EaglesRocker97

Right, I touched on this yesterday. Regulations are obviously well within the purview of the Amendment. You can regulate without infringing on the right itself; it's up to the Courts to decide what level of regulation would so onerous as to constitute infringement. It would be best to test that standard by starting with something very simple, like a universal background check.

It's a nonstarter, because like @vikas83 said, this particular right is codified with particularly restrictive language in the Bill of Rights. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can lose your driving privileges simply for having an expired registration or too many speeding tickets, but you can't so easily lose your right to own a gun.

If it was a joke (which it kinda seemed to me at first), then fine, but you didn't really back off of it when given the chance to clarify. If anything, the response you made to me seemed to be tacitly doubling down on it just a few pages later:

Not really, especially considering how much greater control OPEC had over the international markets back then.

Definitely, it's odd that there ever was discrepancy between the two. Suffice it to say, if we ever raised the age of adulthood back to 21, we should raise the military age, too.

The right to vote is certainly more complicated than most people understand.

Slightly off-topic, but it's funny to me that we actually ended up lowering the voting age, given that when the Constitution was written, people "grew up faster"" and independence was generally established at earlier ages.

Similarly, I think we are pretty much on the same page here. Voting used to be restricted to landholding males, and Electors were directly appointed by state legislatures until the mid-19th Century. This why, if the states wan to throw that power back to state representatives to get Trump installed as POTUS, they could and there would be absolutely zero argument for its being unconstitutional. Quite the contrary, the Constitution specifically says that states can do this.

We agree about this more than you think. The rights themselves are not wholly equivalent, but the principle of having to validate your entitlement to them is similar enough that the comparison has merit. Yes, it shall not be infringed, but past litigation shows that regulation does not necessarily qualify as infringement. I would think you could at least detect that it is slightly ironic for the same person to think that voter ID laws are legal (they are, even if I think they're abused), but a similar kind of regulation for buying guns is not. And I'm specifically limiting this argument to background checks; I'm not talking about outright bans.

You're caught up on the word "universal," which is a word I never used. The comparison made was in regard to a regulation of proving that you are not committing a crime in purchasing a gun, just as one would be proving that they are not committing a crime in voting.

Calm down, Nancy. I know it's tough to swallow, but it's ok to be wrong once in awhile.

I never said it wasn't legal. I said that the comparison is valid, as the courts have repeatedly recognized that the right to keep and bare arms, like the right to vote, can be regulated.

I never knew this had an actual name:

Who said universal? I know you and TEW get off on this, but it's a very, very weak argument. Read Section 1 of the 15th Amendment: