A civil discourse on the 2nd amendment

[Further]

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.


I was wondering if we could talk about this amendment without too much vitriol. I have heard drastically different interpretations of the amendment. Also, I have heard some discuss that this is a case of something being written in a time and age that could simply not understand of our current world, and that given our current world, this amendment would have never been written this way, if at all. Conversely, I have heard argued that it was the brilliance of the constitution for this amendment to have been written in such a way as to encompass any direction the future could lead, and that our forefathers would have considered this passage as prudent and salient today as it was in 1791.



My personal beliefs are in between the two sides, one being no restrictions at all and the other being lets get guns banned. I personally think limiting certain types of guns, mostly ones that have already been banned like fully auto machine guns, and large mags is a reasonable place to start, and mostly I think registering guns is prudent, as we register our cars.

But I would like to hear other peoples opinions, both about the 2nd amendment itself and about the issue of guns in America.

 

[Denny Crane]

If the state has an undeniable interest in restricting certain kinds of arms, it can. It already dies.

The state interest has to be proven to a very strong and strict standard.

Disallowing nukes is a state interest.

I don't see the state has any compelling interest to ban handguns, rifles, ammo, clips, etc.

 

[barfo]

If the state has an undeniable interest in restricting certain kinds of arms, it can. It already dies.

Yes, due to gunshot wounds, no doubt.

barfo

 

[Further]

If the state has an undeniable interest in restricting certain kinds of arms, it can. It already dies.

The state interest has to be proven to a very strong and strict standard.

Disallowing nukes is a state interest.

I don't see the state has any compelling interest to ban handguns, rifles, ammo, clips, etc.

So I'm not arguing yet, I need to think more on the subject, but, where are those lines? If nukes is a no brainer for disallowing, and a musket is a no brainer to be allowed, where is that line?

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, due to gunshot wounds, no doubt.

barfo

Fucking autocorrect on the Ipad.

 

[Denny Crane]

So I'm not arguing yet, I need to think more on the subject, but, where are those lines? If nukes is a no brainer for disallowing, and a musket is a no brainer to be allowed, where is that line?

Something that would take out a city block. Something that would not be reasonable used for self defense.

In the thread about the SUV running over the biker, I commented that you had the perfect example of when you need a 30 round clip.

 

[Further]

Something that would take out a city block. Something that would not be reasonable used for self defense.

In the thread about the SUV running over the biker, I commented that you had the perfect example of when you need a 30 round clip.

But none of that has to do with the 2nd amendment. The second amendment has to do with a Militia, not self defense. It has to do with keeping your government in check, but to do that in todays day and age, the nukes is exactly what should be legal. The pistol and shotgun are going to be basically useless if that's what a militia is armed with. For the second amendment militia purposes, people should be able to get tanks and ammo for it, grenades, and other incendiary devices. I see nothing in the 2nd amendment about self defense.

 

[barfo]

Something that would take out a city block.

So, the line you aren't willing to cross is property damage, rather than dead humans?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

But none of that has to do with the 2nd amendment. The second amendment has to do with a Militia, not self defense. It has to do with keeping your government in check, but to do that in todays day and age, the nukes is exactly what should be legal. The pistol and shotgun are going to be basically useless if that's what a militia is armed with. For the second amendment militia purposes, people should be able to get tanks and ammo for it, grenades, and other incendiary devices. I see nothing in the 2nd amendment about self defense.

It says in no uncertain terms, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The bit before it could say "elephants have polka dots" and it wouldn't change the meaning.

The right to free speech shall not be infringed also, but the state gas a compelling interest in the case of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Or plotting to overthrow the government.

Have a good look at Arab Spring. Guys with rifles and IEDs taking out governments with $billions in advanced weapons. We didn't do so hot in Vietnam or Afghanistan, I don't think we'd do so well in Ohio.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, the line you aren't willing to cross is property damage, rather than dead humans?

barfo

The A bomb is a weapon of mass destruction. Property and people. Indiscriminate of who or what you're really aiming for.

Edit: we do allow people to have fireworks and even TNT.

 

[barfo]

The A bomb is a weapon of mass destruction. Property and people. Indiscriminate of who or what you're really aiming for.

Edit: we do allow people to have fireworks and even TNT.

It sounds, though, that you are ok with any weapon that kills everyone on a city block but leaves the buildings undamaged?

Or are you saying the line is the indiscrimination?

barfo

 

[barfo]

It says in no uncertain terms, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The bit before it could say "elephants have polka dots" and it wouldn't change the meaning.

So you think the drafters of the 2nd amendment had verbal diarrhea and stuck those words about militias in there randomly? They intended for them to have the same meaning as 'elephants have polka dots'?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

It sounds, though, that you are ok with any weapon that kills everyone on a city block but leaves the buildings undamaged?

Or are you saying the line is the indiscrimination?

barfo

It's both. The a bomb's sole purpose us military.

I don't think anyone should kill another, but my wish isn't going to stop killing.

Funny thing is, I don't know if it is against the law to own a nuke. Not many of us could afford one, and those who could run fabulous chili parlors and wouldn't think to own one.

Rather, I think it's a pretty weak way to deflect the issue to one of, if you can't own a nuke, you shouldn't own a BB gun (you could put someone's eye out!).

