The second amendment is airtight. So there is no maneuvering to be done.
Not as airtight as you suggest. There are many arms that you cannot possess. Nuclear weapons, hand grenades, rocket launchers, ICBMs... and on and on. Prohibiting citizens from having such arms is in the best interests of the population. The argument can be made that AR15-style military use weapons are of a similar category.
Restrictions on arms need to pass through a constitutional amendment. As is, firearm restrictions are blatantly unconstitutional.
The second amendment is airtight. So there is no maneuvering to be done.
Not as airtight as you suggest. There are many arms that you cannot possess. Nuclear weapons, hand grenades, rocket launchers, ICBMs... and on and on. Prohibiting citizens from having such arms is in the best interests of the population. The argument can be made that AR15-style military use weapons are of a similar category.
Restrictions on arms need to pass through a constitutional amendment. As is, firearm restrictions are blatantly unconstitutional.
And you have a God-given right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. 
Not as airtight as you suggest. There are many arms that you cannot possess. Nuclear weapons, hand grenades, rocket launchers, ICBMs… and on and on. Prohibiting citizens from having such arms is in the best interests of the population. The argument can be made that AR15-style military use weapons are of a similar category.
You're comparing the most commonly owned type of rifle in the US to nuclear weapons. You're taking quite a large leap right there.
For the record, I can legally own a hand grenade or rocket launcher if I'm willing to jump through the hoops, pay the taxes and fork out the cash. Nobody gets it wrong with so much confidence as often as you do.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@goat And, there are plenty of laws against using guns for the wrong reason. So, what’s your point?
@mohoosier My point is these restrictions don't require a constitutional amendment. There is no enumerated right that is entirely unrestricted. Not even the right to life. Nowhere in the constitution is the government granted the authority to kill people. But, we've decided that in the right circumstances, it's allowed to. Same with speech. Guns. Etc. Courts are here to help find where the line is between what restrictions are allowed and what restrictions are not. But some are clearly allowed.
@mohoosier Hmmmm how that works is that sadly many people with guns DO kill people. It’s not that difficult.
@goat And, the courts are doing their job very well, you just don’t like the outcomes.
Again concerning birthright citizenship and this one in response to a class action lawsuit which the judge said the SCOTUS suggested was the right way to go about this.
I don't like birthright citizenship. If we had a baby born in Japan while we were there, which we were trying to do but failed due to miscarriage, the baby would not have been a Japanese citizen, s/he would have been a US citizen. I think that's the way it ought to be with babies born here with non-citizen parents. However, I don't think birthright citizenship can be overturned by Executive Order, nor should it be. It will need a change to the law, probably a new amendment. Imagine the chaos if the EO actually results in revoking citizenships of 100s of thousands of Americans and then the next President issues an EO reinstating birthright citizenship. And the next revokes that one, and on and on. Absolute chaos.
I mostly agree with you here. I'm a novice on this one - does the EO retroactively change the status of someone? If so, that seems unfair to me based on the laws and interpretations of those at the time of birth.
I could see a reasonable argument for an EO or other law change that would impact future status, but I hate decisions that have retroactive imapcts.
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Can’t imagine executive orders being any different.
Is that only for criminal laws?
@jdb yes
Some smart lawyer might argue that an executive order that retroactively turns you into a criminal would be unconstitutional.
Revoking citizenship status<>turning someone into a criminal, if that’s the point. People want them deported, not incarcerated….