Privledge vs Right? and other 2nd Amendment questions.

[ronwill]

Originally Posted by Pele

Well, it seems that we're all in agreement that Arms are intended for self defense...

Let me play devils advocate:

Why does one need an AR-15, AK-47, or any such assault rifle for self defense?
Why does one need a 15 round magazine for self defense? If you're not getting the job done in 7 rounds, you're most likely not going to get it done at all.
Why would one need an M1 Garand, Thompson Submachine gun, or any of the other various ex-military or generally higher power/fast fire rate gun that's on the Curios and Relics list?
(I'm applying for my C&R FFL specifically for some more modern WWII era guns.)

These seem excessive for self defense.

Let's see, I'm on vacation and make a wrong turn. Car trouble makes me stop and I'm now confronted with multiple BG's (pick a number). By law I'm restricted to 8 rounds in my magazine and have maybe a dozen or more gang bangers unhappy with my presence. They didn't seem to hear about that law and are better armed. This would be a good time to have a full capacity (high cap, if you must) magazine already in the gun and at least one more available.

The second reason is recreational shooting. Why should you be limited to a 5 round magazine? We continually want to punish law abiding gun owners for the acts of violent criminals. It's not the tool that's evil but the person that misuses that tool. Some believe capital punishment doesn't deter, however, I'm a long standing believer that if you execute the Manson's, Gein's, Bundy's, Dahmer's and Gacy's they will never kill again. Our prison system is over populated as it is. Some need to be cleared out.

[FN1910]

There is around 300.000.000 people in the US and about that many opinions on what 2A means. From what I read on most gun boards arms means handguns and AR-15's. The people means just those who decide to openly carry them and not LEO's.

Do arms mean WMD? If you accept that they are not included or tanks or RPG then where do you put the limit? During the Revolutionary war many of the cannons and ships were privately owned so we can't put a limit on what was available back them.

The people is still a big question. Back in 1792 the people actually only meant able bodied white men and a few freed black men. Slaves were counted at only .5 persons and women weren't allowed to vote. Today we restrict felons and most wnat to restrict illegal aliens. If it is a naturaly born inherent right then why do we want to deny illegal aliens their God given right.

I don't have an answer for you but I can counteract just about any argument that anyone can come up with usually with their own arguments. This is always a good subject for discussion but never expect a solution.

[wolfhunter]

The Second Amendment was written so ordinary folks could rise up against a tyrranic government if needed. It stands to reason that those ordinary folks should have access to the same equipment.

[Jay]

Why does one need an AR-15, AK-47, or any such assault rifle for self defense?
Why does one need a 15 round magazine for self defense? If you're not getting the job done in 7 rounds, you're most likely not going to get it done at all.
Why would one need an M1 Garand, Thompson Submachine gun, or any of the other various ex-military or generally higher power/fast fire rate gun that's on the Curios and Relics list?

Ask that question if the social infrastructure in this country goes down. If the have-nots can't buy food, fuel, and other amenities, they're gonna try to take it form those who have it. I can start defending myself and family at around 600 meters......... with an AR, and 30 round mags.

Why do some folks "need" a vehicle that will do 150 miles an hour? Why do you "need" more that two pair of shoes? Why do you "need" more than one TV set ? The Constitution does NOT mention vehicles, shoes, or TV's..... but it does mention arms, and the Constitution does NOT say what kind or how many I can have. See, more guns is better......

[gdcleanfun]

Freedom to bear arms is akin to freedom of speech.
Why do we need either of them?
We just do.

[HK4U]

Originally Posted by gdcleanfun

Freedom to bear arms is akin to freedom of speech.
Why do we need either of them?
We just do.

We need the second amendment so that we can protect the first and all others. When the second goes the others will soon follow.

[Scout]

My .02

The right to bear arms, when written, meant the same type of arms as any standing military.

This meant the people would be able to defend themselves against any type of "new govt" overthrow attempt.

As said, at the time this was written it meant what has already been described.

I believe it still holds true to this day, as the 2nd Amendment has not been "amended".

The problem is that each State has the legislative power to ban certain weapons.

Although the Sunshine Law concerning AW's has come and gone, most states that banned AW's still have that law on their books.

Just my 2 cents.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by FN1910

Slaves were counted at only .5 persons and women weren't allowed to vote. .

Correction. Each slaves counted as 3/5 of a person, not .5.

Anyway, it would have been nice if the Founding Fathers could have forseen the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and been in a position to weigh in on whether those are protected under 2A. Because they did not, we're left guessing. Personally, I think they only wanted firearms that could be activated with the squeeze of a trigger, and only those.

[magicman007]

AFA the weapons our Founding Fathers were talking about, no one will ever be truly sure. But, if you look at the weapons available at the time, they had cannons, swivel guns, muskets, pistols, etc. Now, obviously most people did not own cannons or swivel guns, but they WERE available. These wepons were not left out by the statement in the Second Amendment. While there was no way they could have seen the types of weapons available to us in this day and age, they obvioulsy did NOT mean to limit what they were talking about. My thought is they left that to those who would follow in their footsteps. Although they I can't believe they could have seen the world of S*&T we're in today!

[ronwill]

While some don't want to admit it every right is limited in some way, especially when it impacts the right of another. There will always be those who abuse any given right and cause problems for those responsible persons who use them correctly. This is why there are laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or "I've got a bomb" in an airport. This is why there are laws against trespassing, poaching, and shooting someone without cause. If everyone would use these rights with the equally great responsibility that goes along with them laws would not be necessary. Since this is not the case laws should be designed for the criminal use and not against those who are law abiding, responsible citizens.