What do you think about Joes words?
“ Their phony argument suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake for what we’re talking about, but no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. ”
Essentially poli-legal drivel used by elitists to justify any intrusion into or assault upon our rights. Sure, there are "limits" to rights as they were not ever supposed to justify harming others. Freedom of speech doesn't protect libel or slander (usually civil law concerns) or incitement to riot as those are crimes and hurtful to others. The right is limited to the existential parameters of the said right.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a pretty absolute statement. It is "the right
of the people," hence the right
is connected to, and possessed by, the PEOPLE. To "keep and bear arms" obviously means to "maintain ownership and possession of," and "to carry upon one's person" arms (of the types that can be owned and carried). "Shall not be infringed" is the requirement no govt. may attack said right: the word "shall" is an
"imperative," meaning it's not polite asking, it means "you
WILL comply". The government CANNOT "infringe" the right. I think many either do not really understand or deliberately ignore this word. "Infringe" has two meanings in my dictionary; 1.) To intrude into. 2.) To diminish. If one cannot intrude into, say, a room, one may by definition not touch, alter, or enter into the room to perform any function in said room. If it must not be
diminished, then by definition it must remain whole.
We have certain rational exclusions that have long been true; for example, felons and excons are generally prohibited from owning or carrying arms as they have been adjudicated guilty in a court of law. Children who are below "the age of understanding" cannot handle guns as they won't comprehend the consequences of misuse or might accidently hurt themselves or others.
But a adult who is in full possession of his rights, is not an excon, must not have his rights under the Second Amendment be abbreviated, diminished, or altered. In this sense, it
is absolute.
Not ALL gun laws will necessarily injure 2A rights. A jurisdiction may decide that open carry is lawful, or that the weapon must be concealed. But one, the other, or both, must be permitted.
A point of contention may be conceal carry permits vs. "Constitutional Carry." Must a citizen request "permission" to carry? I suppose if the law is "must issue" such a law can be saidacceptable, but not "may issue," as capricious officials might deny a permit based on whim or political ideology.