Second Amendment rights.

[SergeGainsbourg]

Ok, I can accept this. But do you support the Second Amendment as a means of self-defense for you and your family from immediate danger or as a guard against a government gone astray? Because it is my understanding that this is what the militia is about and by not allowing the government to restrict weapons ownership, the government has to be somewhat afraid of the population rather than the reverse which was the case under the British.

I personally believe, as I feel the Founders did, that it's BOTH a means of immediate self-defense AND a guard against the governmental enemies, foreign and domestic. Due to that, the general public needs access to pretty much anything that the US Military has and definitely anything that the LEOs have access to.

I agree with you.

There have been a number of localities that have used policing powers to abuse the citizenry and because of the credibility of the allegations of wrong-doing against them, they have been forced to report to the US dept of justice. Some of these include the Newark Police Department, the NJ State Police, the Los Angeles Police Department. The excessive force used against minority citizens of majority white police officers in many of these cases is well documented. By putting more weaponry in the hands of these citizens, including RPGs that can bring down police helicopters that are used in these offenses, then perhaps there can be an end to this kind of government that the founding fathers feared.

Agreed?

 

[Smash_Hits]

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

Outdated??? The point of 2nd amendment was to give citizens the power to protect themselves from an overbearing tyrannical government... if the occasion called for such action. Which IMO seems more likely to happen now and then. You are sadly mis-informed. Maybe you should go back and read the Constitution and a little history before you start spouting off nonsense that projects your mental capacity as being less than keen. But by all means, bring on that musket. I can use that to rid the population of boobs like you. I hope you're a troll. That will be your only saving grace.

Thanks for the hostility and violent threats. You're really projecting your maturity.

I don't support the Second Amendment because I don't support the idea of violently overthrowing the government (not because I'm against violence, but because it generally will lead to anarchy). There are systems in place to keep tyrants out of power, and there are systems in place to make sure that if they somehow do gain power, they can be removed. So far, they've worked pretty well.

 

[Anachronism]

I agree with you.

There have been a number of localities that have used policing powers to abuse the citizenry and because of the credibility of the allegations of wrong-doing against them, they have been forced to report to the US dept of justice. Some of these include the Newark Police Department, the NJ State Police, the Los Angeles Police Department. The excessive force used against minority citizens of majority white police officers in many of these cases is well documented. By putting more weaponry in the hands of these citizens, including RPGs that can bring down police helicopters that are used in these offenses, then perhaps there can be an end to this kind of government that the founding fathers feared.

Agreed?

While I agree with the idea that citizens need to be able to defend themselves from both foreign and domestic threats, I will say this right here and now.... If one takes up arms against a Law Enforcement Officer doing his rightful duty, they should be executed on the spot. I am going to side with the LEO over the citizen unless the evidence is so compeletely overwhelming as to be incontravertable. I say that as someone who has had the pleasure of knowing and interacting with LEO's from the level of small town cops to FBI, BATFE, ICE, Border Patrol and even Secret Service Agents.

The sort of situation you bring up is the one true fear that I have for allowing the possession of these types of arms to the general public.... the potential misuse of them by people who cannot or will not follow the law.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

I agree with you.

There have been a number of localities that have used policing powers to abuse the citizenry and because of the credibility of the allegations of wrong-doing against them, they have been forced to report to the US dept of justice. Some of these include the Newark Police Department, the NJ State Police, the Los Angeles Police Department. The excessive force used against minority citizens of majority white police officers in many of these cases is well documented. By putting more weaponry in the hands of these citizens, including RPGs that can bring down police helicopters that are used in these offenses, then perhaps there can be an end to this kind of government that the founding fathers feared.

Agreed?

While I agree with the idea that citizens need to be able to defend themselves from both foreign and domestic threats, I will say this right here and now.... If one takes up arms against a Law Enforcement Officer doing his rightful duty, they should be executed on the spot. I am going to side with the LEO over the citizen unless the evidence is so compeletely overwhelming as to be incontravertable. I say that as someone who has had the pleasure of knowing and interacting with LEO's from the level of small town cops to FBI, BATFE, ICE, Border Patrol and even Secret Service Agents.

The sort of situation you bring up is the one true fear that I have for allowing the possession of these types of arms to the general public.... the potential misuse of them by people who cannot or will not follow the law.

