2nd amendment?

[Larry]

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?)

How many people you know of who've been killed by somebody who thought his Right to Type on the Internet meant he didn't need to learn to turn off the Caps Lock?

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

No, the reason it's done with cars is because cars are potentially leathal weapons, which can perform great destruction if people don't know how to share.

So are guns.

And registration almost always leads to confiscation.

How many states you know of that've confiscated all the cars in their state?

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.

And registration also makes it tougher for Guido the Enforcer to get weapons under the table. (And before you jump out: No, I didn't say "impossible". I said "tougher".)

And no, I'm not worried about the Black Helicopters comming in to enslave everyone. It's not a credible threat.

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.

Yes, I've noticed it.

But it's not being done by scheming government dictators bent on world domination. (Unless you count Cheney.)

It's being done my millions of voters, firmly thrusting their rights at Washington, demanding "Here! Take it! I don't want these rights, anyway, just protect me!"

(And yes, I do realise it could be a camel's nose under the tent. I just think it is a reasonable precaution. I'd consider it comparable to requiring airline passengers to go through a metal detector, which I also consider unconstitutional (but reasonable.))

(And thanks for using the lower-case "L-word", instead of the traditional upper-case one.)

[Prosperity]

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.

So then why can't I have a SAM system installed at my house? If for some reason I am threatened by airborn enemies?

It IS a complicated issue.

[Larry]

So then why can't I have a SAM system installed at my house? If for some reason I am threatened by airborn enemies?

It IS a complicated issue.

George Bush does.

[Mr. S]

I am not against owning rifles. However, certain handguns are getting rediculous and powerful, and they are also selling armor piercing bullets? The 2nd ammendment is there, but I will still make the case it was made under different circumstances, and that not many people owned a handgun back then either.

[Larry]

Now, if you want to talk about "armor piercing" bullets, then I'm going to bring up another one of my "this doesn't make sense" things:

I supposedly have a "right" to carry a gun. But not to buy Kevlar?

Where's the public safety reason why society needs to protect itself from the threat of someboty wearing kevlar? Don't know about you, but I suspect I could kill a lot more people with a gun than I can with a vest.

To me, the only reason for banning "the right of the people to keep and wear armor" is "well, you're not allowed to have it, because someday the police might want to shoot you."

[PokerPacker]

Now, if you want to talk about "armor piercing" bullets, then I'm going to bring up another one of my "this doesn't make sense" things:

I supposedly have a "right" to carry a gun. But not to buy Kevlar?

Where's the public safety reason why society needs to protect itself from the threat of someboty wearing kevlar? Don't know about you, but I suspect I could kill a lot more people with a gun than I can with a vest.

To me, the only reason for banning "the right of the people to keep and wear armor" is "well, you're not allowed to have it, because someday the police might want to shoot you."

and this is what everything is all about. the government having control over the people. if we can't buy guns or bullet proof vests (i thought we could buy kevlar, but i could be wrong) what's to stop the government from assasinating those who speak out against it?

[hu-bison-skinsfan]

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. Moreover, amendments (much like theories, laws, etc.) are developed in context of the atmosphere and environment, the time in history, etc. so we have to allow for some flexibility and restrictions when we consider this amendment's contemporary applications.

[PleaseBlitz]

Im not a fan of guns. Too many people are killed every year by them.

My theory is yes, the constitution gives you the right to bear arms, but back then, it meant you had the right to bear a single shot muzzle loaded rifle.

I would ban handguns, automatic weapons of all kinds, armor piercing bullets, pretty much everything except shotguns and hunting rifles.

[Thiebear]

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 have no problem with any of the above...

[Predicto]

Im not a fan of guns. Too many people are killed every year by them.

My theory is yes, the constitution gives you the right to bear arms, but back then, it meant you had the right to bear a single shot muzzle loaded rifle.

I would ban handguns, automatic weapons of all kinds, armor piercing bullets, pretty much everything except shotguns and hunting rifles.

That's where I am as well. Protecting your home, hunting and even defying the black helicopters can all be done with rifles and shotguns. Everything else is just an incredibly dangerous toy.

[Fred Jones]

First off, the NRA is a political organization.

However, I agree that law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. The key being law abiding citizens that also don’t’ suffer from mental instability.

