"unabridged" 2nd amendment

[buddy]

There is a lot of discussion on the site regarding an "unabridged" 2nd amendment. No one who supports it ever defines it really. So I wanted to start a discussion about it. Does anyone think the 2nd amendment has NO restrictions? I mean absolutely zero. Not on who,and not on the what. In other words, can anyone keep and bear any arms? We all know rights are not without limits. Even free speech. So is this one any different?

I will start. I do not believe the 2nd amendment is without limits. A couple examples:

Someone kills a person or two while robbing a store, by shooting them, should lose their gun rights. If you support an "unabridged" 2nd amendment, would you disagree? Or should they be able, upon release from prison, to go to the nearest gun store and buy any gun they can afford, without any background check?

I don't want my neighbor having certain weapons. Assault rifles, sure. Full auto's, fine. Suitcase nukes, well, hold on a minute, sparky. Not sure I want one, or want my neighbor having one. Same with a tank. Don't want him or her laying mines in their front yard either.

Let me get something out of the way. I believe in the most limited government and the most freedom possible. But I do not want NO government. I believe that to the extent an individual has gun rights, they have the right to carry, open or concealed. Period. No permit necessary.

[PaxMentis]

I believe there should be no limitations.

The Second Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Limitations are infringements...period. It doesn't say shall not be infringed except...or it shall not be infringed unless...it is an unabridged right as written.

As far as the guys who killed someone robbing a store, I also do believe they should lose their gun rights...right along with their breathing rights. What good does it even do (even if it weren't anathematic to 2A) to make it illegal for a criminal to have a gun? If they are freaking criminals, they don't care...if they want a gun, the law isn't going to make them change their minds. If we cannot trust someone with a basic human right like tools of defense, we can't trust them in our society period...end of story.

[buddy]

I believe there should be no limitations.

The Second Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Limitations are infringements...period. It doesn't say shall not be infringed except...or it shall not be infringed unless...it is an unabridged right as written.

As far as the guys who killed someone robbing a store, I also do believe they should lose their gun rights...right along with their breathing rights. What good does it even do (even if it weren't anathematic to 2A) to make it illegal for a criminal to have a gun? If they are freaking criminals, they don't care...if they want a gun, the law isn't going to make them change their minds. If we cannot trust someone with a basic human right like tools of defense, we can't trust them in our society period...end of story.

thanks for the response. But here is where I get confused. You say no limitations, but then say the man who killed someone should lose their gun rights. Is that not a limitation on the 2nd amendment?
I agree with your comment on the killer losing his breathing rights...capital punishment is outlined in the constitution and, in my opinion, moral. But I am not following you when you say "what good does it do to make it illegal ..."
Are you saying that they should be allowed to by guns because the law does not stop them anyway?

When you say no limitations, what about on the other items on my post, like nukes, tanks, etc?

Another question... do you believe the 1st amendment, as it applies to freedom of speech, is unabridged?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”

This amendment clearly says freedom of speech shall not be abridged. So can I show up on your street at 2am and proclaim over a loudspeaker at 110 decibels that you should vote a certain way?

I believe, as do probably most on this site, that rights come from our creator. Some believe our creator is god (I do) and some believe our creator is nature. But I also believe our god given right to free will means that it is reasonable for us to set rules regarding our rights. Some may disagree. That is fine. That is why we are debating on this site.

[TooCalm]

I am against the current policy of barring convicted felons from ever owing guns! When the sentence has been served that's it, all rights should be restored! Dam, have any of you noticed how Easy it is to get a Felony? There is talk in NC of making a 1st offense DWI a Felony!
As for someone owing a tank, or Nuke; Who can afford one!
If robber commits murder, they should never get out.
I am also against gun rights being denied on the basis of mental health background checks! That practice denies people their constitutional right to due process.
Thousands of veterans have lost their 2nd amendment right due to PTSD. They are being stigmatized for what the government fears they Might Do! That is WRONG!

[fuhr52]

In my opinion the 2A should be held to what is written. Keep in mind when the amendments were written society at that time held it self to a higher responsibility than it does now. The framers did not envision nut jobs going around shooting people for fun or some wacked out religious reason. They also didn't consider career politicians and radical special interest groups. With freedom comes responsibility.

[PaxMentis]

thanks for the response. But here is where I get confused. You say no limitations, but then say the man who killed someone should lose their gun rights. Is that not a limitation on the 2nd amendment?
I agree with your comment on the killer losing his breathing rights...capital punishment is outlined in the constitution and, in my opinion, moral. But I am not following you when you say "what good does it do to make it illegal ..."
Are you saying that they should be allowed to by guns because the law does not stop them anyway?

When you say no limitations, what about on the other items on my post, like nukes, tanks, etc?

Another question... do you believe the 1st amendment, as it applies to freedom of speech, is unabridged?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”

This amendment clearly says freedom of speech shall not be abridged. So can I show up on your street at 2am and proclaim over a loudspeaker at 110 decibels that you should vote a certain way?

I believe, as do probably most on this site, that rights come from our creator. Some believe our creator is god (I do) and some believe our creator is nature. But I also believe our god given right to free will means that it is reasonable for us to set rules regarding our rights. Some may disagree. That is fine. That is why we are debating on this site.

