Second Amendment rights.

[SergeGainsbourg]

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?

 

[smokin_kat]

I love the 2nd amendment.

i had a pic to show.. It wont show up. boooo

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

I love the 2nd amendment.



Where's the line? What kinds of weapons would you ban and why?

 

[smokin_kat]

ban no weapons.
mytoys.jpg picture by wildflower08 - Photobucket

my collection i also have an ak 47

edit: take a look at my little friends scroll through and see my big toy like this one

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v...ower08/?action=view&current=myfavoritetoy.jpg

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

ban no weapons.

my collection i also have an ak 47

edit: take a look at my little friends scroll through and see my big toy like this one



How about Rocket Propelled Grenades and anti tank weapons?

 

[smokin_kat]

only if i can have ground control, ;-)

Kidding that should be monitored.. but we should have the opportunity because we will end up having to defend ourselves in the future individually. Get ready.

kids, myself included, store water, bullets, and make sure your lady has birthing hips. Learn how to farm and become more educated.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

only if i can have ground control, ;-)

You have a funny sense of humor..

 

[Anachronism]

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.

 

[smokin_kat]

only if i can have ground control, ;-)

You have a funny sense of humor..

thanks, I've been told that. now clean my gun and give me twenty.

 

[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.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

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.

I am unsure what you mean about not being able to properly secure the weapon. What if someone leaves their gun in their car or truck and the truck is stolen, wouldn't this be an example of not being able to properly secure a weapon, whereas an artillery launcher would be much easier to stop someone from stealing. I think I am missing something here.

 

[Anachronism]

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.

Then you're an idiot and not worth my time. Welcome to the Ignore List.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

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.

Why do you think this? What's wrong with the idea that the civilian population has power over an oppressive government that asserts its policing powers to the detriment of the population?

 

[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.

Then you're an idiot and not worth my time. Welcome to the Ignore List.

Thanks!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In Heller the court ruled there is a fundamental right to self-defense; and as the handgun is the most common form of self-defense chosen by Americans, its possession is Constitutionally protected.

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?

There are a number of cases working their way through the courts now addressing just that. It could be some 20 years or so before we have a comprehensive picture of what that would look like, Heller being decided only in 2008.

I believe the Second codifies a fundamental right, and any law designed to regulate that right should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review.

I believe the following to be un-Constitutional: restrictions on firearms due to cosmetic configuration, such as pistol grips, detachable magazines and/or capacity, waiting periods, restrictions on firearms purchased during a given time period, permits, licenses, registration requirements, training requirements, and any other regulation deemed overly burdensome to acquire or possess a firearm.

The issue for decades with regard to gun regulation has been a de facto ‘presumption of guilt’ of gun owners – that there’s something ‘wrong’ with someone who wises to buy or own a firearm, making excessive restrictions ‘necessary.’

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

In Heller the court ruled there is a fundamental right to self-defense; and as the handgun is the most common form of self-defense chosen by Americans, its possession is Constitutionally protected.

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?

There are a number of cases working their way through the courts now addressing just that. It could be some 20 years or so before we have a comprehensive picture of what that would look like, Heller being decided only in 2008.

I believe the Second codifies a fundamental right, and any law designed to regulate that right should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review.

I believe the following to be un-Constitutional: restrictions on firearms due to cosmetic configuration, such as pistol grips, detachable magazines and/or capacity, waiting periods, restrictions on firearms purchased during a given time period, permits, licenses, registration requirements, training requirements, and any other regulation deemed overly burdensome to acquire or possess a firearm.

The issue for decades with regard to gun regulation has been a de facto ‘presumption of guilt’ of gun owners – that there’s something ‘wrong’ with someone who wises to buy or own a firearm, making excessive restrictions ‘necessary.’

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?

 

[Anachronism]

I am unsure what you mean about not being able to properly secure the weapon. What if someone leaves their gun in their car or truck and the truck is stolen, wouldn't this be an example of not being able to properly secure a weapon, whereas an artillery launcher would be much easier to stop someone from stealing. I think I am missing something here.

There are already existing laws in place for securing handguns and long guns in pretty much every municipality in the country. If people choose not to obey those laws (which vary greatly from place to place) there's nothing that can really be done about that except arresting them, charging them, and probably taking their permits away.

What I mean in terms of securing arms is the access to facilities and means to prevent the theft of those arms which are not suitable for immediate self-defense use. This would include most indirect fire arms, crew served arms, artillery, explosives, vehicles, etc... Basically anything that is not a hand or shoulder fired arm capable of being used for self-defense and/or concealed carry. Of course most of those types of arms, or more properly the ammunition for them, are going to require special storage facilities and systems just as anyone currently allowed to store explosives is required to meet certain regulations. So long as the individual has the capability of meeting those requirements to safely store the stuff, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to own it.

 

[pAntiChrist]

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.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

I am unsure what you mean about not being able to properly secure the weapon. What if someone leaves their gun in their car or truck and the truck is stolen, wouldn't this be an example of not being able to properly secure a weapon, whereas an artillery launcher would be much easier to stop someone from stealing. I think I am missing something here.

There are already existing laws in place for securing handguns and long guns in pretty much every municipality in the country. If people choose not to obey those laws (which vary greatly from place to place) there's nothing that can really be done about that except arresting them, charging them, and probably taking their permits away.

What I mean in terms of securing arms is the access to facilities and means to prevent the theft of those arms which are not suitable for immediate self-defense use. This would include most indirect fire arms, crew served arms, artillery, explosives, vehicles, etc... Basically anything that is not a hand or shoulder fired arm capable of being used for self-defense and/or concealed carry. Of course most of those types of arms, or more properly the ammunition for them, are going to require special storage facilities and systems just as anyone currently allowed to store explosives is required to meet certain regulations. So long as the individual has the capability of meeting those requirements to safely store the stuff, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to own it.

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.

 

[Anachronism]

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.