Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Blueshell]

"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."Bold added by me for emphasis....

infringe: definition of infringe in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

infringe
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: in·fringe
Pronunciation: /inˈfrinj/
Definition of infringe in English:
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
1Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
More example sentences
Synonyms
1.1Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold and underline added by me for emphasis....

You would limit the right to keep arms to only the methods you consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and most importantly... "acceptable". You are advocating infringing upon the right to keep arms. There it is in plain English with cites and links.

All infringements are limits, but not all limits are infringements. Logic 101.

2. 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. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER

Did you catch that? "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:".

In order to be an infringement, a limitation has to undermine the right. Any limitation that does not undermine the right, is not an infringement. A requirement to lock your gun when not under your immediate control does not undermine your right to keep and bear at all.

And fyi, The Free Dictionary isn't even a credible dictionary, let alone a valid legal source.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Some are sheep...some are not.

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

All infringements are limits, but not all limits are infringements. Logic 101.

2. 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. Pp. 54–56.

Link Removed

Did you catch that? "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:".

That legal fiction comes from the same body of oligarchs that invented the legal fiction of "strict scrutiny," which BTW, doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, but is still an abomination to the intended meaning of every single word of the Constitution and its attendant Amendments nonetheless.

In order to be an infringement, a limitation has to undermine the right. Any limitation that does not undermine the right, is not an infringement. A requirement to lock you gun when not under your immediate control does not undermine your right to keep and bear at all.

What utter nonsensical double-speak. In order for an infringement to be an infringement it must infringe, period.

And fyi, The Free Dictionary isn't even a credible dictionary, let alone a valid legal source.

Since Marbury vs. Madison (1803), the same can be said, and is just as true, of the oligarchs who have sat, or who are now sitting, on the Supreme Court.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

That legal fiction comes from the same body of oligarchs that invented the legal fiction of "strict scrutiny," which BTW, doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, but is still an abomination to the intended meaning of every single word of the Constitution and its attendant Amendments nonetheless.



What utter nonsensical double-speak. In order for an infringement to be an infringement it must infringe, period.



Since Marbury vs. Madison (1803), the same can be said, and is just as true, of the oligarchs who have sat, or who are now sitting, on the Supreme Court.

Blues

You dismissing the authority of the Supreme Court in no way diminishes the Supreme Court's authority.

Please come back if you ever come up with an intelligent thought

 

[BluesStringer]

You dismissing the authority of the Supreme Court in no way diminishes the Supreme Court's authority.

Please come back if you ever come up with an intelligent thought

You're rather dense, so I have to spell it out for you. I fully recognize and accept the authority of SCOTUS as-described within The Constitution. The Founders left a process in place to take care of anything they forgot or anything deemed necessary because of societal changes etc. over time. That process is called the amendment process, not the Supreme Court.

It is SCOTUS' legitimacy as a governmental entity that acts outside of it's granted authority that I dismiss, not it's granted authority.

When you come up with something that doesn't sound like it's coming from a government boot-licking badgefluffer, then you will have offered your first intelligent thought in this thread.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

All infringements are limits, but not all limits are infringements. Logic 101.


Did you catch that? "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:".

In order to be an infringement, a limitation has to undermine the right. Any limitation that does not undermine the right, is not an infringement. A requirement to lock you gun when not under your immediate control does not undermine your right to keep and bear at all.

And fyi, The Free Dictionary isn't even a credible dictionary, let alone a valid legal source.

You can attack the source of my cites/links because you do not agree with the cites/links but then....

Originally posted by Bikenut...

nfringe
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: in·fringe
Pronunciation: /inˈfrinj/
Definition of infringe in English:
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
1Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
More example sentences
Synonyms
1.1Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold and underline added by me for emphasis....

Did you catch the source? Did you understand that the source defined an infringement as .... LIMIT or UNDERMINE? Which, despite your attempt at (un)clever logic twisting, means any and all limits or undermining of the right to keep (and bear) arms are infringements.

FYI.... you can double talk all you want but the end result is I have shown that limits are infringements regardless of whether you, or any branch/agency of the government including the Supreme Court, agree with the plain language definitions of the words used in the 2nd Amendment.

