That's (partially) why we have the 2nd Amendment. Lead > Hate.

On planes? Zero. Next question?

"I'm [insert BS disenfranchised class here]" as an excuse for not having an ID should mean you are instantly put on a no-vote and no-welfare list, and any property you own must be turned over to the authorities. If you're so irresponsible that you can't take the time to get an ID, let alone a free one from your state, then you're far, far, far too irresponsible to be trusted to make decisions that impact our national laws under any circumstance. It very likely means you are too "disenfranchised" to have coherent opinions on meaningful issues, or simply vote for whomever will dis-"disenfranchised" you buy giving you free crap, or who the hell knows what. I could go on, but I think you get the idea...

Regardless of your position on what the work "militia" means, or your grossly inaccurate dismissal of the unorganized militia in the historical context you attempt to leverage, the Second Amendment clearly states the right of the **people** shall not be infringed. That's everyone. The public. Period. We The People.

This is a perfect example of why ANY attempt to undermine or diminish the intended scope of the 2nd Amendment should not be tolerated by the American public. Even the "scholars" will perform mental gymnastics to justify their arbitrary notion of what is "protected" and what is "criminal".

Think of the children! This paywall loophole in unacceptable in any decent society.

Clearly these aren't manufactured by the same company that makes Chicago's voting machines.

This is type of issue is exactly why I personally an such a stickler (read: "extremist" or "gun nut") in regards to the 2nd Amendment. As soon as We The People allow Congress, the President, the courts, or bureaucrats to whittle away at ANY of the amendments' protections, it only builds momentum. Government isn't too keen on voluntarily cede power or control once it's been established, and rights once lost won't be given back - they have to be taken back.

Either the Constitution in its entirety is the supreme law of the land or it isn't.

Because this one procedure is the ONLY way for someone with this type of condition to have healthy children, right? I guess you're just pretending egg donation and adoption don't exist so you can climb on the high horse for a second?

Terrible analogy. Nothing is required to own an automobile (any automobile). Registration and insurance are required to *operate the automobile on public roads*. A more appropriate analogy would be requiring registration to carry a firearm in public. Then again, that kind of thinking doesn't serve the purpose of disarming the public, now does it?

Armed insurrection is the most fundamental right of a free people. Without the means and will to resist oppression, such oppression is inevitable. The gun grabbers are attacking both the means and the will of the people to secure their own liberty. They not only want to remove weapons from the hands of the public, they want to reshape the public's mindset (as evidenced by several posts in this very discussion) to innately oppose such self reliance. They call this "gun culture" but what they really mean is "we don't want people making decisions for themselves". They're using bully pulpits and school shootings to get attention now, but they'll use public schools and political brainwashing to see their ultimate goal is achieved. We're only one or two generations of clueless hipster progeny away from ceding any legitimate claim to armed resistance right into the hands of the tyrants.

I propose a hybrid car that fetches breakfast for me before I leave for work in the morning.

There. I've done the hard part. The rest is just engineering, right?

Hmmm... maybe it could fly, too? Let's see how many other asinine pie-in-the-sky iterations can we make on an already terrible idea....

Or an unborn child.

How exactly is a pro-life sentiment incongruent with civil liberties?

The question really boils down to whose rights should trump: mother to be or child to be. Pro-choicers usually rely upon corner case hypothetical situations in an attempt to justify their position, but that approach wholly ignores the civil liberty issue you bring up. Somehow it's a violation of civil liberties to insist the government step in to protect those who cant protect themselves? I'd wager you're a big fan of the government propping up unions to protect the helpless workers from big-bad-wolf corporations.

Before you throwing out the "fetus isn't a person" argument, think about it for a second; it's the same inane mental word gymnastics that allow people to convince themselves there is a difference between being "detained" and "arrested" (or being locked in a room from which you are unable to leave isn't REALLY even being "detained").