How do you feel about the 2nd?????

[RetiredGySgt]

The Second Amendment, like every other Amendment, is not absolute. I've never met anyone who thinks it is.

The right it protects is subject to reasonable restrictions.

There's nothing unreasonable about restricting access to things like nuclear weapons, bazookas, LAWS rockets, etc.

I guess we agree.

Actually we have a couple people that post here that actually think the 2nd is absolute and covers anything they want. But the vast majority of Americans understand it has limits just like every other right.

 

[indago]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/51193-please-insure-your-2nd-amendment-rights.html

 

[editec]

Let's just say that had we gone with " a strict interpretation" of the consitution, it WOULD be legal for anyone to have WMDs.

I surely cannot fault the founding fathers for not having crafted a second amendment that addressed these issues, but the whole: " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ; has been overturned time and time again.

The people's right to keep and bear arms has been infringed all to hell, hasn't it?

Hence, the legal argument that it would violate the people's second amendment to (or example) outlaw owership of short arms flies out the window.

Legally, given precedents already well established, the government CAN infringe on the people's right tobear arms.

Hence, I have to say that this amendment is NOW, basically meaningless as hell.

It ought to be revised to reflect that reality.

 

[Ninja]

A strict interpretation would not make it legal for "anyone to have WMDs."

Reasonable restrictions, editec - they aren't mutually exclusive with a strict interpretation.

It WOULD make it illegal for the government to ban such external features as bayonet lugs, flash hiders, conspicuously-protruding pistol grips, and collapsible buttstocks from semiautomatic, centerfire rifles.

And I believe that once Heller is incorporated, it WILL be illegal.

 

[William Joyce]

Very good, is how I feel.

 

[Bern80]

How many AK-47's and the like that are used to commit crimes are purchased legally?

My father-in-law is a Southerner. And the first time we went down to visit him he discovered that I had never fired a gun before, I was 26. Horrified, he took me into his office to show me his "arsenal." He had more guns than I had ever seen before in my entire life. Why a man needs so many guns is beyond me, and truthfully, I find the whole fascination with guns a bit perverse...

Herein lies the two major arguments that are often brought up those with little exposore to, or down right anti-, gun. And it really needs to be pointed out how wrong headed it is.

First is this notion about people with guns or multiple guns or people like me that get pissed about people trying to regulate them. the notion is that that some equates to a fascination or obsessions with guns. Nothing could be further from the truth. I doubt your father in law is fascinated with guns, despite haveing many of them. Though in the south recreational shooting is done a lot more which at best could be construed as a hobby, not really a fascination. And even if it were it would be the equivalent of someone saying the dont understand someone's fascination with shopping.

the second wrong headed argument is this idea of need. I don't know why it comes up with guns, but time and time again it's, you shouldn't be able to have that many guns or that type of gun beceause you dont' need them. The problem with that is we don't live in a need based society. The basic concept of freedom is that we get to do what we want so long as what we want does interfere with the freedom of others. Based on that their should be few if any regulations on guns. If you're going to make a need based argument then you have to remember that anything you have that you don't need is now fair game as well.

 

[necritan]

Let's just say that had we gone with " a strict interpretation" of the consitution, it WOULD be legal for anyone to have WMDs.

I surely cannot fault the founding fathers for not having crafted a second amendment that addressed these issues, but the whole: " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ; has been overturned time and time again.

The people's right to keep and bear arms has been infringed all to hell, hasn't it?

Hence, the legal argument that it would violate the people's second amendment to (or example) outlaw owership of short arms flies out the window.

Legally, given precedents already well established, the government CAN infringe on the people's right tobear arms.

Hence, I have to say that this amendment is NOW, basically meaningless as hell.

It ought to be revised to reflect that reality.

Because it has been infringed.....does not make it right. It simply means our rights have been infringed and that our rights should be protected.

The second amendment was clearly designed to protect an individuals right to own a firearm for hunting....self protection....defeating a tyranical government.....and forming a military of common citizens in the event the military fails.

What types of guns fill these needs?????

Shall I hunt a grizzly with a 22 LR revolver?????

