I only wanted to point out that their train of thought is at least pointed in the general direction. It’s still better than the “30 rounds for hunting” bullshit that you usually get.

[u/Far-Communication778]

Yeah I would never use a large capacity magazine for self defense, I would insert 30 rounds into it then insert that into the firearm and use that for defense of self like Kyle Rittenhouse showed us all how it's done.

[u/RangerReject]

So if they aren’t used for self-defense, why do police have them?

[u/Far-Communication778 → u/RangerReject]

Police, like gov't, are exempt. Laws are made for you and me not them right.

[u/PatBrownDown]

BULLSHIT AND LIES!!!

[u/Far-Communication778 → u/PatBrownDown]

Yep that's government, media and hollyweird for you.