But all the evidence points to the people who can not or will not follow the law is the police themselves. This is why they have to be monitored by the Justice Department. Anecdotally, when I drive on the NJ Turnpike, it is only blacks who I see pulled over. Even black philadelphia police officers say they don't take the NJ Turnpike for this reason.

Let's be consistent here, if we are talking about a government that oppresses the people and having weapons to defend against this, then I think we are talking about the Second Amendment. And perhaps a well armed minority population can protect itself against the policing powers used illegally against it by the majority population.

I am not saying this should be true in all circumstances, but isn't this what the founders had in mind when they created the Second Amendment?

 

[pAntiChrist]

Thanks for the hostility and violent threats. You're really projecting your maturity.

I don't support the Second Amendment because I don't support the idea of violently overthrowing the government (not because I'm against violence, but because it generally will lead to anarchy). There are systems in place to keep tyrants out of power, and there are systems in place to make sure that if they somehow do gain power, they can be removed. So far, they've worked pretty well.

No threats here. I was using simile and metaphor to get my point across. I'm not into violence either. I'm a new age, 21st century beatnik, hippie.... but if there is a time and a place. I will stand up for me and my own. But in all honesty I feel your interpretation of this right is outdated, not the right itself. The systems you speak so highly of are us, the citizens. And so far they have NOT worked pretty well. Anarchy is another name for revolution.

 

[Smash_Hits]

Thanks for the hostility and violent threats. You're really projecting your maturity.

I don't support the Second Amendment because I don't support the idea of violently overthrowing the government (not because I'm against violence, but because it generally will lead to anarchy). There are systems in place to keep tyrants out of power, and there are systems in place to make sure that if they somehow do gain power, they can be removed. So far, they've worked pretty well.

No threats here. I was using simile and metaphor to get my point across. I'm not into violence either. I'm a new age, 21st century beatnik, hippie.... but if there is a time and a place. I will stand up for me and my own. But in all honesty I feel your interpretation of this right is outdated, not the right itself. The systems you speak so highly of are us, the citizens. And so far they have NOT worked pretty well. Anarchy is another name for revolution.

1. You said you wanted to shoot me... that isn't a metaphor or a simile, it's just being sociopathic.
2. Explain to me how the systems AREN'T working...
3. Anarchy isn't another name for revolution. Anarchy is an idiotic and puerile form of government that panders to pseudo-intellectuals who haven't the slightest idea about government.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

Thanks for the hostility and violent threats. You're really projecting your maturity.

I don't support the Second Amendment because I don't support the idea of violently overthrowing the government (not because I'm against violence, but because it generally will lead to anarchy). There are systems in place to keep tyrants out of power, and there are systems in place to make sure that if they somehow do gain power, they can be removed. So far, they've worked pretty well.

No threats here. I was using simile and metaphor to get my point across. I'm not into violence either. I'm a new age, 21st century beatnik, hippie.... but if there is a time and a place. I will stand up for me and my own. But in all honesty I feel your interpretation of this right is outdated, not the right itself. The systems you speak so highly of are us, the citizens. And so far they have NOT worked pretty well. Anarchy is another name for revolution.

1. You said you wanted to shoot me... that isn't a metaphor or a simile, it's just being sociopathic.
2. Explain to me how the systems AREN'T working...
3. Anarchy isn't another name for revolution. Anarchy is an idiotic and puerile form of government that panders to pseudo-intellectuals who haven't the slightest idea about government.

Let's get out of the he said, she said fight here and address the real issue. If you're against the Second Amendment, then shouldn't you work to have it repealed instead of asking the courts to violate their oath and not defend it? I mean, you may have a good argument for repeal based on the country being different now from when it was started, but shouldn't this be an argument for the political arena?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe the original intent of the amendment was self-defense against a government gone astray rather than individual self-defense. Therefore hand guns are fairly meaningless in this context, no?

Heller addressed a specific case – the DC handgun ban – and whether the lower court’s ruling to overturn that ban was Constitutional. The Court therefore had to put to rest the conflict inherent in the Second: individual right, or collective right? The Court ruled the former. Consequently original intent wasn’t the basis for the ruling. Indeed,

District of Columbia v. Heller has been hailed by its supporters as a model of “new originalism,” a methodology that focuses on original public meaning and eschews any concern for original intent.

UCLA Law Review » Heller, New Originalism, and Law Office History:

Scalia also acknowledges there are some appropriate restrictions of the right:

Scalia largely drops any pretense of justifying his results by appeal to “normal and ordinary meaning” or the understanding of the framers.32 Thus, we are told, the right does not extend to “felons and the mentally ill,” to the carrying of concealed weapons, to carrying arms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings.33 Furthermore, it turns out that the arms in question are not all “bearable arms,” because “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be prohibited, and only weapons “in common use” are protected.34 In particular, handguns are protected, Scalia explains, because they are the “most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.”35 On the other hand, Scalia appears to concede that “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 [Page8] rifles and the like—may be banned.”

Heller, McDonald and Originalism

Because Scalia focused his interpretation on ‘original public meaning,’ rather than ‘original intent,’ there is currently no definitive answer on whether or not the Framers intended the Amendment to be a safeguard against the new government becoming tyrannical.

Some argue it’s impossible to divine ‘original intent’:

As “new” originalist Lawrence Solum explains, because there were “multiple framers with various intentions, and the content of their intentions was not accessible to those who needed to comprehend the Constitution, . . . successful communication of framers’ meaning . . . is not possible . . . framers’ meaning simply does not exist.

Heller, McDonald and Originalism

 

[Smash_Hits]

No threats here. I was using simile and metaphor to get my point across. I'm not into violence either. I'm a new age, 21st century beatnik, hippie.... but if there is a time and a place. I will stand up for me and my own. But in all honesty I feel your interpretation of this right is outdated, not the right itself. The systems you speak so highly of are us, the citizens. And so far they have NOT worked pretty well. Anarchy is another name for revolution.

1. You said you wanted to shoot me... that isn't a metaphor or a simile, it's just being sociopathic.
2. Explain to me how the systems AREN'T working...
3. Anarchy isn't another name for revolution. Anarchy is an idiotic and puerile form of government that panders to pseudo-intellectuals who haven't the slightest idea about government.

Let's get out of the he said, she said fight here and address the real issue. If you're against the Second Amendment, then shouldn't you work to have it repealed instead of asking the courts to violate their oath and not defend it? I mean, you may have a good argument for repeal based on the country being different now from when it was started, but shouldn't this be an argument for the political arena?

I would love having the second amendment repealed... unfortunately, I'm neither old enough nor educated enough to do so. All I can do now is debate with other people.

 

[Anachronism]

But all the evidence points to the people who can not or will not follow the law is the police themselves. This is why they have to be monitored by the Justice Department. Anecdotally, when I drive on the NJ Turnpike, it is only blacks who I see pulled over. Even black philadelphia police officers say they don't take the NJ Turnpike for this reason.

Personally, I would suggest that our current law enforcement structure puts too many roadblocks in the way of the police on many occassions. I'm against racial profiling without cause, but when 85% of the crime in an area is committed by one-legged old men with no hair; I don't want the cops wasting most of their time bothering the 16 year old two legged girls with full heads of hair. Most cops do things the right way. Like anything else the few bad ones ruin it for everyone.

Let's be consistent here, if we are talking about a government that oppresses the people and having weapons to defend against this, then I think we are talking about the Second Amendment. And perhaps a well armed minority population can protect itself against the policing powers used illegally against it by the majority population.

Except that the majority of police actions are not only totally LEGAL, they're exactly what the police SHOULD be doing. Realize that I am an ardent believer that anyone who cannot live within the confines of the laws of this nation should not be allowed to benefit from the wonders of this nation. Regardless of whether their crime is capital murder or jaywalking.

I am not saying this should be true in all circumstances, but isn't this what the founders had in mind when they created the Second Amendment?

To a certain degree. Then again we're talking a very different legal system in that day and age. One where criminality was brutally punished and not stood for. It was also a society where respect for the law and those who enforce it was much greater than today.

So, no I don't really believe that the intent of the Second Amendment was for the average citizen to be prepared to shoot the local constable when he came through the door with a search warrant. I believe that in that case their remedy was a number of the other portions of the Bill of Rights.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

Scalia also acknowledges there are some appropriate restrictions of the right:

Scalia largely drops any pretense of justifying his results by appeal to “normal and ordinary meaning” or the understanding of the framers.32 Thus, we are told, the right does not extend to “felons and the mentally ill,” to the carrying of concealed weapons, to carrying arms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings.33 Furthermore, it turns out that the arms in question are not all “bearable arms,” because “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be prohibited, and only weapons “in common use” are protected.34 In particular, handguns are protected, Scalia explains, because they are the “most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.”35 On the other hand, Scalia appears to concede that “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 [Page8] rifles and the like—may be banned.”

Heller, McDonald and Originalism

Because Scalia focused his interpretation on ‘original public meaning,’ rather than ‘original intent,’ there is currently no definitive answer on whether or not the Framers intended the Amendment to be a safeguard against the new government becoming tyrannical.

Some argue it’s impossible to divine ‘original intent’:

As “new” originalist Lawrence Solum explains, because there were “multiple framers with various intentions, and the content of their intentions was not accessible to those who needed to comprehend the Constitution, . . . successful communication of framers’ meaning . . . is not possible . . . framers’ meaning simply does not exist.

Heller, McDonald and Originalism

[/QUOTE]

I believe the original intent of the amendment was self-defense against a government gone astray rather than individual self-defense. Therefore hand guns are fairly meaningless in this context, no?

Heller addressed a specific case – the DC handgun ban – and whether the lower court’s ruling to overturn that ban was Constitutional. The Court therefore had to put to rest the conflict inherent in the Second: individual right, or collective right? The Court ruled the former. Consequently original intent wasn’t the basis for the ruling. Indeed,

District of Columbia v. Heller has been hailed by its supporters as a model of “new originalism,” a methodology that focuses on original public meaning and eschews any concern for original intent.

UCLA Law Review » Heller, New Originalism, and Law Office History:

Well stated and reviewed. Thank you. Yet I don't see the Wayne Lapierre crowd agreeing with Justice Scalia. I often hear about the need for the collective defense rather than the individual defense and the original intent of the founding fathers. This seems to be inconsistent with past rhetoric on the right related to original intent.

I don't see many gun advocates joining this debate though. Maybe its still early, but I imagine that many will be against of gun restrictions based on the idea that the Second Amendment is about hunting or individual self defense.

 

[pAntiChrist]

Thanks for the hostility and violent threats. You're really projecting your maturity.

I don't support the Second Amendment because I don't support the idea of violently overthrowing the government (not because I'm against violence, but because it generally will lead to anarchy). There are systems in place to keep tyrants out of power, and there are systems in place to make sure that if they somehow do gain power, they can be removed. So far, they've worked pretty well.

No threats here. I was using simile and metaphor to get my point across. I'm not into violence either. I'm a new age, 21st century beatnik, hippie.... but if there is a time and a place. I will stand up for me and my own. But in all honesty I feel your interpretation of this right is outdated, not the right itself. The systems you speak so highly of are us, the citizens. And so far they have NOT worked pretty well. Anarchy is another name for revolution.

1. You said you wanted to shoot me... that isn't a metaphor or a simile, it's just being sociopathic.
2. Explain to me how the systems AREN'T working...
3. Anarchy isn't another name for revolution. Anarchy is an idiotic and puerile form of government that panders to pseudo-intellectuals who haven't the slightest idea about government.

Yes. I want to shoot you. And you like to kill babies.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

But all the evidence points to the people who can not or will not follow the law is the police themselves. This is why they have to be monitored by the Justice Department. Anecdotally, when I drive on the NJ Turnpike, it is only blacks who I see pulled over. Even black philadelphia police officers say they don't take the NJ Turnpike for this reason.

Personally, I would suggest that our current law enforcement structure puts too many roadblocks in the way of the police on many occassions. I'm against racial profiling without cause, but when 85% of the crime in an area is committed by one-legged old men with no hair; I don't want the cops wasting most of their time bothering the 16 year old two legged girls with full heads of hair. Most cops do things the right way. Like anything else the few bad ones ruin it for everyone.

Let's be consistent here, if we are talking about a government that oppresses the people and having weapons to defend against this, then I think we are talking about the Second Amendment. And perhaps a well armed minority population can protect itself against the policing powers used illegally against it by the majority population.

Except that the majority of police actions are not only totally LEGAL, they're exactly what the police SHOULD be doing. Realize that I am an ardent believer that anyone who cannot live within the confines of the laws of this nation should not be allowed to benefit from the wonders of this nation. Regardless of whether their crime is capital murder or jaywalking.

I am not saying this should be true in all circumstances, but isn't this what the founders had in mind when they created the Second Amendment?

To a certain degree. Then again we're talking a very different legal system in that day and age. One where criminality was brutally punished and not stood for. It was also a society where respect for the law and those who enforce it was much greater than today.