Try as you might to justify your personal belief that rights should be limited and undermined as long as you agree with what undermines and limits any undermining and limitations upon the right to KEEP arms are infringements. You have bought into the idea that it is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", to control rights with limits/restrictions/conditions/criteria... as long as you agree with those limits/restrictions/conditions/criteria. Which tells me that you are not interested in the right to keep arms but are only interested in requiring other people keep their arms in ways you personally agree with. Kinda like how the government, including the Supreme Court, is only interested in requiring people keep (and bear) arms in ways that they consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable"... and that is easily translated as ways the right can be limited and undermined in order to be controlled.

If a thing can be limited/restricted/undermined/and controlled by those in authority then it is not a right but is a privilege subject to the whims of those in authority.

And your posts repeatedly show that you want people to .... keep (store)... their arms only in ways that you approve of effectively changing the right to keep arms into the privilege to keep arms according to Blueshell's personal opinions/beliefs of what is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

You know what? At first I thought I was wasting my time trying to give you some insight as to what the right to keep arms really is but now I realize I should thank you for giving me, and a few others, the opportunity to expose anyone following this discussion to the truth of what the words "right" and "keep" and "infringe" in the 2nd Amendment really mean. Yes indeed... I should thank you.

 

[Hatchetman]

Preventing unauthorized access to your firearms has nothing to do with FUDS, safety nazis or liberals. It has to do with common sense, which the lack thereof gets people killed: 7-Year-Old Boy Dead After Accidentally Shot in Head in Crossville, or purse carry makes no sense if you leave the purse in your car with your 4 kids.

Here is the answer in your own stupid words about your idiotic challenge about post #35 ...... YOU ADVOCATE/PROMOTE/LIKE/WISH UPON OTHERS LAWS ABOUT FIREARMS STORAGE, WHICH IS 100% INFRINGEMENT!!! get a clue skippy.....

 

[Yaki]

This is how kids get access to guns. Keep it on your person or in a locked safe.

Not everyone has young kids. Not everyone has kids visit. Would I use it, no. If the magazine isn't inserted then it's useless. I keep my firearm chambered and safety off and in the open.
I don't ever keep my firearms locked up. My daughter needs to be able to defend herself should my home be invaded and I'm not around. She has been around d them since birth and doesn't see them as toys.
If all people who own firearms taught kids a healthy respect for firearms they wouldn't be playing with them and shooting each other.

Link Removed
(Tactical Walls.com)​

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Preventing unauthorized access to your firearms has nothing to do with FUDS, safety nazis or liberals. It has to do with common sense, which the lack thereof gets people killed: 7-Year-Old Boy Dead After Accidentally Shot in Head in Crossville, or purse carry makes no sense if you leave the purse in your car with your 4 kids.

Here is the answer in your own stupid words about your idiotic challenge about post #35 ...... YOU ADVOCATE/PROMOTE/LIKE/WISH UPON OTHERS LAWS ABOUT FIREARMS STORAGE, WHICH IS 100% INFRINGEMENT!!! get a clue skippy.....

I simply do not. I asked you to point me to a post where I did. The post you quote simply and clearly argues that "purse carry makes no sense if you leave the purse in your car with your 4 kids." I do not advocate/promote/like/wish upon others any laws about firearms storage in this post. Any firearms storage laws are simply a pretext to unconstitutional searches, registration and confiscation. As I posted in post #7:

Blueshell and I have merely posted our OPINION, so did you. We are still allowed to have our own opinion and to post it publicly, do we? Neither I or Blueshell infringed upon your rights. You are free to behave stupidly and we are free to call out stupid behavior. However, you are telling me that merely posting an opinion somehow infringes upon your rights. It seems to me that you have a problem with other people's free speech. I have every right trying to tell you how to conduct yourself. I have no right to force you to. You don't seem to grasp the difference between a discussion about people doing stupid things and a government overreach of preventing people from doing stupid things by enacting nanny-state laws. Again, you are free to do with your property whatever you want. However, we are also free to call out those people that do stupid things.

As a side note. You don't know me, my family or my history, so don't accuse me of anything that you can't back up with facts. You just sound stupid, especially considering my other posts in this forum.

