Is it time to talk about guns?

The statement "A women's right to an abortion" has nothing to do with a "God" as no "God" has ever been found to exist in a positive manner (it can not be proved). A "God" may be believed in, imagined, or thought to actually exist but as an argument based on a "God" is not acceptable in a court of law it has no meaning in the phrase "A women's right to an abortion".

Further in the absence of man made laws a woman can do whatever she likes in regards to her body.
As the 9th Amendment states that no restriction is put on the right to do anything not outlined in the Constitution unless specifically denied by the same, and as abortion is not specifically denied by the Constitution but is in fact upheld by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as explained in Roe v Wade, your question is meaningless as on the one hand there are no "God" given rights and on the other unless there is a specific law denying a "right" you have a "right" to do anything you want.

 

100% of mass shootings are caused because someone had access to a gun.
100% of all mass shooting do not involve a muzzle loading, single shot, black powder gun (like the founding fathers had laying around).
100% percent of all laws do not eliminate 100% of all crime.
100% of all gun laws are legal according to the Constitution.
100% of all stupid memes are an insult to my intelligence.

 

I've seen this before and I'd like to see a transcript because I think I heard Penn say that the colonials had just fought a two year war agaisnt a tyrannical state militia. If so, not so. They fought against a standing English army which was considered to be the best trained and disciplined army in the world at that time. There was no English militia to take away any of the peoples' guns.

Further a militia is made up of the people, they aren't separate entities. The militia is the people, people as in civilians, not a standing army.
The second was written in 1789 so that the standing army of the U.S., formed in 1784, could not restrict the right of the states to form their own militia armies.

Penn and Teller are great magicians but they have no idea what they're talking about in this context.

 

In my opinion? For what it's worth:
The 2nd was written so that the states could form a well regulated civilian defense of society and the government of that society. Arms were to be allowed so that a well regulated militia could be formed from the citizenry as opposed to a standing professional federal army in support of that army, local state law, or the citizenry, if needed. Remember at the time the federal army could not respond to dangerous situations with the speed they can today, the standing army was small and local being formed in 1792 at Fort Lafayette, Pennsylvania, under Major Gen. "Mad" Anthony Wayne (I think I have that right). It couldn't be everywhere so well regulated state and local militias were needed.

Well regulated means sanctioned by the local or federal government, under training and control by that government.
There is nothing in the 2nd that guarantees the possession of arms for overthrowing any local or federal government, shooting at any elected or appointed officials of those governments, hunting, target practice, or the collection of guns as a hobby or profession.
Additionally it only states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (in regards to a well regulated army). It doesn't state what type of arms, doesn't define what arms they are talking about, and doesn't prohibit laws directed at the type of arms permitted or banned.

Under strict interpretation only well regulated militias have the right to bear arms.

 

My opinion only differs in that in the opinion of the supreme court, to date, citizens may own arms and don't need to belong to a well regulated militia to do so. And, I may add, that ruling was not made by the supreme court until 2008 by a 5 to 4 vote. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Prior to that decision the right to own arms was a collective right in connection with militia service.

The supreme court does not recognize the right of citizens to use arms to overthrow their own government, does not allow unrestricted access to arms, does not allow the ownership of any type of arms, nor does it allow unrestricted use of those arms for hunting, target shooting, or collection.

So my opinion is not completely wrong it only differs in regards to militia membership and that can change at any time if the supreme court so decides.