I agree. But the 2A does not provide specific protection of that right.
Because Rights are inherent and inalienable. Government has no authority to infringe upon them, regulate them, tax them or turn them into government-granted privileges. Which is what you advocate. The Second Amendment EXPLICITLY tells government it MAY NOT INFRINGE on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means it may not "reasonably regulate" it, license it, tax it or require insurance and government approval before you are allowed to keep and bear (meaning USE) arms.
The 2A doesn't limit the government's ability to infringe on a natural right. It is concerned with the preservation of conditions for the citizens' militia.
Unmitigated bovine excrement. Government has no authority to infringe on any natural Right - including the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with preserving 'conditions' for a citizen's militia. It explicitly stated that the security of a free state was dependent upon every male owning a firearm, knowing how to use it - and being able to bring it with him when called up. Well-regulated meant such a militia was well-armed with weapons of warfare, capable and able to follow orders to conduct the defense of the state.
Yes - but the admonishment against infringement is in the context of the citizens' militia.
That's the same stupid avenue as insisting the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard. A free state was dependent upon every able-bodied man to defend it (there was no standing army at the time it was ratified) with HIS OWN ARMS and the requirement was to be proficient and well-supplied, and therefore - since the Constitution specifically addresses government and not The People - the militia in terms of the defense of the state was to be untouched - and the people's right to keep and bear arms not permitted to be infringed.
It wasn't until Heller that the SCOTUS acknowledged the Constitution's limitation against government infringement of the natural right.
WRONG. We do not need a court to acknowledge an inalienable right before it can be recognized as a right. The tis just another tactic to make Rights a construct and province of government.
You're putting the rabbit in the hat. I have never advocated "abolishment"...
That is where all your stupid suggestions go and end up - as is the design and intent of them. REGARDLESS of what you assert otherwise.
But all rights are subject to reasonable regulation
There you go again, relegating inalienable rights to mere government-granted privileges.
- permits are required for speeches and demonstrations, and IMO, registration and insurance should be required as a condition of lawful gun ownership.
All of that illegal, unconstitutional and having made our Rights into government-granted privileges and licenses.
Regulation of a natural right doesn't convert it into a privilege.
Yes it does. Period. End of sentence.
If you can 'regulate' a Right - then it no longer exists as a 'right' unless Government grants the permission to exercise that "right" if certain conditions are met.
THAT is called a government granted PRIVILEGE, NOT a Right.
A Right is that which exists outside of the authority of men to limit, restrict, violate or abolish
Regulation is generally prescribed to address situations where the unfettered exercise of a right may harm others or compel the government to expend resources to preserve the public safety.
Then they are not rights at all. Mere privileges that the government can restrict, regulate, tax or abolish as it sees the need and desire to do so.
All you are doing is arguing why Rights belong to the government to establish parameters required before one is permitted to exercise it.
Which again, redefines a Right into a government-granted privilege.
Which is what you are all about: empowering the state to impose your will.