Once again, you sound like an idiot as you don't understand the difference between a discussion about people doing stupid things and a government overreach of preventing people from doing stupid things by enacting nanny-state laws. If you think that the mere discussion of safely handling firearms is a support for gun control laws than you clearly have a screw loose, as you just accused the entire gun community/culture, every firearms instructor and the entire firearms industry of infringing your rights.

And before you completely lose it, I agreed with Blueshell's first post only. I disagreed with your first post in response to that.

 

[FNWylde]

I skipped from page one to page 7 just to post a comment on the picture in the OP. If that gun is flush with the styrofoam the best way to dig it out appears to be by the trigger guard and using two hands. That's the last way I'd want to have 'easy access' to a loaded and chambered da/sa pistol. IMO, lose the fitted foam and line the box with a soft cloth. One hand grab instead of two...because you might need the other one to defend yourself. YMMV.

 

[Rhino]

That picture was just for visual effect to highlight the fact that the foam is customizable. Standard marketing tactic.

 

[Blueshell]

Which, despite your attempt at (un)clever logic twisting, means any and all limits or undermining of the right to keep (and bear) arms are infringements.

You're confusing how a word can be used in the general language, ie layman's speak, and how that word applies in the legal context. English is terrible for this.

Not all limits are infringements, the minimum age requirement being the example you keep ignoring. Another limit which is not an infringement is a ban on those "adjudicated as a mental defective" due to uncontrollable violence and/or sever intelligence handicap.

FYI.... you can double talk all you want but the end result is I have shown that limits are infringements regardless of whether you, or any branch/agency of the government including the Supreme Court, agree with the plain language definitions of the words used in the 2nd Amendment.

I enjoy how you accuse others of double talk yet you keep citing a federal law while dismissing federal authority. "Shall not be infringed" means any proposed limitation must comply with the rules, in this case it's Strict Scrutiny. Requiring someone to be of the Age of Majority (18) does not undermine the right to keep and bear arms, for example, while the machine gun ban does undermine the right.

Try as you might to justify your personal belief that rights should be limited and undermined as long as you agree with what undermines and limits any undermining and limitations upon the right to KEEP arms are infringements.

A limitation isn't necessarily an infringement. It can be, but it might not be. A given limit has to be tested with Strict Scrutiny in order to find out.

You have bought into the idea that it is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", to control rights with limits/restrictions/conditions/criteria... as long as you agree with those limits/restrictions/conditions/criteria. Which tells me that you are not interested in the right to keep arms but are only interested in requiring other people keep their arms in ways you personally agree with. Kinda like how the government, including the Supreme Court, is only interested in requiring people keep (and bear) arms in ways that they consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable"... and that is easily translated as ways the right can be limited and undermined in order to be controlled.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If a thing can be limited/restricted/undermined/and controlled by those in authority then it is not a right but is a privilege subject to the whims of those in authority.

When you use your gun against someone, you are limiting their right to life. No right is unlimited. Since all rights are limited, there are are no rights, according to your standard.

And your posts repeatedly show that you want people to .... keep (store)... their arms only in ways that you approve of effectively changing the right to keep arms into the privilege to keep arms according to Blueshell's personal opinions/beliefs of what is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

No right is unlimited. A limit isn't necessarily an infringement. A limit can be an infringement, but it might not be. A given limit has to be tested with Strict Scrutiny in order to see.

Our seconnd amendment comes from the English Bill of Rights (1689), stating "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;". This right was limited then as it is now.

You know what? At first I thought I was wasting my time trying to give you some insight as to what the right to keep arms really is but now I realize I should thank you for giving me, and a few others, the opportunity to expose anyone following this discussion to the truth of what the words "right" and "keep" and "infringe" in the 2nd Amendment really mean. Yes indeed... I should thank you.

I propose a toast: To endless conversations :smile:

 

[Hatchetman]

You're confusing how a word can be used in the general language, ie layman's speak, and how that word applies in the legal context. English is terrible for this.

Not all limits are infringements, the minimum age requirement being the example you keep ignoring. Another limit which is not an infringement is a ban on those "adjudicated as a mental defective" due to uncontrollable violence and/or sever intelligence handicap.