Shall I defend my family with a 300 Win. Magnum rifle????

Shall I rally my neighbors and fellow Americans together to fight a Tyranical government ....while armed with a Black Powder Long Gun????

 

[editec]

A strict interpretation would not make it legal for "anyone to have WMDs."

Reasonable restrictions, editec - they aren't mutually exclusive with a strict interpretation.

But they do. You want to know why? What is the definition of arms?

It WOULD make it illegal for the government to ban such external features as bayonet lugs, flash hiders, conspicuously-protruding pistol grips, and collapsible buttstocks from semiautomatic, centerfire rifles.

Nonsense. If one simply sticks to the words found in the 2nd amendment no restrictions of ANY kind are made whatever.

Is a LAWS rocket NOT an "arm"?

The fact that any line has been drawn any line however sensible, is a violation of the STRICT INTEPRETATION that some of you claim you want to hold the government to.

If we REALLY had a strict interpretation of that Amendment, then I would have every right to make bombs in my basement (bombs are arms, too, aren't they?) cannons, tanks, anything I can use as weapon.

You want a strict interpretation, I'll give you one: You have the right to own any weapon you want.

That is the ONLY STRICT intpretation one can draw from the second amendment, based on how it reads.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say infringement within reason is okay; it doesn't say people have the right to guns, but not cannons,; it does not say they have the right to bear just the arms we think aren't too powerful; it DOES say:

"..the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

You ready to sign onto allowing anyone to have any weapon they can get their hands on, amigo?

If not, then YOU too believe the government has the right to decide what "arms" you are allowed to have, and they get to interpret what the word "arms" even means, since the founding fathers didn't think it important enough to define the term for us.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But they do. You want to know why? What is the definition of arms?



Nonsense. If one simply sticks to the words found in the 2nd amendment no restrictions of ANY kind are made whatever.

Is a LAWS rocket NOT an "arm"?

The fact that any line has been drawn any line however sensible, is a violation of the STRICT INTEPRETATION that some of you claim you want to hold the government to.

If we REALLY had a strict interpretation of that Amendment, then I would have every right to make bombs in my basement (bombs are arms, too, aren't they?) cannons, tanks, anything I can use as weapon.

You want a strict interpretation, I'll give you one: You have the right to own any weapon you want.

That is the ONLY STRICT intpretation one can draw from the second amendment, based on how it reads.



It doesn't say infringement within reason is okay; it doesn't say people have the right to guns, but not cannons,; it does not say they have the right to bear just the arms we think aren't too powerful; it DOES say:

"..the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

You ready to sign onto allowing anyone to have any weapon they can get their hands on, amigo?

If not, then YOU too believe the government has the right to decide what "arms" you are allowed to have, and they get to interpret what the word "arms" even means, since the founding fathers didn't think it important enough to define the term for us.

Simply not true. The Constitution forbads the States from having armed ships, which at the time was the only "strategic" weapon system. Thus one can correctly infer that the Individual has no right to "strategic weapons" That would rule out armed air craft, armed ships, missiles, missile launchers and the like.

Further restrictions were put on owning cannon and other heavy weapons. Again a reasonable person can then infer the intent was to only protect at the individual level personal fire arms and at the State level Heavy weapons that are not Strategic in nature.

Further the Supreme Court has ruled on these issues before. The requirement for a firearm to be protected is that it have been used or be useful to the military.

One also does not refer to a LAW as a fire arm, nor a bazooka or any of a myriad of weapon systems. The 2nd Amendment refers to FIREARMS. Which at the time it was written meant personal firearms.

The 2nd Amendment confurs both an individual right and a State right. It protects the individual right to own, possess and bear arms. It also protects the States right to have, maintain and field a Militia.

 

[editec]

Simply not true. The Constitution forbads the States from having armed ships, which at the time was the only "strategic" weapon system.

Yes, the constitution is pretty clear on what rights the STATES have.

Sadly, we're not discussing that issue. We're discussing the issue of the rights of the PEOPLE

Thus one can correctly infer that the Individual has no right to "strategic weapons" That would rule out armed air craft, armed ships, missiles, missile launchers and the like.

Interesting. NOW the second amendment is about the rights of states? Okay, then since you now think that the second amendment IS about STATE militias, then the second amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS to bear arms.

If that amendment was really about STATE MILITIAS (and I can understand why you'd think that by theway..I actually agree with that interpretation myself) then when they were talking about the PEOPLE, they meant the PEOPLE as in STATE MILITIAS, not just illy-nilly any jerkoff with the money to buy a gun.

Further restrictions were put on owning cannon and other heavy weapons. Again a reasonable person can then infer the intent was to only protect at the individual level personal fire arms and at the State level Heavy weapons that are not Strategic in nature.

Where are you reading all this, amigo? I don't think you're not right, I just don't know to what you are referring. Educate me, man.

Further the Supreme Court has ruled on these issues before. The requirement for a firearm to be protected is that it have been used or be useful to the military.

Well isn't a LAWS rocket useful to the military? How about a tank? How about a nuclear weapon?

One also does not refer to a LAW as a fire arm, nor a bazooka or any of a myriad of weapon systems. The 2nd Amendment refers to FIREARMS. Which at the time it was written meant personal firearms.

Then they should have explicitly said that, don't you think? Perhaps it comes down to something I've been saying all along...the 2nd Amendment of the constitution isn't very well written.

The 2nd Amendment confurs both an individual right and a State right. It protects the individual right to own, possess and bear arms. It also protects the States right to have, maintain and field a Militia.

Well that's your intepretation, amigo.

And given how vaguely that amendment was written, it's just as plausible as anyone else's interpretation.

 

[LOki]

How do you feel about the 2nd Amendment?????

Strongly against the multiple violations the government has commited against it.

Do you think its out-dated???? Doesn't apply to our modern way of life???

No, and no. But I do think you over-use question marks.

Is it limited to "special" people with badges or Celebrity's and Senators with death threats???

No. But I do beleive that, as a rule, there should be no more than one question mark applied to a question.

What are good limitations or precautions in regard to citizen gun ownership???

Disallow the demonstrably incompetent and demonstrably criminally violent from possession of guns.

Background checks???? Waiting/Cooling off periods????

No. And no.

Assault Weapons.....are they necessary for the average Joe????

Far more neccessary than three extra question marks.

What does "keep" and "bear" arms really mean????

Keep: to retain in one's possession or power.
Bear: to be equipped or furnished with.

And most important......What are your interpretation of the words...."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"????????

"Shall not be to encroached upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another."

 

[Ninja]

Great points editec.

Since things like yelling "fire!" in a movie theater, fighting words and obscenity aren't Constitutionally protected, let's amend the 1A to reflect reality as well.

The argument you've made can be applied broadly across the entire BoR, so maybe we should just revise it as whole while we're at it.

 

[necritan]

Strongly against the multiple violations the government has commited against it.

No, and no. But I do think you over-use question marks.

No. But I do beleive that, as a rule, there should be no more than one question mark applied to a question.

Disallow the demonstrably incompetent and demonstrably criminally violent from possession of guns.

No. And no.

Far more neccessary than three extra question marks.

Keep: to retain in one's possession or power.
Bear: to be equipped or furnished with.

"Shall not be to encroached upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another."

I completely agree with all your answers.....except for no Background checks....I believe a criminal...felon....should be without a firearm. Otherwise we are completely within agreement.

Further more....I believe I am within my rights to keep and bear as many question marks and any other forms of punctuation that I feel needed.

 

[editec]

Great points editec.

Since things like yelling "fire!" in a movie theater, fighting words and obscenity aren't Constitutionally protected, let's amend the 1A to reflect reality as well.

The argument you've made can be applied broadly across the entire BoR, so maybe we should just revise it as whole while we're at it.

You know I really don't agree.

In fact I definitely think that the second ameriendment (which did make sense when it was written) has been outdated by technology.

Given that we ALREADY abridge people's rights to bear arms, by defining what arms they may have, we really ought to revist this amendment to say what we really mean.

