Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

2nd amendment?


gchwood

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I want to get a feel of whether you are for or against restrictions when it comes to gun ownership

I for one am very much in favor of the second amendment and am a card carrying member of the NRA.

Besides this can create some health debate on my favorite subject

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a good bumper sticker the other day, I don't know if I can remember it exactly.

But it was something like.

A Man With A Gun Is A Citizen A Man Without A Gun Is A Subject.

Oh and I fully support the right to bear arms.

edit:

I found the one I was looking for and a few others

xrg075.gif

xrg077.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, lets cite the full langauge of the 2nd amendment:

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.

Now, despite the argument over the context of "A well regulated militia", I think the entire argument should focus on what "arms" are defined as AND what constitutes "infringement".

Is a tank an "arm"? How about a RPG? An AK-47? A 12-gauge? Are the all arms?

And by limiting their accessibility, are we infringing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, lets cite the full langauge of the 2nd amendment:

Is a tank an "arm"? How about a RPG? An AK-47? A 12-gauge? Are the all arms?

And by limiting their accessibility, are we infringing?

Well, it depends. Somewhere in Miller developed the idea (not of collective nonsense, that is not what the case was about) that the militia could possess arms of military use. For some reason there was a dispute about a sawed off shotgun, I believe (which definitely has a military use, but that's beside the point) being part of the infantryman's selection of weapons.

Privateers owned fully-crewed ships with cannon. Small anti-aircraft weapons were legal as well.

Without context, it's hard to talk about the issue, but at the time the idea was firearms and even cannon.

People talk about the technological developments since, but the same could be said about many things that relate directly to our rights, including the internet. (there also tech developments that allow entry-less 'searches' of homes. Let's talk about THAT stuff in relation to liberty, as well.

Hell, by the Civil War, technology had significantly improved and we were beginning to see widespread use of breechloading rifles rather than muskets. The difference between a good rifle and a musket is quite significant. Semi-autos compared to 1870s firearms are also quite advanced. I'm pretty sure the Framers understood that weapons technology advances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got laughed off stage here when I suggested that nuclear arms were in fact arms.

I think the origional poster needs to clarify his terms. Suppose that I belive that all guns must be registered with the feds and that the feds have the right to refuse arms to anyone they deem unfit. Do I still support the 2nd amendment?

Or do you set the standard much higher and say that this means that feds are not allowed to restrict the flow of weapons into or out of this country as long as citizens are involved in the transfer?

Or is the standard much lower, i.e., if you believe that we should not enforce gun bans for all but police and military?

These are tougher questions than can not be answered by a simple poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against any restrictions on law abiding citizens right to protect themselves.

There is literally zero merit to the Brady folks and Rebecca peters side of this debate.

The simple fact remains that there is a constitutional ammendment that protects our INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Without this right, all other ammendments are rendered moot becuase the 2nd allows us to keep the other's in lay through the mere threat that we can stand up to "The Man" if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignatius,

Clearly nuclear weapons are 'arms' by the dictionary definition. But just as many have misused the lack of context (or knowledge of 18th century language) to attempt to limit certain rights (not just 2nd) I think it would be kinda silly to ignore the idea that arms, for those men at that time, meant something a touch more specific.

And let us not engage in absurdities because it cheapens the debate on the ACTUAL controversies involved and it EASILY leads to infringment of all rights. I've heard similar appeals used to limit the rights of free travel, free speech (internet, esp,) and the 4th. And people essentially pretend that the 9th doesn't exist except with abortion.

Clearly a weapon that is aimed and directed at individuals (or individual vehicles) is quite different than a weapon that would, by definition, disintegrate thousands or millions in an instant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignatius,

Clearly nuclear weapons are 'arms' by the dictionary definition. But just as many have misused the lack of context (or knowledge of 18th century language) to attempt to limit certain rights (not just 2nd) I think it would be kinda silly to ignore the idea that arms, for those men at that time, meant something a touch more specific.

And let us not engage in absurdities because it cheapens the debate on the ACTUAL controversies involved and it EASILY leads to infringment of all rights. I've heard similar appeals used to limit the rights of free travel, free speech (internet, esp,) and the 4th. And people essentially pretend that the 9th doesn't exist except with abortion.

Clearly a weapon that is aimed and directed at individuals (or individual vehicles) is quite different than a weapon that would, by definition, disintegrate thousands or millions in an instant.

Yes it is different. But I don't think I was cheapening the discussion with that comment. I was in fact trying to say that this IS a complicated issue. It's tempting to think these things are simple, but I feel they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is different. But I don't think I was cheapening the discussion with that comment. I was in fact trying to say that this IS a complicated issue. It's tempting to think these things are simple, but I feel they are not.

