Star Wars Yoda

https://imgflip.com/i/wyt1z

Show me in the constitution where driving a vehicle is a right.

Show me in the constitution where regulating guns and gun ownership is infringing the right to bear arms.

You have a right to free speech too, but that has a few caveats.

US Supreme Court ruled that 2nd amendment restricts congress from making any laws that restrict the right to bear arms and that any limitations on the right to bear arms is vested in the states only.

Obama doesn't want to take away guns. He wants to regulate them. This is a common misconception which I am getting tired of correcting. As for Obamacare, it was a misguided attempt to help people get affordable healthcare. It was a huge f**k-up.

It isn't the government's job to regulate citizen's guns. The constitution is clear on our rights. And regulation is just the start, according to Barack Obama.

Sure it is...and to protect the populace. Gun deaths are of epidemic proportions. The government would enact a protection plan if these people were dying of a certain disease. So the government should protect the people as such.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/04/gun-violence-epidemic-shooting-deaths-public-health-policy

However, taking away or even "regulating" them would not do a damn thing. Cities like Chicago Washington DC and Detroit already have strict gun laws and regulations and they have the highest homicide rates in the country.

I guess if you're dead set on p!ssing on the constitution, you'll believe anything works, including something that has been proven not to work.

This is America! We interpret our Constitution to the letter.

So for anyone who says the government should be regulating and legislating our lives, bear this in mind:

There are only three (3) places in the ENTIRE United States Constitution, including all of the Amendments thereto, where the word REGULATE or any variation thereof appears. Three (3) places where the drafters of the Constitution expressly stated that the Federal Government has the power to regulate something. Of those three only one (1) use of the word regulate is preceded by an adjective mandating a heightened state of Regulation. Here are the first 2:

The Congress shall have Power To REGULATE Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, REGULATE the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

The third one is interesting because not only is there an adjective intended to heighten the requirement for regulation, but the language even takes it a step further by PRESUPOSING the existence of a regulatory mandate. Heavy regulation in this one and ONLY case is a foregone conclusion that MUST exist as a condition precedent to the rights afforded to the people:

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.

This language clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists solely as a caveat to the fact that a Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But this is not just any Militia; it is described as a WELL REGULATED Militia. Thus a strict interpretation of this amendment clearly shows that without the existence of a WELL REGULATED Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed.

But let us assume that there may not be a situation in which a free state can exist unless there in-fact exists a well regulated Militia. It means that the “right of the people to bear arms” may not be infringed if and ONLY if the Militia is actually WELL REGULATED.

In other words, the people’s right to keep and bear arms in the United States may be infringed if the Militia necessary to secure a free state (for which the bearing of arms is the only stated reason the right to bear arms may not be infringed) is not WELL REGULATED.

CONTINUED:

So what does all this mean? It means that the Second Amendment is in fact one that mandates strict gun control laws and regulations in order to ensure that the people are keeping and bearing arms to ENSURE THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. The right of the people to bear arms, therefore, CANNOT exist in a system of unregulated and indiscriminate mass distribution of arms to the unregulated masses among whom are those who will use them in mass shootings and violent crime (by definition the exact opposite of a secure free state). We bear arms so not to live in fear, but if the bearing of arms is not regulated, then the consequences are that the people are living in fear. Living in fear is not freedom; it is Tyranny, the very thing that necessitated the creation of the United States, the Constitution and its Amendments.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/17/1434484/-The-Second-Amendment-Mandates-Infringement-of-the-Right-to-Bear-Arms-What

"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."

You know what a well regulated militia is? They're called police officers. You know what our military is run by? It isn't the private sector.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." which means it is necessary for the government to protect its citizens with not just guns, but other means of fire power.

It continues with, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

This is our founding fathers telling us that we not only need a well regulated militia (a strong police force, military), but also armed citizens. It does not say anything about regulating its citizens. Regulating the police force and the military is what it mentions.

The definition of "infringed" states, "to actively break the terms of." This means that the government SHALL NOT make laws to actively "break" the terms of the 2nd amendment.

your entire premise is faulty because a Militia is not the Police.

mi·li·tia
m??liSH?/Submit
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

There are other forms of militia, but regulation of a militia, not its private citizens. Military is a government run entity and so is the police force. Those are regulated.

Sorry you're just wrong. I'm not going to entertain this any longer.

PS- like it didn't work in Australia?

tee hee

Actually, the government's job is to regulate in general, and that includes guns.

Actually, not they are not. The job of the federal government is to protect its citizens from their enemies, both foreign and domestic and to uphold the constitution. Neither of which they not are currently doing.

That is another job the government is there for, but the government is there to regulate as well. Ever wonder where those regulations come from? That's right: the government!

They are coming to take our light sabers. But they will never take our connection to the Force.