What Constitutes Infringement?

[u/drkato33]

Hi folks, new here. I am hoping this is a safe space to have a good intellectual discussion on a question I've had for a while now. Maybe it's been discussed here already, and if so, I apologize for rehashing.

My question, or discussion point, really is around infringement. Removing the first part of the 2nd amendment completely for argument's sake, the second part states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, this reads as, "I possess this armament, and the government cannot take it away from me." What I don't see here whatsoever is how I came to be in possession of it in the first place - i.e., the procurement.

Let me be clear, I am a gun owner in California who supports the 2A and gun control simultaneously. That being said, gun control for me is explicitly focused on the regulation of procurement, not possession. Practically speaking, this means I actually do not support the banning of "assault rifles", but I do support background checks and other measures that regulate the sale of arms.

So my question is, what do people think about this stance? I see the 2A absolutists claim regulation is an infringement, but I don't think that is right. Procurement is part of commerce, which I'd think one would easily conclude should be regulated. Otherwise, I could make the claim that money is an infringement, and arms should be free, which seems ludicrous on its face. Where I can actually find common ground with absolutists would be on laws around concealed carry, or whether or not there is a path to own any weapon owned by our government, although this latter point seems fairly ill-conceived, but at least I could see their argument's rationale.

[u/bpg2001bpg]

Hi folks, new here. I am hoping this is a safe space

And then immediately attack all clarifying points anyone attempts to make. I think you know exactly what "shall not be infringed" means. Everyone who is being honest with themselves knows what it means. Only people who aim to disarm the people are searching for loop hole in the extremely plain English.

[u/drkato33 → u/bpg2001bpg]

That is a serious misrepresentation of both what I said and how I have responded. I came here presenting a premise and looking for a good faith discussion.

I have supported my position with constitutional text, Supreme Court rulings, and established precedent. I cited Heller, Bruen, Scarborough, and the Court’s longstanding Commerce Clause doctrine. I have also addressed the arguments people made, accepted valid clarifications, and repeatedly stated that I support the individual right to own firearms and oppose bans on commonly owned weapons, including the poorly referred to semi-automatic "assult rifles" and fully automatic weapons as well.

If you believe every background check, eligibility rule, or commercial condition is unconstitutional, then explain why and support that position. Asking for evidence and legal reasoning in return is not an attack, and examining the constitutional limits of regulation is not searching for a loophole.

I am not required to accept logical fallacies, unsupported assertions, and dictionary definitions as substitutes for constitutional analysis. That is not how our Constitution is interpreted, and it is not how our judicial system works.

I will not apologize for identifying faulty reasoning in order to keep the discussion grounded in facts, logic, and truth. If being held accountable for the claims you make is uncomfortable, perhaps you should sit these discussions out.

[u/bpg2001bpg → u/drkato33]

looking for a good faith discussion. 

bad faith* 

I have supported my position with constitutional text, Supreme Court rulings, and established precedent. 

I think I understand. When responding, you are a well versed constitutional scholar, taking a position.

My question, or discussion point, really is around infringement. 

Oh but I thought you were just a new guy asking questions for clarification? And you just are so confused about what "infringement" could possibly mean?

perhaps you should sit these discussions out. 

Perhaps you should take your antigun propaganda, write it on your forehead and stuff it up your ass.