That's one radical take on this particular Constitutional right. I doubt you'd have a similar view of the Constitutional right to abortion. But in fact both rights are subject to reasonable regulation that doesn't deny the core right.
If the State can insist on an abortion being performed by doctors with hospital admitting privileges, then the State can insist that private transfers of firearms be accomplished with a licensed gun dealer as a middleman. Do either of these measures amount to sound policy? Perhaps not. But neither, except in extraordinary circumstances, infringes upon the Constitutional right that it regulates.
Bottom line is I'd like to see a bit less hypocrisy by those convinced their cherished Constitutional right is being gored. I've rarely met a pro-2A advocate who was unwilling to savage the abortion right. Just as I've rarely met a pro-abortion advocate who wasn't willing to take your guns away. Rights for me, but not for thee.
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.
This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.
There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...
Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.
Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.
Lest we forget,
the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected
from Government by an armed populace.
By contrast...
NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.
I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those
unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....
Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.
That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.
The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.
It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.
The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised
before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.
But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.
Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?