I enjoy how you accuse others of double talk yet you keep citing a federal law while dismissing federal authority. "Shall not be infringed" means any proposed limitation must comply with the rules, in this case it's Strict Scrutiny. Requiring someone to be of the Age of Majority (18) does not undermine the right to keep and bear arms, for example, while the machine gun ban does undermine the right.


A limitation isn't necessarily an infringement. It can be, but it might not be. A given limit has to be tested with Strict Scrutiny in order to find out.


You say that like it's a bad thing.


When you use your gun against someone, you are limiting their right to life. No right is unlimited. Since all rights are limited, there are are no rights, according to your standard.


No right is unlimited. A limit isn't necessarily an infringement. A limit can be an infringement, but it might not be. A given limit has to be tested with Strict Scrutiny in order to see.

Our seconnd amendment comes from the English Bill of Rights (1689), stating "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;". This right was limited then as it is now.


I propose a toast: To endless conversations :smile:

Proof of you being nothing but a troll.

 

[Blueshell]

Proof of you being nothing but a troll.

You're mad because you know I'm right.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You have bought into the idea that it is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", to control rights with limits/restrictions/conditions/criteria... as long as you agree with those limits/restrictions/conditions/criteria. Which tells me that you are not interested in the right to keep arms but are only interested in requiring other people keep their arms in ways you personally agree with. Kinda like how the government, including the Supreme Court, is only interested in requiring people keep (and bear) arms in ways that they consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable"... and that is easily translated as ways the right can be limited and undermined in order to be controlled.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Yes, that is a bad thing. That is how we ended up with 20,000+ gun control laws (you know... those "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" INFRINGEMENTS!) that do not stop criminals from using guns to harm people.

But then... you agree with the idea that the right to keep an arm should be limited/undermined to the point where people can't keep (have) a gun in any manner unless it is locked up or on their person. Those are your words.... the same kind of words every anti gunner/anti gunner lite uses to justify wanting to limit/undermine the right to keep arms to their own personal idea/belief of what should be... acceptable.

And the government requiring a person be a certain age is an infringement... those who are adjudicated as unfit is also an infringement. The right to keep and bear arms is absolute... any limits/restrictions upon that are infringements. Having said that.... those who use the right to keep and bear arms to do harm (whether nutty or criminal) need to be held accountable by being incarcerated or put in a hospital. If that person cannot be trusted with a gun in public then that person stays in the hospital or prison. That is called being held responsible for the actions taken while exercising the right to keep/bear arms. Everything else, including those 20,000+ gun control laws, has already been shown to not work.

 

[Blueshell]

Yes, that is a bad thing. That is how we ended up with 20,000+ gun control laws (you know... those "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" INFRINGEMENTS!) that do not stop criminals from using guns to harm people.

'Safe storage' isn't meant to stop criminals. It's meant to stop children and the generally irresponsible from causing a negligent injury.

The primary sources of firearms for criminals are straw purchases and corrupt FFLs. 'Safe storage' isn't even intended to adress that.

But then... you agree with the idea that the right to keep an arm should be limited/undermined to the point where people can't keep (have) a gun in any manner unless it is locked up or on their person. Those are your words.... the same kind of words every anti gunner/anti gunner lite uses to justify wanting to limit/undermine the right to keep arms to their own personal idea/belief of what should be... acceptable.

And the government requiring a person be a certain age is an infringement... those who are adjudicated as unfit is also an infringement. The right to keep and bear arms is absolute... any limits/restrictions upon that are infringements. Having said that.... those who use the right to keep and bear arms to do harm (whether nutty or criminal) need to be held accountable by being incarcerated or put in a hospital. If that person cannot be trusted with a gun in public then that person stays in the hospital or prison. That is called being held responsible for the actions taken while exercising the right to keep/bear arms. Everything else, including those 20,000+ gun control laws, has already been shown to not work.

No right is unlimited.

 

[Blueshell]

Yes, that is a bad thing. That is how we ended up with 20,000+ gun control laws (you know... those "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" INFRINGEMENTS!) that do not stop criminals from using guns to harm people.

Most of them are infringements, like the Gun Free School Zone Act, but some of them are not, like the minimum age requirement.

But then... you agree with the idea that the right to keep an arm should be limited/undermined to the point where people can't keep (have) a gun in any manner unless it is locked up or on their person.