Registration is probably a bit extreme, but I do agree with everyone getting some type of training. Making it mandatory would be difficult, but everyone should at least know how to properly use the gun they own. Properly does not mean what a member of the VA state legislature did this week. He had an accidental discharge of his firearm this week at the state capital when he arrived at work. He said he had ‘no idea how the gun went off”. Well, as the NRA said this week about an officer involved shooting, guns can’t accidentally go off. It would have been funny if the republican hit one of his fellow republicans accidently. But alas, the bullet went into an object or something.

Concerning owning whatever gun or ammo you want I disagree with. Somewhere sometime an individual owning whatever he wants is going to get into trouble and the police are going to come get him for breaking the law. The police don’t need to ask the military for a tank to ensure their well being just to arrest a person.

[Fred Jones]

Concerning carrying concealed handguns I am kind of on the fence. VA has allowed law abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns for a few years now without much problems. However, the law requires training, a background check, no mental instability and a few rules like always having to carry the permit. Also, you can't carry into court, bars and government buildings. I like the restrictions and have to admit that so far it has worked.

I don't agree with the citizens defense league or whatever they are called that openly carry handguns in a holster on their hip. To much wild west for me.

[Fergasun]

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.

It's a home-run! Bingo, bongo, bango!

If our government was doing such a great job at protecting us, we wouldn't have to worry about carrying a gun. I think I agree with waiting periods, but registration laws only hurt the law abiding citizen, and they add cost and red-tape to the whole process.

[SnyderShrugged]

Im not a fan of guns. Too many people are killed every year by them.

My theory is yes, the constitution gives you the right to bear arms, but back then, it meant you had the right to bear a single shot muzzle loaded rifle.

I would ban handguns, automatic weapons of all kinds, armor piercing bullets, pretty much everything except shotguns and hunting rifles.

And what do you foresee as the impact of a ban on the weapons you describe?

If it is anything related to driving down violent crime, then you are sadly in the dark about the realities of life.

if it's about keeing kids safe, again you would be off base (unless you promote bans on houshold cleaners and autos)

I find the proponents of handgun bans severely lacking in context and facts most of the time.

Please edumacate me!

[PokerPacker]

First off, the NRA is a political organization.

However, I agree that law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. The key being law abiding citizens that also don’t’ suffer from mental instability.

Registration is probably a bit extreme, but I do agree with everyone getting some type of training. Making it mandatory would be difficult, but everyone should at least know how to properly use the gun they own. Properly does not mean what a member of the VA state legislature did this week. He had an accidental discharge of his firearm this week at the state capital when he arrived at work. He said he had ‘no idea how the gun went off”. Well, as the NRA said this week about an officer involved shooting, guns can’t accidentally go off. It would have been funny if the republican hit one of his fellow republicans accidently. But alas, the bullet went into an object or something.

Concerning owning whatever gun or ammo you want I disagree with. Somewhere sometime an individual owning whatever he wants is going to get into trouble and the police are going to come get him for breaking the law. The police don’t need to ask the military for a tank to ensure their well being just to arrest a person.

ironically the "object" it hit was a bullet proof vest on hanging on the door, that was given to him as a gag gift.

[SnyderShrugged]

I can't figure out who the 5 are that actually voted against the 2nd ammendment.

Can you imagine if their views took over?

"We have a constitution?" "Ahhh, that thing didnt work anyway. Just throw it out"

Unbelievable.

[PleaseBlitz]

I can't figure out who the 5 are that actually voted against the 2nd ammendment.

Can you imagine if their views took over?

"We have a constitution?" "Ahhh, that thing didnt work anyway. Just throw it out"

Unbelievable.

We have a constitution. It gives us the right to bear "arms." Doesnt say what kind. There is no reason for full automatic assault rifles to be commercially available.

[Larry]

We have a constitution. It gives us the right to bear "arms." Doesnt say what kind. There is no reason for full automatic assault rifles to be commercially available.

At the time it was written, the "arms" the framers were writing about were exactly the same arms that the best-equipped army in the world was using.

And the specific reason they had for writing it was because they wanted the people to be able to trade fire with a professional army.

Now, I'll agree, that Times Have Changed, and a case can be made that the Second needs to change with it. But let's be honest: Banning (or highly regulating) private ownership of, say, AK-47s, is a change to the Second, not the default position.

-----

(On a side note: Wow! A "conservative" spokesman who's in favor of unlimited government authority without any oversight whatsoever, who's opposed to the Second Ammendment, too?

