You may assume whatever you wish to assume while you bloviate but that still doesn't necessarily make your assumptions accurate. The fact that SCOTUS has declared that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right has rather far reaching ramifications. SCOTUS has declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right meaning any gun control legislation is now subject to strict review rather than rational review. Passing restrictive gun laws that can possibly endanger lives with unproven benefits will not pass court muster.As an example restricting law abiding citizens to a seven round magazine in NYS certainly puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage since the criminal who could care less about gun laws will still have his Glock with a fifteen round magazine. Attorney Alan Gura who has the Heller and McDonald victories under his belt said the new NYS gun laws are unconstitutional.<quoted text>
NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST AN INDIVIDUALS' RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!! NO ONE!!!
Why do you keep bringing it up?
The ONLY point of contention is whether or not anyone has any right, be it real or imagined, to possess/own ANY type of firearm...that is all.
Perhaps if you were to stop confusing the issue with innuendo, supposition and conjecture, we might actually be able to both realize some sort of progress in this debate...?
I get it that you THINK that you should be able to possess or own any type of firearm you'd like, I even understand that you THINK that the Constitution extends to you this perception of a right to own or possess any type of firearm that you like, but merely THINKING that you should doesn't lend any credence to the actuality/reality of the matter, nor will imposing your existentialistic ideology on the issue.
There are people out there in the World who THINK they should be allowed to rape other people, who THINK that they should be allowed to molest children, who THINK that they should be allowed to rob or murder people even, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, yet merely THINKING that one should be allowed to do or possess or own something does not stand to automatically confer any actual entitlement to the desire/want/possession/ownersh ip of such.
See what you get for thinking?
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) cited statistics showing that in nearly half of defensive firearm uses, there are two or more attackers, and in nearly 25 percent, there are three or more attackers.
Fordham Law Professor Johnson states that under the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, declaring the Second Amendment to protect a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear all bearable arms for defensive purposes, for gun-ban legislation to survive "requires something far more than simply rational basis. That is, it's not an automatic deference to whatever the legislature does, because now, what we're talking about is a constitutional right."
With that in mind we shall see which "responsible" gun laws survive constitutional challenges to our "fundamental"right to keep and bear arms.
Isn't thinking fun?