Guns

[accelafine]

So not guaranteed then.

[Impenitent]

So not guaranteed then.

guaranteed as far as it is absolutely codified in the constitution and law

I think you are meaning something different with the term guaranteed...

-Imp

[commonsense]

So not guaranteed then.

Gun ownership is guaranteed to some, not guaranteed to all. And the license is a tool for excluding those to whom ownership is not guaranteed.

There’s something wrong with this process, but that’s the way it is.

[Age]

Hunter has the second amendment right and may have his conviction overturned on appeal on those grounds...

the right to own is guaranteed, but like everything else, it will be regulated and licensed...

-Imp

If you are 'guaranteed' of the right to own a gun, then what's the licence for?

the government wants their money... and the "right" to own is not absolute (not unlike the right to "free" speech)

-Imp

So, actually in that country one does not have a 'right' to own a gun, or bear arms, right?

[Age]

You just said it's 'guaranteed'. So not guaranteed then.

it is guaranteed in the second amendment "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."

-Imp

But, the government 'infringes' this supposed 'right' by making 'exceptions', right?

[Age]

it is guaranteed in the second amendment "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."

-Imp

Whatever that means. You are the one contradicting it. You said it's 'guaranteed' then went on to point out that it isn't.

no, it is guaranteed in the second...

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense.[18][19] This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun."

So, can the human being in the news 'lately' own a gun, or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... nstitution

-Imp

additional: this is not to say that the right to own a gun cannot be lost by committing a felony or by being ruled mentally incompetent...

So, absolutely every one, in 'that country', has a 'right' to own a gun, correct?

[Age]

Whatever that means. You are the one contradicting it. You said it's 'guaranteed' then went on to point out that it isn't.

no, it is guaranteed in the second...

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense.[18][19] This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... nstitution

-Imp

I'll say it slowly then. What is the licence for?

As "impenitent" said, be abuse the government wants money. But, let 'us' not forget the money is not the government's money, like "impenitent" claimed.

Also, what you are getting at here is also very obvious, that is; if there is a 'right' to own guns, then what, real, reason is there for a licence? Obviously, governments want to obtain as much money as they can from their "sub servants", but if every one, supposedly, has a 'right' to own a gun, then, obviously, one not having a licence could not prevent one from 'owning a gun'.

[Age]

no, it is guaranteed in the second...

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense.[18][19] This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... nstitution

-Imp

I'll say it slowly then. What is the licence for?

once again "the government wants their money...

But, it is not 'their money', and never will be

and the "right" to own is not absolute (not unlike the right to "free" speech)"

-Imp

How can a 'right' not be an 'absolute right'.

Is the 'right to life' also the same? That is, the 'right to life' is not an 'absolute right'?

If yes, then who is the one, who gets to decide?

Also, are you here implying or saying that if one does not have enough money, for a licence, then that one does not have a 'right' to own a gun and to protect "them" 'self'?

[Impenitent]

people with the "right to life" are executed by their governments, juries, mothers, every day...

-Imp

[Age]

people with the "right to life" are executed by their governments, juries, mothers, every day...

-Imp

So, obviously then, you human beings do not actually have a 'right to life', at all.

Which then makes, well me anyway, wonder why some of you human beings actually believe that you have a 'right to own a gun', to, supposedly, protect 'your life', when you do not even have a 'right to live' anyway?

[Age]

once again "the government wants their money... and the "right" to own is not absolute (not unlike the right to "free" speech)"

-Imp

Then what does 'guaranteed' mean?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/guarantee

(among others) to promise to do something; to promise something will happen
guarantee something - Basic human rights, including freedom of speech, are now guaranteed.

-Imp

If 'freedom of speech' is, supposedly, guaranteed, (or 'promised to do something', whatever that even means here), then why are you human beings not freely allowed to say whatever you like?

Also, what do you think or believe are so-called 'basic human rights', exactly?

[Age]

the license is for "legal" ownership - just like the title and registration of your car

it is a source of taxes

-Imp

Is to obtain more money, in the form of taxes, and to be so-called 'legal', the only reasons why licences are being enforced upon you sub servant human beings?

[Age]

So not guaranteed then.

guaranteed as far as it is absolutely codified in the constitution and law

I think you are meaning something different with the term guaranteed...

-Imp

So, to you, you have a 'right' to gun ownership, only as long as the one/s who 'give' you 'that right', and say that you have 'that right', also agree 'to allow' you to own a gun, right?

Also, do you believe that 'owning a gun' is a 'basic human rights', as well?

Is there a difference, to you, between a so-called 'basic human right' and 'a right', which is 'given' 'to you' in some countries human beings made up called 'constitution', which by the way can all be changed or removed at 'the stroke of a pen', as it is sometimes called.

[Age]

So not guaranteed then.

Gun ownership is guaranteed to some, not guaranteed to all.

So, when you say, 'it is a right', what are actually meaning is 'it is a right' to only a chosen some, right?

And the license is a tool for excluding those to whom ownership is not guaranteed.

So, again, ' the right to own a gun to protect "one's" 'self' ', in that country', is afforded to only a select chosen some, of that country, correct?

There’s something wrong with this process, but that’s the way it is.

There are more than a few things that are very, very Wrong with 'that process'.

Which by the way, obviously, does not have to be 'the way it is', at all.

[commonsense]

So not guaranteed then.

Gun ownership is guaranteed to some, not guaranteed to all.

So, when you say, 'it is a right', what are actually meaning is 'it is a right' to only a chosen some, right?

And the license is a tool for excluding those to whom ownership is not guaranteed.

So, again, ' the right to own a gun to protect "one's" 'self' ', in that country', is afforded to only a select chosen some, of that country, correct?

There’s something wrong with this process, but that’s the way it is.

There are more than a few things that are very, very Wrong with 'that process'.

Which by the way, obviously, does not have to be 'the way it is', at all.

I stand by what I said as well as what you said I said.