(I guess you're not just a steriotyped right-winger, after all. You're opposed to all of the Constitution.)

(And yes, that really is indended as a (admittedly back-handed) compliment.)

[PleaseBlitz]

And what do you foresee as the impact of a ban on the weapons you describe?

If it is anything related to driving down violent crime, then you are sadly in the dark about the realities of life.

if it's about keeing kids safe, again you would be off base (unless you promote bans on houshold cleaners and autos)

I find the proponents of handgun bans severely lacking in context and facts most of the time.

Please edumacate me!

Alls i know is that handguns have one purpose. To kill. The propobility of being killed by a gun is 5 or more times more likely in the US than in the rest of "Western" nations.

http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

3385 people younger than 19 were killed by guns in 1999. Why? The whole household cleaners/auto argument is ridiculous. So ok, we cant eliminate all dangers to kids. Why bother eliminating any of them? Thats your position?

[Larry]

Properly does not mean what a member of the VA state legislature did this week. He had an accidental discharge of his firearm this week at the state capital when he arrived at work. He said he had ‘no idea how the gun went off”. Well, as the NRA said this week about an officer involved shooting, guns can’t accidentally go off. It would have been funny if the republican hit one of his fellow republicans accidently. But alas, the bullet went into an object or something.

Many years ago, a US Congressman (Senator) was shot at the trap & skeet club that my dad and brother used.

Seems the Congressman was teaching his son to shoot.

Contrary to range safety rules, (which prohibit anyone in the shooting area other than shooters and the range operator), the Congressman was standing with his son.

Contrary to range safety rules, Son was using two guns. (He would fire one, then hand the fired weapon to the Senator, who would hand it to Mom, who was outside the shooting area at a picnic table. Mom would hand a gun which she had loaded (have I mentioned, "contrary to range safety rules", which state that only the "active" shooter shall have a loaded weapon, which will contain a single round only?) to Dad, who would hand the loaded weapon to the son, for him to use next.

Supposedly, Mom had loaded a weapon, and had leaned it against the table. The weapon fell over and discharged.

The Congressman took a (trap) load of bird shot, at a range of about 10 feet, in a humorous location.

Dad & bro were worried that Congressman would make a stink, start an investigation, get all puffed up (as opposed to only in one place), and get the trap club closed down.

Aparantly Congressman decided (wisely, IMO) to keep it quiet, instead.

[Sarge]

We have a constitution. It gives us the right to bear "arms." Doesnt say what kind. There is no reason for full automatic assault rifles to be commercially available.

I like my AR-15

[Larry]

3385 people younger than 19 were killed by guns in 1999.

And, according to what I've read, something like two-thirds of them (the victims) were drug dealers and/or gang members. (That's why the people who prepare those stats like to use "children under 19 (or 21), rather than 12. Very few 12-year-old gun-toting gang members. But lots of 17-year-old ones.)

According to a well-publicised (and, IMO, somewhat vague, but not unbelievable) study, in a typical year, 2.5 million crimes are prevented by armed citizens.

Supposedly, in something like 95% of those cases, not a single shot was fired. Merely brandishing the weapon was enough to make the criminal decide to back off, go down the street, and pick on somebody else.

[PleaseBlitz]

At the time it was written, the "arms" the framers were writing about were exactly the same arms that the best-equipped army in the world was using.

And the specific reason they had for writing it was because they wanted the people to be able to trade fire with a professional army.

Now, I'll agree, that Times Have Changed, and a case can be made that the Second needs to change with it. But let's be honest: Banning (or highly regulating) private ownership of, say, AK-47s, is a change to the Second, not the default position.

The Constitution is a document that was set up to be able to evolve, thats what makes it great. I dont think we need to be able to trade fire with an invading army anymore. What possible reason could you have for owning an AK? Killing multiple people is the only use of this gun. That impedes on MY RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as outlined by the framers.

[Sarge]

The Constitution is a document that was set up to be able to evolve, thats what makes it great. I dont think we need to be able to trade fire with an invading army anymore. What possible reason could you have for owning an AK? Killing multiple people is the only use of this gun. That impedes on MY RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as outlined by the framers.

I like target shooting with it. And if anyone trespasses on my property and threatens my family, then yes I will impede on their right to life. At least outside. Inside they'll see my HK .357

[PleaseBlitz]

You dont think you'd be able to handle an intruder with a shotgun?