Second Amendment rights.

[Steve Hanson]

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

mytoys.jpg picture by wildflower08 - Photobucket

Good for you

 

[Steve Hanson]

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?

I support the second amendment. Just like I support all of the other original 10 in the bill of rights. If we had faith that our forefathers knew what they were doing when they set up the charter that would govern this nation, why do some elect to pick and choose what should be changed? It's a right, one of many that is what this country ws founded on. It's a right that was important enough to have it's own call out.

 

[Contumacious]

No clause in the constitution exists that provides for a "Defense" against a domestic government.I challenge you to find it.In fact..in this very thread..I posted quite the opposite.

Exactly.

Our Constitution is similar to the nazi Constitution. That is the reason the Jews simply accepted the fact that they were going to die in the gas chambers .

Contumacious and his family are very patriotic. And that is exactly what we plan to do , when they come for me and mine . I will obediently turn in my Mossberg 590 and prepare to meet my maker.

I mean what can I do, SWALLOW says that the constitution (1787) does not protect our right to life and to defend the same.

.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

No clause in the constitution exists that provides for a "Defense" against a domestic government.I challenge you to find it.In fact..in this very thread..I posted quite the opposite.

Exactly.

Our Constitution is similar to the nazi Constitution. That is the reason the Jews simply accepted the fact that they were going to die in the gas chambers .

Contumacious and his family are very patriotic. And that is exactly what we plan to do , when they come for me and mine . I will obediently turn in my Mossberg 590 and prepare to meet my maker.

I mean what can I do, SWALLOW says that the constitution (1787) does not protect our right to life and to defend the same.

.

Right ideas, but maybe the wrong planet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Question:
On what basis is the right to free speech restricted?
Answer:
When the speech in question causes harm to someone, or places somene under a clear and present imminent threat of same.

Apply that to the 2nd amendment. Done!

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The term "arms", as used in the 2nd, coveres any class of firearm you can think of.
As such, each and every class of firearm is protected by the 2nd, and as such, none can be banned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You also agree then that the 4th amendment doesnt apply to cell phones and the 1st does not apply to CNN.
Correct?

 

[Steve Hanson]

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

The term "arms", as used in the 2nd, coveres any class of firearm you can think of.
As such, each and every class of firearm is protected by the 2nd, and as such, none can be banned.

It also doesn't specify how many rounds a magazine can hold. These laws limiting to 10 rounds are BS

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Question:
On what basis is the right to free speech restricted?
Answer:
When the speech in question causes harm to someone, or places somene under a clear and present imminent threat of same.

Apply that to the 2nd amendment. Done!

In what way does the rifle on my wall pose a clear and present imminent threat to you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Consider too:

Heller refused to allow the ban on handguns - the class of gun most used to commit crimes - in a city with a high crime rate.

That is, the ban on handguns, in the worst context possible, did not pass any level of scrutiny available to the court.

Given that, there's no argument that bans on guns less often used in crime in areas with less crime will pass similar scrutiny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Handguns are commonly issued by the military for use in combat, if only in an emergency.
As such, they serve a purpose in that context, and so qualify as a protected class of firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

False dichotomy.
It serves both ends.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.
That's it. Pure and simple.
Cheap way to have an army.

This is a wholly unsupportable claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Scalia's an idiot. And my opinion stands..the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect...and dangerous. But of course..I don't sit on the SCOTUS..

You also don't have a sound argument to support your position.
That, far more so than you not sitting on the SCotUS, is what makes you wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. The 2nd includes self defense, community defense and Defense from oppressive Government. Do not forget that when the 2nd was written we used militias for everything. There were few if any actual police forces communities used militia for defense.

Yes. There is absolutely nothing to support the idea that the 2nd was intended to protect your right to own fireams so that you could help protect your state/county/town, but not your house/family/person.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The term "arms", as used in the 2nd, coveres any class of firearm you can think of.
As such, each and every class of firearm is protected by the 2nd, and as such, none can be banned.

It also doesn't specify how many rounds a magazine can hold. These laws limiting to 10 rounds are BS

Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is conceptually no different than limiting the length of a news story, a letter to the editor, or a church service.
All are a fundamental part of the exercise of the right in question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Question:
On what basis is the right to free speech restricted?
Answer:
When the speech in question causes harm to someone, or places somene under a clear and present imminent threat of same.

Apply that to the 2nd amendment. Done!

In what way does the rifle on my wall pose a clear and present imminent threat to you?

It doesn't. Simple posession of a firearm is a threat to no one.

 

[TheBrain]

The term "arms", as used in the 2nd, coveres any class of firearm you can think of.
As such, each and every class of firearm is protected by the 2nd, and as such, none can be banned.

It also doesn't specify how many rounds a magazine can hold. These laws limiting to 10 rounds are BS

Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is conceptually no different than limiting the length of a news story, a letter to the editor, or a church service.
All are a fundamental part of the exercise of the right in question.

If you're arguing that no limits should exist, I disagree with you. If you are arguing that the limits currently in place are bizarre, and arbitrary I would agree. Unfortunately bizarre and arbitrary is what you get when man is in charge of anything.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It also doesn't specify how many rounds a magazine can hold. These laws limiting to 10 rounds are BS

Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is conceptually no different than limiting the length of a news story, a letter to the editor, or a church service.
All are a fundamental part of the exercise of the right in question.

If you're arguing that no limits should exist, I disagree with you.

I didn't say that. See my comment a page ago regarding the 1st amendment.

 

[TheBrain]

Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is conceptually no different than limiting the length of a news story, a letter to the editor, or a church service.
All are a fundamental part of the exercise of the right in question.

If you're arguing that no limits should exist, I disagree with you.

I didn't say that. See my comment a page ago regarding the 1st amendment.

It wasn't real clear based on what I had read. That is why I posed is as an if. You have to admit there are some nuts who think people should be able to won anything they want, and they harm the credibility of those of us who just want the regulations kept to minimum.