The Right To Bear Arms

[M14 Shooter]

I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons.

You then argue from ignorance, dishonesty or both - given you changed the term I used, its likely both,.
Given that, you cannot possibly have a sound position in this regard.
Never mind the fact that banning handguns violates the constituion - period.

And I do support all efforts to ban assault weapons.

The bans curremntly under consideration do not ban 'assault weapons' as you define them. Why do you support those bans?

I further reject your assumption that I argue from ignorance or dishonesty.

I said:

Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense

You said:

I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons.

As you changed the terms of the coversation away from the statement I made to the position want to take, you have engaged in dishonest debate; in the process, you allow my statement to stand, undiminished.

If I agreed with you, I would not only have no standing in an honest debate, but I'd abandon all rational thought and stick my head in the sand to ignore gun violence while maintaining that guns are just too damn cool.

And here, you argue from emotion and ignorance - proving yet again that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and dishonesty.

Also, because of your dishonesty, you refused to, twice, addrewss this question:
The bans curremntly under consideration do not ban 'assault weapons' as you define them. Why do you support those bans?

Don't worry -- I don't expect an honest answer.

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

 

[petro]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

In that case we will consider the First amendment obsolete for the likes of you. Lunatics use words as well as guns.

 

[Geaux4it]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

Well, maybe its dead for the red man. But like liquor, they get the guns anyway which is fine with me, as long as they continue to beat their women instead of shooting them

-Geaux

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

Your opinion is laughable.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

 

[legaleagle_45]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

Then the solution is clear and the process is found in Article V of the Constitution. First you convince 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate to propose a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd Amend, Then all you need do is convince 38 states to ratify that amendment and the 2nd Amend disappears. Pretty simple actually.

I suggest you contact Harry Reid at once and demand that he spearhead your proposal through the Senate... after all the Senate should have some time on their hands after rejecting all gun control laws earlier this year.

I am certain that Harry will be thrilled with your proposal and marvel at your political savvy. Perhaps he will choose to employ it as the centerpiece of the Democratic Platform for the Midterm elections? Something like this would go over great.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC AND REPEAL PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

 

[Shoey]

While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.

 

[Geaux4it]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

And your point?

-Geaux

 

[Lakhota]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

You have the right to wear a short sleeve shirt ........... its time for the culling ............ Check Mate sheeple, goodnight & Godspeed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

Thank you for your ridiculous opinion.

 

[legaleagle_45]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

Actually it is not confusing at all, at least to persons living at the time it was passed. The other supposed deficiency would be applicable to almost all of the Bill of Rights. .. non substantive variations of punctuation and capitalization are irrelevant. In fact the same exact issue has arisen with respect to the 16th amend which provides for the income tax. With the 16th the legislatures of various states passed ratifying resolutions in which the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas), and it was claimed that these differences made the ratification invalid and that there is legally no income tax. Go ahead Lakota, be consistent. Don't pay your federal income taxes and claim the feds have no power to collect it... You would still be wrong, but at least you would be consistent.

 

[petro]

While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.

This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.

This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.

My guess is that today the right to bear arms is problematic because decadent liberalism has so deteriorated the American character that guns are now used primarily in senseless crimes.

 

[FJO]

The REAL representative of Right to Bare Arms:

Google Image Result for http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/database/michelleobama/michelle_obama300.jpg

Like Larry the Cable Guy, except he is prettier.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.

This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.

What's fascinating to note here is that the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights on the theory that if government were given the power to protect rights it might subvert that power and actually dissolve that right. We see that with guns today. One step at a time they are taking the power to own guns away.

Indeed, all of our Founders understood the pure evil of liberal government

.

 

[OODA_Loop]

My guess is that today the right to bear arms is problematic because decadent liberalism has so deteriorated the American character that guns are now used primarily in senseless crimes.

Obama's recently commissioned study found guns are used as many times for lawful self-defense as they are crimes.

See Page 15

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

 

[asaratis]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.

Actually, what it means today is .... since Americans have a right to defend themselves, the govt may not prevent them from owning and keeping firearms normally used for self defense in their homes (and I'm sure business's they own), and the gvot may allow them to carry weapons in other places so long as the govt treats all applications to do so the same ... i.e. no discrimination. And, I've no doubt we can take unloaded firearms to gun ranges and repair shops.

People with valid permits can carry concealed weapons except in certain places. People with or without valid permits can carry open weapons...except in certain places. That is the law in my state.

 

[Missourian]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

Do you shake your fist at the sky when you say that?