 

[Denny Crane]

So you think the drafters of the 2nd amendment had verbal diarrhea and stuck those words about militias in there randomly? They intended for them to have the same meaning as 'elephants have polka dots'?

barfo

Shall not be infringed doesn't require any particular reason.

It doesn't say, "only those in the militia may own a gun."

 

[Denny Crane]

Anyhow, I think the first part of the 2nd us to encourage people to be skilled in the use of arms.

 

[barfo]

It's both. The a bomb's sole purpose us military.

Obviously you have no respect for those of us who recreationally set off bombs.

I don't think anyone should kill another, but my wish isn't going to stop killing.

Hard to see what that has to do with where to draw the line.

Funny thing is, I don't know if it is against the law to own a nuke. Not many of us could afford one, and those who could run fabulous chili parlors and wouldn't think to own one.

My chili is da bomb. I strongly suspect it is against the law, not just to have a bomb but also to have some of the components, but I don't know the particulars either.

Rather, I think it's a pretty weak way to deflect the issue to one of, if you can't own a nuke, you shouldn't own a BB gun (you could put someone's eye out!).

If you want to have BB guns and not nukes, you have to draw the line somewhere in between the two.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Anyhow, I think the first part of the 2nd us to encourage people to be skilled in the use of arms.

But can you support that interpretation, or is that just what you want it to mean?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The process is pretty well defined.

Govt. makes yet another egregious law. Govt. gets sued. The compelling interest standard is applied. The court rules against govt.

Neat!

Line drawn. I didn't draw it. Our republic did.

 

[BlazerWookee]

It says in no uncertain terms, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The bit before it could say "elephants have polka dots" and it wouldn't change the meaning.

This. Repped.

 

[MarAzul]

Something that would take out a city block. Something that would not be reasonable used for self defense.

In the thread about the SUV running over the biker, I commented that you had the perfect example of when you need a 30 round clip.

I love to ride the bike or at least I did. But after looking at the video of the New York incident,
I think those guys were a brain short of a biker. A couple clips worth of them ought to have been left on the freeway as evidence.

 

[Denny Crane]

But can you support that interpretation, or is that just what you want it to mean?

barfo

The words "well regulated" might be a clue.

Sounds like practice, and don't shoot the guy in front of you if he's on your side.

 

[MarAzul]

The right to bare arms shall not be infringed is the only imperative in the 2nd.
The necessity of the people to be armed to have a well armed militia, just one of many reason why the "Right" to bare arms is required.
Of course, our rights come from God and so we have implemented a government to protect those rights. The enforcement of the 2nd amendment
is the follow on of the clear intention for the government as proscribed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[oldguy]

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right. Registering guns simply gives the government the ability to confiscate those guns when they decide to take that right from you.

Go Blazers

 

[oldguy]

http://citizensmilitiaofms.com/2013/10/07/9-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-second-amendment/

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

 

[Further]

Are the rights being infringed to not allow felons to own guns?

And does requiring registration infringe on ownership, it doesn't stop the purchase, just allows the govt to understand the flow of weapons and know what weapons people had access to when crimes are committed.

 

[oldguy]

Are the rights being infringed to not allow felons to own guns?

The current background check form asks if you are a felon, as it should. The best way to keep felons from having guns is to put them in jail for a long time when they are caught with a gun, or lie about being a felon on the background check. Mandatory. Every time. Hard time.

And does requiring registration infringe on ownership, it doesn't stop the purchase, just allows the govt to understand the flow of weapons and know what weapons people had access to when crimes are committed.

Once your gun is registered, government can come take it at whatever time they choose. Imo, that is a realistic concern.

Government doesn't need to know the flow of weapons or what kind of weapons you own. If you have a constitutional right to possess them, it's none of their business.

Go Blazers

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

The current background check form asks if you are a felon, as it should. The best way to keep felons from having guns is to put them in jail for a long time when they are caught with a gun, or lie about being a felon on the background check. Mandatory. Every time. Hard time.



Once your gun is registered, government can come take it at whatever time they choose. Imo, that is a realistic concern.

Government doesn't need to know the flow of weapons or what kind of weapons you own. If you have a constitutional right to possess them, it's none of their business.

Go Blazers

Agreed on the felon thing. I mean, I can't tell you how many people I know, and how many articles I read, where serious offenses are pleaded down. Considering the frequency, you have to start to believe people with felonies on their records are some serious offenders.

 

[MARIS61]

If the state has an undeniable interest in restricting certain kinds of arms, it can. It already dies.

The state interest has to be proven to a very strong and strict standard.

Disallowing nukes is a state interest.

I don't see the state has any compelling interest to ban handguns, rifles, ammo, clips, etc.

Absolutely untrue.

The Second Amendment's sole purpose was and still is to provide a check and balance (an armed citizenry) against our government's necessity to have an armed military. It cannot be infringed.

 

[barfo]

The current background check form asks if you are a felon, as it should. The best way to keep felons from having guns is to put them in jail for a long time when they are caught with a gun, or lie about being a felon on the background check. Mandatory. Every time. Hard time.

Sure, because we know criminals are deterred by prison terms, that's why there is so little crime and so few people in prison.

Once your gun is registered, government can come take it at whatever time they choose. Imo, that is a realistic concern.

Imo, that's about as realistic as saying that once your car is registered, government can come take it at whatever time they choose.

Government doesn't need to know the flow of weapons or what kind of weapons you own. If you have a constitutional right to possess them, it's none of their business.

Big if.

barfo