A limitation doesn't necessarily undermine. I support minimal safe storage like a trigger lock, not extreme safe-storage like Chicago's former requirement to dismantle the gun and store in a rated safe separate from ammunition. The safe storage I support does not undermine the right, while Chicago's safe-storage did. This is demonstrated by applying Strict Scrutiny to each.

Those are your words.... the same kind of words every anti gunner/anti gunner lite uses to justify wanting to limit/undermine the right to keep arms to their own personal idea/belief of what should be... acceptable.

Sometimes personal belief isn't good enough. Sometimes there needs to be a standard.

And the government requiring a person be a certain age is an infringement...

That would depend on the age. New York is trying to rais the minimum age to own any firearm, even a musket (reenactments are populer in NY and many own civil war era firearms) to 25. We can see that's an infringement by applying Strict Scrutiny and observing that the limitation is not "narrowly tailored".

An age limit of 12 for youth hunting, however, is not an infringement as that is the typical age the avarage child can maintain control of an intermediate or hevy cartrage rifle while standing.

That being said my son's both learned to shoot a .22 when they were 6 and 8, respectively, firing from the prone.

those who are adjudicated as unfit is also an infringement.

The mentaly deficient cannot control themselves and are thus a public hazzard. By applying Strict Scrutiny we can see that the state has a compelling interest is public saftey, the limit is narrowly tailored to only those deemed by a court to be deficient after evidence is examined, and the same respects Due Process. Arming a person who cannot use lethal force appropriately is pure insanity.

The right to keep and bear arms is absolute...

No right is absolute.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Civil Right, originating from and conditional to the social contract of Christianity from England. The right to keep and bear arms was never limitless as even Jesus stopped an apostle from attacking a Roman solder who came to take Jesus to trial, even healing the soldier's ear from the sword cut.

 

[Hatchetman]

No right is absolute.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Civil Right, originating from and conditional to the social contract of Christianity from England. The right to keep and bear arms was never limitless as even Jesus stopped an apostle from attacking a Roman solder who came to take Jesus to trial, even healing the soldier's ear from the sword cut.

There you go again... CLAIMING THAT THE USE OF AN ARM (FIREARM/SWORD/KNIFE) to harm another is without consequences just because it is a RIGHT to have and carry them..... What convoluted bullcrap! You really are demented! You havent the faintest CLUE what rights are, and how to practice them, or that they are ONLY valid as long as they dont infringe on others rights, hence, you DO have the RIGHT to bear arms, but you do NOT have the right to USE THOSE ARMS TO INFRINGE ON ANOTHERS RIGHTS..... So, the 2nd amendment does NOT allow you to murder someone, or cut off their ear (your effing STUPID example of your way of thinking) without a valid self defense reason!!!!!

 

[Blueshell]

There you go again... CLAIMING THAT THE USE OF AN ARM (FIREARM/SWORD/KNIFE) to harm another is without consequences just because it is a RIGHT to have and carry them..... What convoluted bullcrap! You really are demented! You havent the faintest CLUE what rights are, and how to practice them, or that they are ONLY valid as long as they dont infringe on others rights, hence, you DO have the RIGHT to bear arms, but you do NOT have the right to USE THOSE ARMS TO INFRINGE ON ANOTHERS RIGHTS..... So, the 2nd amendment does NOT allow you to murder someone, or cut off their ear (your effing STUPID example of your way of thinking) without a valid self defense reason!!!!!

You're mad because you know I'm right.

The second amendment doesn't give any right at all, let allone one that could excuse murder. The second amendment is but a limitation placed on the federal government, and states to a much lesser degree.

In your rage you're not even responding to what I've said.

I said that lawful use of lethal force limited another's right to life, as a demonstration that every right has a limit. "Your rights end where mine begin" means your rights do end at some point. They all have a limit.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Yes, that is a bad thing. That is how we ended up with 20,000+ gun control laws (you know... those "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" INFRINGEMENTS!) that do not stop criminals from using guns to harm people.

Most of them are infringements, like the Gun Free School Zone Act, but some of them are not, like the minimum age requirement.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
But then... you agree with the idea that the right to keep an arm should be limited/undermined to the point where people can't keep (have) a gun in any manner unless it is locked up or on their person.

