1. That's silly. " inherently unhealthy??
1. So what.
That is incorrect. The purpose of a self defense firearm is to prevent death or injury.
That is incorrect. However, that is the purpose of a hunting gun.
Bathtubs are inherently dangerous. Just ask the relatives of people who have drowned in a bathtub.
Because thousands of years ago our ancestors were wise enough to make keeping and bearing arms a core right of all free people.
You’d be wrong.
Wrong again.
The “special protections” you claim, aren’t. Firearms manufacturers share the same legal responsibilities (and then some) and liabilities as other products.
How do you think a firearm functions?
There in nothing inherent in a right to self-defense that includes possession of a firearm.
You think this ^ nonsense deflection/obfuscation helps your argument?
There is fundamentally no way to control the resultant behavior of a projectile fired from a gun.
Your dumbest, most disingenuous argument yet in support of suing manufacturers for the deliberate illegal use of their properly functioning product.
Okay, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms does include an inherent right to possess firearms.
This namecalling is a poor substitute for a good argument.
Bathtubs and stairways are inherently dangerous too.
Request denied. The answer is no. We will not be doing that.
Umm..
Purely arbitrary interpretation and imposition of personal bias in Heller.
Not really. You do not seem to understand the concept.
That is incorrect. It was an objective statement of historical fact from centuries before the United States even existed.
The people who have been killed by bathtubs and stairways would beg to differ.
Do you understand the SCOTUS interprets Constitutional law and, as such, the ruling are OPINIONS?
Apparently you have not bothered to learn about inherently dangerous devices.
Supreme Court rulings have nothing whatsoever to do with the concrete statements of historical fact that I posted.
I am well aware of the fact that people die from both bathtubs and stairways.
Your interpretations and claims are not "fact", except in your own mind, although you could add support to your claims by historical substantiation (references).
What is an "inherent right"?
Are you suggesting that a "right" exists without reference to any action by humans?
Dying is not the determinant of "inherently dangerous". Look up the definition.
That is incorrect. My claims are fact.
There is no need. No cite has been reasonably requested of me. In fact, no cite at all has been requested of me.
Inherent
There are natural rights that all humans possess regardless of law. However, other rights are codified by law.
How does someone use a weapon that has never even existed?
Of course they have that right. They are people too.
All you need to do is not prevent them from owning guns.
All the people who died from bathtubs and stairways would beg to differ.
You assert a firearm right as though it is unrelated to law or jurisdiction as a "natural right" inherent in being a human, yet how could that be a right before
So you do not think that having vision is not necessary to operate a firearm safely???
Now you are willing to suspend a natural right for certain individuals.
No I don't. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was codified into law. I never claimed that it is a natural right.
You are the only one here who is talking about future weapons. It will fall to you to provide the answers to these questions.
I didn't say that. But since you raise the issue, it may well be possible for a blind person to fire a gun based on sounds made by whatever is attacking him.
No I'm not.
I think you claimed that it has been a right since before there were laws to regulate firearms.
You asserted that possessing firearms was a right since they were invented.
Explain the limits that should be placed on possession of firearms under your concept of the firearm right.
I'm not sure if this was supposed to be sarcastic or not about the parents buying gang members guns, but it definitely amusing to imagine a member of a gang going up to their parents to ask them to buy them a gun.Ah yes, gang members have their parents buying guns for them, and when they do and those gang members commit crimes, the parente never see a case.
Correct. The right to keep and bear ARMS is not specific to guns. It was created long before guns were invented.
The earliest codification that I am aware of, of a right to use GUNS in sporting competitions and to defend one's home, was in 1541.
Until the gun control movement:
www.97percent.us
Firearms were invented in China in the 11th Century.Correct. The right to keep and bear ARMS is not specific to guns. It was created long before guns were invented.
Before guns it was English longbows.
Before the English longbow it was melee weapons.
"(2) Whichever free laymen who have chattels or rent of 16 marks should have a hauberk and helmet and shield and lancea;"
"whichever free layman has chattels or rent of 10 marks must have a habergeon [aubergel], an iron cap and a lancea."
"(3) Likewise all burgesses and the whole body of free men must have a gambeson [wambais], an iron cap and a lancea."
https://web.archive.org/web/20210926102228/penultimateharn.com/history/armsassize.html
The earliest codification that I am aware of, of a right to use GUNS in sporting competitions and to defend one's home, was in 1541.
That is pretty close to the invention of effective firearms, especially in England.
Until the gun control movement:
a) stops violating our civil liberties, AND
b) stops trying to violate our civil liberties, AND
c) pays full compensation for all their past violations of our civil liberties,
I oppose any and all gun regulations.
If my above conditions are ever met, I could then support the "97 Percent" proposals with the exception of red flag laws, which violate due process rights. I favor yellow flag laws instead of red flag laws.
ROADMAP — 97Percent