There isnt much that is more simple than the second ammendment.

It's logical and undebateable that a free people are free to protect themselves without reprisal if under threat of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure they have background checks on writing articles and setting up internet sites.

Oh they don't? OK.

Anyways, I think with an even closer scrutiny of the 2nd and some emanations of a penumbra, the Constitution pretty clearly grants each US citizen one free kill in his or her lifetime.

The standards for every Constitutional right are not the same.

Speech is probably the most strongly protected right. The right to bear arms is one of the least protected ... freedom of religion, due process, privacy, and abortion all fall somewhere different along that spectrum.

For example in the recent abortion case, Justice O'Connor stopped short of striking down the law because "[o]nly a few applications of New Hampshire’s parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem." However, in the cross-burning case a few years ago, she struck down Virginia's cross-burning ban because it "chills constitutionally protected political speech because of the possibility that a State will prosecute–and potentially convict–somebody engaging only in lawful political speech." When a statute even potentially infringes on speech, even when it is something as reprehensible as cross-burning, it is almost always unconstitutional. The right to free speech is about as close to absolute as anything we have. The right to an abortion, or the right to bear arms, fall under a much lower degree of protection.

You can't point to our laws regarding free speech and expect the same standards to apply to the right to bear arms. These distinctions have been part of our law since the 1800's.

In any case, I think a lot of the Constitional debates in this area are pretty meaningless, and that's probably why the Supreme Court has basically avoided this issue for decades. Maybe George Mason could have envisioned the improvement in accuracy that a rifle provided, but original intent has very little meaning when it comes to automatic weapons or atomic bombs. We might as well debate the merits of our own gun control laws in the present day without trying to decipher the meaning of "militia," "people", "keep and bear", and "arms" as applied to AK-47's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law abiding citizens need to be able to keep and bear arms, because the criminal element is going to get them whether they are legal or not. All gun bans do, is take the guns out of the hands of people who would use them for self-defense, and recreation. Do you think Joe Felon cares if the guns are legal or not? We can't even stop illegal immigrants, and illegal drugs from coming across the border from Mexico. What's to stop them from smuggling weapons? In my opinion, at no other time in our brief history has Americans needed the right to keep and bear arms more than in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I, and most here, are somewhere near Kilmer's post.

I think it ludicrous that the NRA should try to claim, in effect, that machine guns should require less government controlls than a driver's license.

OTOH, I don't think "reasonable precautions" should include things like "you have to get the Chief of Police's permission", or "you need to prove you have a good reason".

To me, "just in case" is a good enough reason.

-----

Now, historicly, I'd say that the founders most definatly did intend that ammendment to say that people could pack AK-47s.

The "arms" they were talking about were the exact same "arms" that the best-equipped army in the world were carrying.

But, I don't think that would be appropriate in modern times.

-----

Me, I support responsable gun ownership. (I'd say it should be comparable to a driver's license. Learn the law, pass a test, show ID, get your picture taken. Register your weapon's serial number when it changes hands.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, I support responsable gun ownership. (I'd say it should be comparable to a driver's license. Learn the law, pass a test, show ID, get your picture taken. Register your weapon's serial number when it changes hands.)

Don't have a problem with the other parts of your post, but this is where I'm kinda uncertain.

Do we need to learn laws, take tests to express our political speech or to write a column on the internet or to be safe from unreasonable SnS or any right that is not explicitly enumerated (but still protected?)

The reason that's done with roads is because it's public thoroughfares and operation of a vehicle.

And registration almost always leads to confiscation. That's why the Canadians didn't comply with their boondoggle program. ANyone who's studied the subject knows that. Now if you say that controls would be kept on full-auto or crew-operated weapons then I can see the basis for that.

Registration also defeats the purpose of the amendment. Yes, it's to enable the people to resist and invading army, but it's also clear it's to keep the power in the hands of the people AGAINST the government. Registration and licensing, to the degree which you seep to support, completely counteracts that.

I'd also add that as a libertarian, surely you've seen the endless march of bureaucracy, licensing and eventual prohibition in other areas of the law. Nothing is just 'registered.' Eventually there will always be a prohibition or confiscation. It's the way government works. It almost never retreats. Onward it lumbers and we stand in its way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like all Amendments to the Constitution, they are not boundryless.

So while I fully support the right to bear arms, I can understand and agree with limitations. IE- waiting periods, background checks, automated, certain ammo, etc etc.

I agree with you whole heartedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...