I said the killer should lose his right to a gun along with his right to breathe....meaning he will not have any rights because he is dead.

As far as you showing up with the loudspeaker...your right to say what you want does not cary with it the right to disturb the peace in order to do it. The substance of what you say is protected...but infringing on others' lives is not. I also would not agree that setting up targets in the neighborhood streets for target practice is protected by the RTKBA.

Tanks, artillery, full-autos are all (IMO) within the bounds of protected arms. I will admit to a problem with nukes, biologicals and gasses....but I have a problem with those for governments also...and I really have not resolved that one in my mind. I tend to say that, if the governments need them, so do the people...but I would rather find a way to get them away from the governments as well.

I also believe that the rights we enjoy as Americans flow from the contractual agreement between the people and the government...and they are not inate. Other peoples have other contracts with their governments and do not enjoy those same rights. That means those rights can be limited if the rules for "altering the contract" (amending the constitution) are met.

[bcarroll]

In my opinion the 2A should be held to what is written. Keep in mind when the amendments were written society at that time held it self to a higher responsibility than it does now. The framers did not envision nut jobs going around shooting people for fun or some wacked out religious reason. They also didn't consider career politicians and radical special interest groups. With freedom comes responsibility.

Well?? I think you might be partually right?? You also forgot in those days they didnt beat around the bush. On conviction you was put to death. Whats the issue on the 2A if your not alive. As long as there has been people. There has been nut jobs. The most important question is how many 2nd or 3rd offenders did we have back then.

[nogods]

I think the real issue is not the limiting phrase "shall not be infringed" but rather the subject of the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms."

First we have to define what is meant by "the right to keep and bear arms" and then we apply the "shall not be infringed" limiting clause (it is a limiting clause because it limits government action, it restricts government from infringing on whatever is included in the "right to bear and keep arms.")

"Shall not be infringed" is not the subject of the phrase. it is no part of the definition of the "right to keep and bear arms." It prohibits government action. It does not define the right itself.

The Heller decision reads that clause exactly as it is written. The Court defined the right to keep and bear arms as including (but not necessarily limited to) keeping a handgun at one's home for personal protection if the person is not disqualified from owning a gun. The court then held that such a right could not be infringed.

Everyone who argues that there is an "uninfringed right to keep and bear arms" still has to define that right before applying the "uninfringed" criteria.

For example, does the right to keep and bear arms apply to possession of anthrax or the small pox virus? If not, why not?

Does it apply to the manufacturing of weapons? any weapons? firearms as well as biological weapons? If not, why not?

Once you start listing things that are or are not included in the "right to keep and bear arms" then you are defining that right.

[buddy]

I said the killer should lose his right to a gun along with his right to breathe....meaning he will not have any rights because he is dead.

As far as you showing up with the loudspeaker...your right to say what you want does not cary with it the right to disturb the peace in order to do it. The substance of what you say is protected...but infringing on others' lives is not. I also would not agree that setting up targets in the neighborhood streets for target practice is protected by the RTKBA.

Tanks, artillery, full-autos are all (IMO) within the bounds of protected arms. I will admit to a problem with nukes, biologicals and gasses....but I have a problem with those for governments also...and I really have not resolved that one in my mind. I tend to say that, if the governments need them, so do the people...but I would rather find a way to get them away from the governments as well.

I also believe that the rights we enjoy as Americans flow from the contractual agreement between the people and the government...and they are not inate. Other peoples have other contracts with their governments and do not enjoy those same rights. That means those rights can be limited if the rules for "altering the contract" (amending the constitution) are met.

I agree 100% with what you say about the loudspeaker issue. So what you are doing , in my opinion, is defining the "right to free speech" which, as nogods says below, must come before you can determine if that right is infringed. At least that is how I see it.

Thanks

[buddy]

I think the real issue is not the limiting phrase "shall not be infringed" but rather the subject of the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms."

First we have to define what is meant by "the right to keep and bear arms" and then we apply the "shall not be infringed" limiting clause (it is a limiting clause because it limits government action, it restricts government from infringing on whatever is included in the "right to bear and keep arms.")

"Shall not be infringed" is not the subject of the phrase. it is no part of the definition of the "right to keep and bear arms." It prohibits government action. It does not define the right itself.

The Heller decision reads that clause exactly as it is written. The Court defined the right to keep and bear arms as including (but not necessarily limited to) keeping a handgun at one's home for personal protection if the person is not disqualified from owning a gun. The court then held that such a right could not be infringed.

Everyone who argues that there is an "uninfringed right to keep and bear arms" still has to define that right before applying the "uninfringed" criteria.

For example, does the right to keep and bear arms apply to possession of anthrax or the small pox virus? If not, why not?

Does it apply to the manufacturing of weapons? any weapons? firearms as well as biological weapons? If not, why not?

Once you start listing things that are or are not included in the "right to keep and bear arms" then you are defining that right.

I saw you post this same argument on another thread and think you are exactly right. I had not heard it put this way before, though, but it seems logical to me.