What is the limit of the right to keep and bear arms?

[dobleceroseite]

Seems many of you are thinking of yourselves here, under the mask of giving freedom to everyone. I, however, understand a little about how politics work, and the politics of today, in the modern times we are living... give open the opportunity to debate every admendment we have. Remember, the founders included a way to amend, amendments... they understood that the world will change, and some things have to change with it.

While I agree, "I" should be allowed to own whatever I want... b/c I'm a responsible adult, not everyone is capable of being responsible. So, a way to determine whether someone is capable of owning/operating (fill in the blank) isn't a bad thing guys. It does have to be done with great care, as with anything regarding the passing, or not passing of laws.

And while I truly love our American constitution, the founders didn't get everything right.

At that time in our history, slaves weren't whole people.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, women couldn't think as well as white men.

Women's suffrage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So please, keep an eye on how times change, and sometimes for the better. However much I love firearms, of all kinds, not every American is capable of owning/operating such things. Training, no matter who it's provided by, isn't bad.

So, while I understand that our 2nd Amendment was written to provide ever-lasting security against a tryannical government... endangering innocent people by allowing un-fit peoples to own/operate certain things isn't securing anyones rights. In fact, one persons rights cease, where anothers begin. People are not to be denied life, to provide another a weapon they are not suited to operate.

Being on the extreme of any argument is no more the answer than neglecting it as a whole.

Ok a little off topic but the three fifths compromise was a COMPROMISE!!! If you look at George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams all stated that slavery was a terrible idea. Jefferson even wrote in the original Declaration of Independence, first draft, he had it written that there would be no slavery. Look up Fredrick Douglas's opinion on the Three-Fifths clause. By the way in case you didn't know he was a freed slave.

Concerning women in politics. The only people who could vote were the people who have land. Which meant that the widows from the Revolutionary War could vote in the elections. Also if women were thought so little of them why did most of the Founding Fathers value their wife's opinions much. Look at George Washington and John Adams letters to their wives. Abigail Adams HIGHLY influenced John Adams policies.

[localgirl]

Oh lord...here we go....

[Treo]

that's why the 2A grant prisoners in prisons the right to possess firearms.

First, the second amendment doesn't grant anything, it restricts the governement from infringing on the rights of The People.

Second, you may wish to brush up on the Fith Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

[BravoSierra2012]

As our southern countries say: "Jesus Christo!". I knew a driver in the Marines that would take his unit out for drinks when they would get leave. This unit seemed to scrap and pick fights with each other more than most. Anyway, when they all were accounted for he would slap his unit coin down on the table basically calling coins on everyone else. One by one they all would slap their coins down and after all coins were shown he would remind them they are on the same team. They may not agree totally on everything but still had the same mission. It cost him to pay for all the drinks since everyone carried a coin, but it helped them survive and reminded them to work as a team, as a family. We all agree here that the gun laws as they stand are corrupt? Then keep that fight in mind. Bottoms up boys!!

[gunnerbob]

And the laws that are passed are still "infringements" regardless of how well intentioned the restrictions may be because they are still what some people think are "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" controls of what should not be controlled in the first place.

Folks can say that mandated training is a good thing because then everyone who passes the course according the the criteria set by whoever is in control at the time will suddenly be "safe" in how they handle the firearm. Well... does training guarantee all those who pass the course will always be "safe"? Ummmm... no. Was there some kind of problem with law abiding folks being unsafe with Thompson machine guns before the gangsters started using them and they became strictly controlled?

Not to mention the basic fact that whoever controls the training controls who is going to be "allowed" (permitted.. given permission) to own/bear an arm.

You see.. it isn't the training that bothers me... what bothers me is who is going to be in control of how much training, what kind of training, how much will it cost pricing what segment of the population completely out of any possibility of affording it, will be mandated? Because whoever controls all that controls who gets to be the "special people" who are "allowed" to have that kind of arm.

It would be easy for the government to only recognize a course of training that costs thousands of dollars and is only offered in one place in the entire Nation. See how the government can easily control who gets guns just by controlling the training?

