That's because you are intellectually dishonest.Tero wrote:Sorry, the guy is pro gun and if he can't get his message in 7 minutes, I am not going to watch it.
Well, yes they are until they demonstrate that they aren't.The truth is, not everyone is entitled to a gun.
Inapt analogy. Everyone is entitled to OWN either a car or an airplane. In fact everyone is entitled to "keep and bear" as many cars or airplanes they can afford.Not everyone is entitled to drive a car either. Or fly a plane.
"Driving" or "flying" a vehicle on public roads or in public airspace is a different thing entirely. You can drive your car on your own private property any time you like, license or not, and you can fly your plane in your own airspace without a license as well, although that's much more difficult because the feds claim title to all airspace you can fly a plane in.
Reasonably regulating the "time, place and manner" of operating a motor vehicle or aircraft is distinguished from the absolute right to own such a vehicle.
So, your analogy is crap because you are arguing about owning, possessing, keeping and bearing of arms, which is explicitly a protected individual right in the US, by using a false equivalency with respect to the OPERATION of firearms, which is something that is already, and always has been, closely and carefully regulated.
I can dispense any drug I like, to myself or to others so long as said drug is not a controlled substance. Furthermore, I can POSSESS any drug that is not banned, provided I have a prescription for said drug if that is required. The government cannot arbitrarily deny my right to keep and bear or dispense drugs that I am qualified to possess and/or dispense. The fact that one has to jump through regulatory hoops in order to be authorized to do so does not mean that the government possesses the power to completely prohibit me from having drugs, with certain exceptions which are themselves constitutionally questionable.Or dispense drugs.
Yes, we do. And when it comes to firearms, they are the single most thoroughly regulated consumer product on earth. The problem is that you think that "ban" and "regulate" are synonymous. They aren't. While the keeping, bearing and operating of firearms can be "regulated," and are all regulated to some degree already, that does not mean that the government has unlimited authority to regulate the keeping, bearing or operating of firearms in any way it chooses to do so. And it particularly does not mean that the government has ANY authority to ban guns at the behest of you or anybody else, no matter how many there are of you who wish the government to do so, because the right to keep and bear arms, unlike the right to keep and bear drugs or the right to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway, is explicitly protected against precisely the sort of government infringement that you are suggesting as a part of our national constitution.We regulate things.
The authority of the government, any government at any level in the US, is carefully constrained and limited in its scope. It can neither ban guns entirely nor can it "regulate" them to effectively render them useless for the lawful purposes for which guns are and have traditionally been used. That's what the Supreme Court says. Any regulation of firearms must pass the "strict scrutiny" test of constitutionality, and the burden is upon the government to prove the necessary elements of that test with respect to any regulation it seeks to impose upon the lawful keeping and bearing of arms.
We do live with "it." We just refuse to let you expand the definition of "it" arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably in violation of our constitutional civil rights.Live with it.
I'm unsurprised that your attention span is smaller than that of a two year-old.I watched 7 minutes.