So, no I don't really believe that the intent of the Second Amendment was for the average citizen to be prepared to shoot the local constable when he came through the door with a search warrant. I believe that in that case their remedy was a number of the other portions of the Bill of Rights.

I'm not talking about the average citizen, but rather police forces that routinely uses force when it is not necessary. The TV show cops often documents this kind of police behavior.

If the police in downtown LA were seriously threatened by law abiding citizens protecting each other from criminal policing and had the weapons that you and I support to be available, then perhaps the police in LA would have second thoughts about some of their more excessive behavior. I think this could be true in a number of localities and I think it would be especially true if the police force learned about the types and amounts of weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens who received advanced training in these weapons and understood the law of self-defense (we're talking grandparents, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers--whole families who learn how to fire RPGs and other advanced weapons together hopefully through NRA sponsored programs meant to reach out to minority communities to help them gain the Second Amendment rights and use them appropriately. How can you not be for this? At least there would be a credible deterrent against police crime.

 

[TheBrain]

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

The only weapons that should be restricted from the hands of the civilian population are those which they cannot properly secure from being stolen by those who are not law-abiding citizens.

So long as you've got the secure storage you should be able to own just about anything... mortars, machineguns, etc....

I base this on the fact that one of the biggest things the Redcoats were trying to destroy in Lexington and Concord, and two weeks earlier when they marched unsuccessfully on Salem, MA were..... CANNONS, CAISON, and SHOT (cannonballs and powder). The "civilian" military/militia of the day included Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery units. I don't see why the modern civilian gun owner should be any more restricted than our forefathers were.

Because there are people rich enough to afford WMDs and crazy enough to use them, DUH!

 

[pAntiChrist]

That would be us! We have water, wheat, ammo and a tub full of kick ass.

 

[Anachronism]

Because there are people rich enough to afford WMDs and crazy enough to use them, DUH!

Okay, and you think those people are not capable of getting those things right now, even with the current laws? Think again.

 

[Sallow]

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

The current "interpretation" of the second amendment is out of whack. I doubt very much that the founders were looking for the wild west side show it's become...and much more interested in keeping a militia well armed in order to defend against invasion.

 

[Sallow]

Scalia also acknowledges there are some appropriate restrictions of the right:

Only in a very cynical, "I dare ya to try" kinda way.

 

[Anachronism]

I'm not talking about the average citizen, but rather police forces that routinely uses force when it is not necessary. The TV show cops often documents this kind of police behavior.

That's interesting because I am an avid viewer of that type of program and I rarely if ever see anything that I would construe as excessive or unnecessary force used by the LEO's on those programs (Cops, DEA, etc...).

If the police in downtown LA were seriously threatened by law abiding citizens protecting each other from criminal policing and had the weapons that you and I support to be available, then perhaps the police in LA would have second thoughts about some of their more excessive behavior.

Somehow I get the feeling that the definitions of "Law abiding citizen" and "Criminal Policing" would vary greatly depending on whether you wrote them or I wrote them. Law abiding citizens rarely have encounters with the police in LA or anywhere else. Likewise "criminal policing" is generally the cry of someone who doesn't want to face the music for getting caught doing something they're not supposed to be doing.

I think this could be true in a number of localities and I think it would be especially true if the police force learned about the types and amounts of weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens who received advanced training in these weapons and understood the law of self-defense (we're talking grandparents, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers--whole families who learn how to fire RPGs and other advanced weapons together hopefully through NRA sponsored programs meant to reach out to minority communities to help them gain the Second Amendment rights and use them appropriately.

The moment the NRA starts teaching people to shoot at cops is the moment the NRA loses my membership and the support of probably 90% of its current members. They're much smarter than that. I know a fair number of members of minorities who are NRA members already.

How can you not be for this? At least there would be a credible deterrent against police crime.

I don't believe there's a significant issues with "police crime" in this country. It does happen, but it's minimal.

 

[Contumacious]

Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, but I support it. Not because I am a hunter or anything like that. I have heard supporters of this amendment describe it in terms of freedom from the potential of a tyrannical government. I think this makes sense.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

Think about it.

If it is true that the purpose of the Constitution and the 2A was to prevent government tyranny, WHY would you allow such government to determine who may or may not carry a defensive weapon?!?!?!?!?!?

.