Second Amendment rights.

[Ernie S.]

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.

So why equate it with freedom of speech?. The second amendment does not give me the right to use a firearm indiscriminately, it only affirms my right to arm myself "uninfringed" or without restriction.

 

[signelect]

Own anything you want but if you misuse it, break the law, allow someone else to get it and do something wrong you pay the price and it should be very high. I have owned guns for over 60 years and not one of them has ever been in the wrong hands or committed a crime. We may well need to defend ourselves some day while we are waiting on 911 to show up.

Be prepared

 

[Contumacious]

]So why equate it with freedom of speech?.[/B] The second amendment does not give me the right to use a firearm indiscriminately, it only affirms my right to arm myself "uninfringed" or without restriction.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

.

 

[TheBrain]

Own anything you want but if you misuse it, break the law, allow someone else to get it and do something wrong you pay the price and it should be very high. I have owned guns for over 60 years and not one of them has ever been in the wrong hands or committed a crime. We may well need to defend ourselves some day while we are waiting on 911 to show up.

Be prepared

So Bill Gates should be able to purchase a tank if he wishes? Let's use some common sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So why equate it with freedom of speech?.

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.

 

[TheBrain]

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

So why equate it with freedom of speech?.

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

I think the issue here is one of scale. Most people seem to look at it from their own perspective and think well I only want to own a machine gun, or well I only want to own this or that. Well, not everyone would limit themselves to JUST a machine gun. I think we all know that if the Court decreed that no limitations actually meant NO limitations that some fool would be out trying to buy a nuclear weapon.

 

[Contumacious]

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

So why equate it with freedom of speech?.

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

OK, when will my right to DEFEND MY LIFE harm you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[TheBrain]

So why equate it with freedom of speech?.

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

OK, when will my right to DEFEND MY LIFE will harm you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

You can defend your life without having unlimited access to military grade hardware sir. Stop being facetious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why equate it with freedom of speech?.

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

I think the issue here is one of scale. Most people seem to look at it from their own perspective and think well I only want to own a machine gun, or well I only want to own this or that. Well, not everyone would limit themselves to JUST a machine gun. I think we all know that if the Court decreed that no limitations actually meant NO limitations that some fool would be out trying to buy a nuclear weapon.

The limit on weapons is handled by the test laid out in US v Miller.
Synopsis: nukes are not protected.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why equate it with freedom of speech?.

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

OK, when will my right to DEFEND MY LIFE harm you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I am not sure how your question follows from what I said. Help me out here.

 

[TheBrain]

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

I think the issue here is one of scale. Most people seem to look at it from their own perspective and think well I only want to own a machine gun, or well I only want to own this or that. Well, not everyone would limit themselves to JUST a machine gun. I think we all know that if the Court decreed that no limitations actually meant NO limitations that some fool would be out trying to buy a nuclear weapon.

The limit on weapons is handled by the test laid out in US v Miller.
Synopsis: nukes are not protected.

and of course some people hate those limits, or any other being placed on them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think the issue here is one of scale. Most people seem to look at it from their own perspective and think well I only want to own a machine gun, or well I only want to own this or that. Well, not everyone would limit themselves to JUST a machine gun. I think we all know that if the Court decreed that no limitations actually meant NO limitations that some fool would be out trying to buy a nuclear weapon.

The limit on weapons is handled by the test laid out in US v Miller.
Synopsis: nukes are not protected.

and of course some people hate those limits, or any other being placed on them.

Yes. But it does address the issue you presented.

 

[Ernie S.]

Own anything you want but if you misuse it, break the law, allow someone else to get it and do something wrong you pay the price and it should be very high. I have owned guns for over 60 years and not one of them has ever been in the wrong hands or committed a crime. We may well need to defend ourselves some day while we are waiting on 911 to show up.

Be prepared

Huh? Allow someone else to get to it? Exactly what price should I pay if someone breaks into my house and steels a weapon?

 

[Ernie S.]

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

So why equate it with freedom of speech?.

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.

Not quite sure I understand what you're saying.
Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are fundamentally different. The first amendment ensures the right to use speech, symbols, the written word.
The second amendment allows one to possess or carry weapons. It in no way allows unfettered use of those weapons.

 

[Ernie S.]

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

I think the issue here is one of scale. Most people seem to look at it from their own perspective and think well I only want to own a machine gun, or well I only want to own this or that. Well, not everyone would limit themselves to JUST a machine gun. I think we all know that if the Court decreed that no limitations actually meant NO limitations that some fool would be out trying to buy a nuclear weapon.

The limit on weapons is handled by the test laid out in US v Miller.
Synopsis: nukes are not protected.

US v Miller is a flawed case There was no defense because neither defense council or defendants could afford the travel. The court decided on evidence presented and bought the government's lie that short barreled shotguns were not military weapons, when in truth they were part of out arsenal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.

Correct.

Imagine if you will being required to wait three days before you’re allowed to give a speech, or being required to take a speech class before giving your speech, or being allowed to give only one speech per month.

The above sound insane, are a clear violation of the First Amendment, and wouldn't be tolerated by anyone – yet those very restrictions are currently in place for many Americans with regard to Second Amendment rights.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Oh sure I do. Over 40,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds each year. And before you go with "they do in car accidents as well", well cars are made to provide transportation..and it could be argued that these were the result of being used incorrectly or accidents whereas guns have one purpose...to kill...and using one that causes injury or death, is using one the exact way it was meant to be used.

That and the Constitution was constucting a loose, decentrialized, ground force that could be called on an as needed basis.

What backs that up?

Well the second amendment which clearly outlines that sevice to the nation was clearly part of what owning a gun was all about..it doesn't mandate it..and thats the little toe hold the gun lobby goons have..and it's been a huge one.

The other parts the idea that this is why you guys have it all wrong is that part of the powers of congress is to call forth an army from the militia. And that any such ground forces is to be financed for no longer then 2 years..at which point a vote is held to consider re-financing. There is no such mandate on the navy..which is permanently financed.

So the whole idea that the second amendment was card blanche to people who wanted guns is ridiculous and dangerous.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Oh sure I do. Over 40,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds each year. And before you go with "they do in car accidents as well", well cars are made to provide transportation..and it could be argued that these were the result of being used incorrectly or accidents whereas guns have one purpose...to kill...and using one that causes injury or death, is using one the exact way it was meant to be used.

That and the Constitution was constucting a loose, decentrialized, ground force that could be called on an as needed basis.

What backs that up?

Well the second amendment which clearly outlines that sevice to the nation was clearly part of what owning a gun was all about..it doesn't mandate it..and thats the little toe hold the gun lobby goons have..and it's been a huge one.

The other parts the idea that this is why you guys have it all wrong is that part of the powers of congress is to call forth an army from the militia. And that any such ground forces is to be financed for no longer then 2 years..at which point a vote is held to consider re-financing. There is no such mandate on the navy..which is permanently financed.

So the whole idea that the second amendment was card blanche to people who wanted guns is ridiculous and dangerous.

Oh sure I do. Over 40,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds each year.

Over half of those deaths are due to self inflecting.

 

[Contumacious]

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that contect.

OK, when will my right to DEFEND MY LIFE harm you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I am not sure how your question follows from what I said. Help me out here.

I carry firearms in order to defend my life.

.

 

[Spoonman]

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

those are all a bunch of feel good laws anyway so politicians can say see, look what we're doing.