But the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything at all about someone should be in control of who, what, where, and why, what is "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable" about an arm being borne... nor does it say anything about it applying only to "special people who pass the government mandated training".... it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

And mandating that only those who have passed specified training will be "allowed" to have a gun is exactly what "shall not be infringed" is all about.

I never said training will prevent all accidents. So, your argument is: B/c we can never prevent all accidents, we shouldn't even try.

??? Okay, good luck with that.

And, b/c the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about restricting arms use by peoples who are un-fit to operate them, we shouldn't restrict their ability to use them.

??? Okay, good luck with that too. I'm sure you can go find some really irresponsible people, give them a gun, and hope for the best. Yeah, you do that.

[gunnerbob]

Ok a little off topic but the three fifths compromise was a COMPROMISE!!! If you look at George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams all stated that slavery was a terrible idea. Jefferson even wrote in the original Declaration of Independence, first draft, he had it written that there would be no slavery. Look up Fredrick Douglas's opinion on the Three-Fifths clause. By the way in case you didn't know he was a freed slave.

Concerning women in politics. The only people who could vote were the people who have land. Which meant that the widows from the Revolutionary War could vote in the elections. Also if women were thought so little of them why did most of the Founding Fathers value their wife's opinions much. Look at George Washington and John Adams letters to their wives. Abigail Adams HIGHLY influenced John Adams policies.

Aside from providing some historic information, you just helped prove my point.

Even our great founding fathers didn't get everything right, that's what I said.

While I understand that they played politics, y'know, compromising and all... it doesn't make their decesion right. Having slaves for one, but then treating them as less than an entire human being is wrong. The treatment our founders gave women as a whole was also wrong, thinking they couldn't learn and process information to the level required to vote for, or run for office.... yeah, that's not cool either.

My point remains, even our spectacular founding fathers didn't have all the answers, and they weren't supermen. They were capable of making the same bad decisions we do now-a-days. They did.

[gunnerbob]

I am absolutely amazed at the number of people here who seem to support giving weapons to people who may be un-fit to operate them without the greater chance of harming themselves or others.

Some of you guys are missing the important factor here. If you are going to exercise your right to own/operate firearms, you had better be able to do it responsibly, for nobody has the "right" to deny another their life, safety, and ability to enjoy their constitutional freedoms by causing them harm... by being un-fit to operate a firearm.

But, y'know what, you guys go ahead and pass out some weapons to people who shouldn't have them for reasons of inability to operate safely... and hope they don't do anything stupid.

[Bikenut]

I am absolutely amazed at the number of people here who seem to support giving weapons to people who may be un-fit to operate them without the greater chance of harming themselves or others.

Same old argument... "because some are irresponsible then all must suffer."

Some of you guys are missing the important factor here. If you are going to exercise your right to own/operate firearms, you had better be able to do it responsibly, for nobody has the "right" to deny another their life, safety, and ability to enjoy their constitutional freedoms by causing them harm... by being un-fit to operate a firearm.

And some folks are missing the important factor that when people have a "right" then no one else is important enough to decide they are "un-fit" to have that right.

Assessing penalties (passing laws) for exercising the right to keep and bear arms doesn't stop idiots and criminals from doing harm with firearms because they don't obey the law anyway. But it does cause hardships for the law abiding honest honorable folk who do obey the law.

We don't need laws/mandates that restrict the right to keep and bear arms... what we need is to punish the folks, the people, the individual, who uses his right to keep and bear arms to harm innocents.

Does anyone really think some law stops a convicted felon from having a gun? Really?

But, y'know what, you guys go ahead and pass out some weapons to people who shouldn't have them for reasons of inability to operate safely... and hope they don't do anything stupid.

Same old argument... -I think some folks shouldn't have guns because they don't stand up to my personal standards-

And I am absolutely amazed at folks who think they are so important they can be judge and jury and decide who can own/carry/operate a gun according to what they think is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

[walt629]

I know I'm coming in late in the argument however...

I am absolutely amazed at the number of people here who seem to support giving weapons to people who may be un-fit to operate them without the greater chance of harming themselves or others.