A limitation doesn't necessarily undermine. I support minimal safe storage like a trigger lock, not extreme safe-storage like Chicago's former requirement to dismantle the gun and store in a rated safe separate from ammunition. The safe storage I support does not undermine the right, while Chicago's safe-storage did. This is demonstrated by applying Strict Scrutiny to each.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Those are your words.... the same kind of words every anti gunner/anti gunner lite uses to justify wanting to limit/undermine the right to keep arms to their own personal idea/belief of what should be... acceptable.

Sometimes personal belief isn't good enough. Sometimes there needs to be a standard.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And the government requiring a person be a certain age is an infringement...

That would depend on the age. New York is trying to rais the minimum age to own any firearm, even a musket (reenactments are populer in NY and many own civil war era firearms) to 25. We can see that's an infringement by applying Strict Scrutiny and observing that the limitation is not "narrowly tailored".

An age limit of 12 for youth hunting, however, is not an infringement as that is the typical age the avarage child can maintain control of an intermediate or hevy cartrage rifle while standing.

That being said my son's both learned to shoot a .22 when they were 6 and 8, respectively, firing from the prone.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
those who are adjudicated as unfit is also an infringement.

The mentaly deficient cannot control themselves and are thus a public hazzard. By applying Strict Scrutiny we can see that the state has a compelling interest is public saftey, the limit is narrowly tailored to only those deemed by a court to be deficient after evidence is examined, and the same respects Due Process. Arming a person who cannot use lethal force appropriately is pure insanity.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The right to keep and bear arms is absolute...

No right is absolute.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Civil Right, originating from and conditional to the social contract of Christianity from England. The right to keep and bear arms was never limitless as even Jesus stopped an apostle from attacking a Roman solder who came to take Jesus to trial, even healing the soldier's ear from the sword cut.

And there you go some more..... applying your personal beliefs of what is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

Rights are absolute. The only people who do not understand that are people who want to control that right with restrictions, conditions, criteria, and limits.

Everyone, including the mentally unfit, the felon, and children, have the right to keep and bear arms because the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that human beings are born with just because they are born. It has nothing to do with social contracts from England (social contract of Christianity from England? Now that is a new one from left field I've not heard before.) but is a natural right (some say God given right) everyone is born with.

Parents are responsible for teaching children, released felons were forced to be responsible for their crime by serving time but once they served their time that responsibility has been fulfilled, family/society is responsible for putting the mentally unfit into a hospital. There isn't any need to control the gun... but there is a need to control those who use guns irresponsibly. You want to control an inanimate object that people use instead of controlling those who use that object irresponsibly. You do not know what a right is but you certainly do know you want to control others and your entire post shows it.

You said:

Originally posted by Blueshell
A limitation doesn't necessarily undermine. I support minimal safe storage like a trigger lock, not extreme safe-storage like Chicago's former requirement to dismantle the gun and store in a rated safe separate from ammunition. The safe storage I support does not undermine the right, while Chicago's safe-storage did. This is demonstrated by applying Strict Scrutiny to each.

I will say that your notion of control might be of a lesser degree than what Chicago wanted but it is still the infringement of forcing a limitation on the storage (keeping) of arms. The only difference being you disagree with Chicago's notion of gun storage (keeping) but wholeheartedly agree with your notion of gun storage (keeping) yet both are limitations on the right to keep (store) arms. But your method of control (limiting keeping) is Ok because, after Scrutiny it isn't as Strict as Chicago... right?

I will agree there needs to be a standard... and that standard should be holding those, the individual persons, who use the right to keep and bear arms responsible for any harm they do while keeping and bearing arms.... not a standard of who, when, where, how, why, and with what, arms should be allowed to be kept and borne.

But what you are saying is that any standard of keeping arms that is more strict than your personal standard limits the right to keep arms and is an infringement but your personal standard doesn't? Why is it so difficult to understand that any standard, any criteria, any rule, any law, that limits the right to keep arms is an infringement? It is not a matter of agreeing with the degree of limiting that sets the standard of infringement... the very fact that there is a standard of any kind that limits the right in any way is an infringement.