No they are identical metrics because we are taking about access to a right, restricted by permission of the state.
I bring religion into it because you seem totally beholden to the idea of restricting the 2nd in ways you would be screaming about restricting the 1st amendment.
The Muslim religion (like any ideology) contains ideology that can be considered inflammatory as well as anti women/homosexual. It also contains a higher propensity of random acts of violence against society than say being Morman. So should it require special categorization amongst the other religions like we are doing with classes of firearms. Should we restrict access to that ideology until a demonstration of mental fitness and the ability to resist radicalized indoctrination can be established like you want with firearms? After all the safety of society is your driving point on access to firearms. The same drive could force restrictions to access on religion or the ability to exercise free speech because it could grow into violence (like the 70s with bombings/arson or black lives matter or lone wolf terror attacks like Boston) no different than access to firearms could result in a mass shooting.
If you are signing up for the idea that rights can be restricted for the greater good you are going counter to the idea that they are rights and instead proposing they are permissions given by the government that can be revoked under there authority at a time and place they chose.
And given the butt kicking all these 70s reign of terror hold over guns laws (DC/Chicago bans etc) it's no doubt the litigation is moving against gun control. That still doesn't stop people from moving toward the end goal of prohibition through a thousand cuts which is what is going on in places like Cali and Jersey. It's got nothing to do with public safety, it's a 50 year plan to slowly kill gun ownership or make it so prohibitively expensive and restricted that the infrastructure to support it prohibits access. Either way the people who sit in the halls of some building are deciding what rights you and I can have despite the fact they don't wear judges robes and ignore the decisions those judges made in the past.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wont get into understanding of religion as that is whole another topic. All religious text can be considered inflammatory and anti women/homosexual. And text doesn't carry out a random act of violence against society, especially when text in a holy book prohibit doing so.
American Muslims haven't killed innocent Americans in the 50 states, except for those who did mass shootings using... guess what... guns. Which they obtained thanks to lax gun control laws. How about I'll give your side to pass that test on religion and indoctrination (and I'll go take that test, and pass in flying colors), so as long as your gun side also take a mental health evaluation before getting a handgun legally? Sounds like we have a deal.
MY point is what you are waving as a full-fledged right, is in actuality (practice?), not really a right in quite a few states. IT JUST ISN'T. It has nothing to do with religion and what someone believes or indoctrination. We are talking the current laws *today* are not uniform in regards to how the 2A is interpreted across different states. What does the future trend indicate? For or against? It would seem the red states are for and the blue states are not as much, and in some cases, against.
But none of that changes what is today. Today, you can be any religion in any state. But protest by throwing an AR across your shoulders? You can't do that legally in several states. While in others, it's perfectly legal.
Do you see the point that the 2A application is just not the same. It isn't I (myself) who is saying this. It's this Republic, this country, these 50 states, each of whom have a different understanding of what 2A means, and their associate state laws about ownership, purchasing, rights to conceal carry, and open carry. Some states you can open carry and conceal carry. Some states you can conceal carry, but not open carry. Some states you can't conceal carry nor open carry. Some guns allowed in one state, while a neighboring state that gun would be illegal (countless examples of PA vs NJ). My Mossberg 715t which was legal in California was not legal in NJ and I had to sell it to a local pawn shop before moving.
So how can you say I had a right to that gun? Looked more like a privilege I had to have it in California, and a privilege I had to give up moving to Jersey. At least, that was my experience. My particular model which was perfectly legal in CA was not so in NJ.
How can you tout something as a "right" when this Republic, our 50 states, all *clearly* differ on what the 2A is and therefore, what it allows us to do and not allow us to do?
I'm now gun-less because of that move from the SFO base to NYC. So you tell me I have a 2A and a gun right. Practice and reality says otherwise. But as far as I know, I kept my religion intact during the move