I propose some language like this

1. a. States shall have the right to have a militia, ergo they have the wight o arm themselves.
b The people have the right to arm themselves with fill in whatever arms you think people should have here.

Then we can finally stop this goofy bickering aobut what that amendment means and move on to topics that are actually important.

 

[LOki]

I completely agree with all your answers.....except for no Background checks....I believe a criminal...felon....should be without a firearm. Otherwise we are completely within agreement.

Criminals do not submit themselves to background checks when obtaining their guns. The purpose--THE ONLY PURPOSE--of background checks is to make a record of legally owned firearms; what arms are owned, and who owns them.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I think banning some guns in certain areas to make them easier to collect as they have done in Chicago can help.

Please clarify your intentions here a little further. Specifically the part about "easier to collect."

 

[editec]

Criminals do not submit themselves to background checks when obtaining their guns. The purpose--THE ONLY PURPOSE--of background checks is to make a record of legally owned firearms; what arms are owned, and who owns them.

That IS a good point, you know.

If I were the criminal sort, I'd know exactly what houses to break into to get a gun illegally.

I certainly wouldn't bother to get a gun legally as it could be traced to me.

And in fact, that's exactly how criminals get most of their guns, too, isn't it? Since most professional criminals already have records they can't buy one legally.

They either steal them from people who have them legally, or they buy them from other criminals who got them illegally.

Banning guns or passing still more laws about registering them won't solve the problem of criminals with guns.

On that issue, I completely agree with the NRA, sane guns owners and even with our gun queer chums on this board.

My fellow liberals, most of whom think more laws are the answer, are simply mistaken if they think making guns ownership by law abiding citizens is going to end professional crime.

All removing guns from law abiding citizens will do is reduce the number of accident deaths, domestic murders by gun and suicides by gun.

And, much as I hate to admit it, removing all guns from the hands of the criminals WILL encourage and embolden punks to do more home invasion type crimes, too.

Now if I were living someplace where I worried about such things, and some liberal was demanding that I give up my iron, I too would blow my stack.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That IS a good point, you know.

If I were the criminal sort, I'd know exactly what houses to break into to get a gun illegally.

I certainly wouldn't bother to get a gun legally as it could be traced to me.

And in fact, that's exactly how criminals get most of their guns, too, isn't it? Since most professional criminals already have records they can't buy one legally.

They either steal them from people who have them legally, or they buy them from other criminals who got them illegally.

Banning guns or passing still more laws about registering them won't solve the problem of criminals with guns.

On that issue, I completely agree with the NRA, sane guns owners and even with our gun queer chums on this board.

My fellow liberals, most of whom think more laws are the answer, are simply mistaken if they think making guns ownership by law abiding citizens is going to end professional crime.

All removing guns from law abiding citizens will do is reduce the number of accident deaths, domestic murders by gun and suicides by gun.

And, much as I hate to admit it, removing all guns from the hands of the criminals WILL encourage and embolden punks to do more home invasion type crimes, too.

Now if I were living someplace where I worried about such things, and some liberal was demanding that I give up my iron, I too would blow my stack.

Once again the only queer here is you. But hey thanks for playing.

 

[necritan]

Criminals do not submit themselves to background checks when obtaining their guns. The purpose--THE ONLY PURPOSE--of background checks is to make a record of legally owned firearms; what arms are owned, and who owns them.

There is a differance between registration of ownership....and a background check.

 

[necritan]

Now if I were living someplace where I worried about such things, and some liberal was demanding that I give up my iron, I too would blow my stack.

Maybe you should think about that before you form opinions and call names.....

On my last birthday.....I walked outside to find a man stabbed on the street...multiple times.....a few months ago....a 16 yr old was killed at the park where my kids play at.....a year ago....my friends were at a party and some uninvited guests showed up...fight insued...my buddie watched a young man bleed dark blood quickly as he died. Not long ago in SF close to where I live .....a man hosed a car with an AK killing a father and his two sons. And two days ago.....a few gangbangers decided to have a fued in my front yard involving a machette with my kids right there. These are a few....just a few.

So maybe you can curb your "Opinion Queer" comments.....