(no subject)

[0utlaw-immortal.livejournal.com]

Comments

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Neither of those is a basic human right enshrined in the Constitution.

And guns are highly regulated.

These are just the federal laws, there are a patchwork of far more restrictive state and local.

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/laws/
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

But the second amendment EXISTS and it has meaning. Therefore limits are not limitless.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2

[hurleyman.livejournal.com]

OK, you got me. Replace regulated with enforced. Because after all, what good are regulations if no one enforces them?

There's a story of a PA man who accidentally shot and killed his son, and faced not a single charge because he wasn't aware that he still had a bullet in the chamber His lawyers argued that he wasn't "knowingly negligent" (what?!). So what good do half those laws that require safe, secure, management of a weapon, when if you mismanage a weapon, it's ok.....you did it unknowingly?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/16/da-says-man-wont-be-charged-with-crime-in-fatal-shooting-son-outside-western-pa/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/16/da-says-man-wont-be-charged-with-crime-in-fatal-shooting-son-outside-western-pa/)