No it doesn't.

The government's job is to safeguard my rights and liberties. If i must kill someone in self-defense, I have not violated anyone's rights, but instead have had MINE violated.

Self-defense is pretty obviously defined. The only condition which need be met is that the potential victim felt threatened.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Doesn't matter. The will of the majority cannot infringe of the rights of the minority.

From what I have read in commentary so far it looks as though they may actually give a ruling that doesn't simply reference DC.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court were heard yesterday. Really looking forward to reading the opinion(s) of the justices when the case gets decided

Link to PDF

The definitions and perameters of what constitutes "self-defense", is, of course, exactly the type of legal conditions I'm talking about.

I have heard some people actually tell me that they didn't even need to prove self-defense, that they have the right to blow anyone away they wish, for any reason.

Oh, and I certainly hope that legally, the self-defense bit requires a tad more than "I felt threatened." If I was on a jury, I think I'd want a bit more than that. I am no legal expert, but mere feelings make a pretty bad basis for a legal system, in my opinion.

"Your honor, really, I honestly felt like she was eighteen!"

The first, and original government did set legal conditions " The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed"

They didn't write "can be in certain circumstances", or "should not be", they wrote "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Really, it doesn't get any clearer than that.

OOps, sorry, misunderstood. I'll try to pay better attention to your reference.

Cool.

That "infringed" word is problematic. I would argue that an outright ban is certainly infringement, but modifications and conditions just make sense, and is responsible. Just like we don't have completely free speech, because there are certain perameters, like slander/libel laws. We're free to practice whatever religion we want, but there are conditions as to when and where, and the amendment doesn't trump laws prohibiting human sacrifices, say.

So, I don't buy the oft-quoted "libertarian" argument that any law is an infringement of liberty. There's a larger societal context than just the individual to be considered, and the arguments I have heard seem to ignore society in favor of a narrow individual-centric view.

From what I've read, based on the questions the Justices were asking, etc., it looks like the DC law gets overturned, and they may rule there is a right to keep a gun in the house for protection, but I don't think they are anxious to blow away concealed weapons bans, open carry bans, gun free zones, etc. for an unrestricted right to bear arms. So in DC it may be OK to have a handgun in the house for protection, but walk outside with it, and you're in deep shit, is OK.


I don't think they'll give college students the right to keep weapons in their dorm rooms, for example.

I don't think they'll have a problem with the laws that ban guns from courthouses, for another example.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I'm calling bullshit on that.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Not really. The definition is pretty clear.
Ya think?
Name one which is not an infringement. Please feel free to use even the 21st century definition of the word.
BZZT! Wrong. Those laws do not in any way prevent you from speaking, and there is zero prohibition upon saying ANYTHING. On the other hand, you must keep in mind that your words can infringe upon the rights of another, and THAT is what is punished with slander and libel. By speaking/writing false statements about a person, you are violating their rights and should be punished.

Point out for me please how owning or carrying violates anyone's rights. (assume it has been legally obtained)
No there aren't, assuming you do not violate another's rights in the process. You can worship on your own property anytime you want. You can practice whatever religion you please anywhere in the US. What you cannot do is use another's property without their permission to worship. The practice of your religion is not the issue there - the trespass is.
Again - violating another's rights.

You seem to continuously ignore that point.
Nobody said it was.
That IS how the law is written, and you have still not presented any way in which mere ownership of arms violates the rights of another.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

And no one is arguing that here.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Dead serious. One of those all-night BS sessions at the dorm in college. (The dude was pretty out there, politically....)

I suggest you don't use the opinions of one man to generalize an entire political ideology.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) in·fringe·ment /ɪnˈfrɪndʒmənt/
–noun 1. a breach or infraction, as of a law, right, or obligation; violation; transgression.
2. an act of infringing.

Hmm. Nothing in that definition regarding conditionalizing.

We'll see if the SC agrees or not.

What rights, specifically, would be infringed upon of another person? I am unaware of what right people have not to be spoken about.

Eric, I think the biggest reason we talk past each other is that you are more into rights, while I am more into responsibilities. I see conditions put upon gun ownership (registrations, licenses, etc.) as responsible stewardship of the public safety and trust. While individuals have the right to bear arms, the government has the responsibility to ensure the safety of others and to make sure the gun owner is responsible, as well.

I don't understand why that isn't reasonable.

It doesn't, and I don't believe I have ever argued otherwise. Depending on what the SC rules, I might bring a broadsword in to work. (Maybe my customers will know I mean business! )

Might be mixing a few rights, here. Trespassing for ANY purpose is trespassing.

As you constantly ignore any semblance of responsibility.

You see guns as personal protection. I see them as an overt threat.

And I will continue not to do so, unless the law changes.

I think the law is really vague (otherwise nobody would be arguing about it, would they?) and merits a closer look.

But you really don't think that a person walking down Main Street with an M-16, belts of bullet clips, a .50 cal, four Glocks and a few shotguns would be worrisome? Should he be arrested?

If not, there's not much else to say.

If so, then you do acknowledge that there are and need to be perameters that shape and define the conditions of gun laws, to insure the safety of society.

P.S. How about guns on airplanes? Do you consider that prohibition as an infringment of your rights, or a reasonable, responsible condition?

Oh no, this guy was way out there. I suspect he isn't alone, either. But, point taken.