Bob, it would seem that by your statements you are missing the point also. The argument has become about the 2A. What the government gives, the government can take away.

The OP was, to me, a disguised question of where do we draw the line in the description of what an "arm" is and therefore does the 2A have limitations to what type of 'arm' is protected under the 2A.

Any restriction of access to an arm, through the requirement of training mandates, denial of ownership through additional taxes, or any other reasoning, regardless of what the arm is, is an infringement on the 2A.

The fact that the government has already set the guideline to what classification of weapons the citizen is "allowed" to own under the laws set forth by the government is a demonstration that they can and will restrict the citizens access to any and all firearms when they really want to push the issue as long as we let them.

And like it has already been stated above, the government has already imposed infringements on the 2A when it comes to full automatic weapons, suppressors and any device it considers a device of war. Sure it is possible to buy and M1 Abrams if you have the money but it will have the teeth pulled first. It will be demilitarized first so the citizen won't have an advantage in an encounter with the government.

This may sound like a silly argument but there is a growing cross section of the population that believe the government will use every stepping stone it can find to get to the complete eradication of private gun ownership. The first step is to redefine what we think the "arms" represents in the 2A.

Some of you guys are missing the important factor here. If you are going to exercise your right to own/operate firearms, you had better be able to do it responsibly, for nobody has the "right" to deny another their life, safety, and ability to enjoy their constitutional freedoms by causing them harm... by being un-fit to operate a firearm.

In essence I think you're right here. Every "responsible" gun owner should seek proper training on any firearm they posses and that should also include the Ma-Duce or the Harrier Jump Jet(wouldn't THAT be cool?!). But to impose a restriction due to training levels is still a restriction.

But if I were to paraphrase your statement "for nobody has the "right" to deny another their life, safety, and ability to enjoy their constitutional freedoms by mandating weapon operations training."

But, y'know what, you guys go ahead and pass out some weapons to people who shouldn't have them for reasons of inability to operate safely... and hope they don't do anything stupid.

I somewhat agree with your sentiments Bob. I really do want everyone around me to know why they are possessing a firearm a I sure as the devil want them to be able to safely operate it.

And there is a distinct difference between a responsible gun owner possessing a firearm and "pass out some weapons to people who shouldn't have them for reasons of inability to operate safely". But who should determine who it is that "is safe to operate" and who is not?

If we allow a government sanctioned mandate requiring specific training prior to the legal ownership of the weapons of discussion, how long will it be before the mandates are imposed on us to own that very special side arm that keeps you company every day?

Have a good one and be safe out there.

[Bikenut]

I never said training will prevent all accidents. So, your argument is: B/c we can never prevent all accidents, we shouldn't even try.

It appears you are basing your argument on the premise that because training can prevent some accidents that is enough to justify restricting the ability to exercise the right to bear arms to only those who have been trained.

My argument is that once training is mandated... whoever controls the training controls who gets to bear arms. And when the government is in control of a right then that right is being "infringed".

It appears to me that your argument is that folks must first meet some standard set by someone else who obviously is more qualified than just the average ordinary stupid citizen before that citizen can exercise a right. Well... if one must first meet a standard to exercise a right then they do not have the freedom to exercise that right... all they have is a privilege contingent upon always meeting those standards.

Bad thing is... depending on who is in power.. those standards are easily made more strict. Which, by the way, is the system we have now.

??? Okay, good luck with that.

And, b/c the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about restricting arms use by peoples who are un-fit to operate them, we shouldn't restrict their ability to use them.

Because the 2nd Amendment is NOT permission from the government to keep and bear arms but is actually an edict from "we the people" for the government to keep it's hands off the natural right to keep and bear arms that human beings are born with... got that part??? The right to keep and bear arms is a NATURAL right!.... then no one should be restricted for any reason from keeping and bearing arms.

No one said folks can't be punished (imprisoned) for doing harm while exercising a right (any of them)...

??? Okay, good luck with that too. I'm sure you can go find some really irresponsible people, give them a gun, and hope for the best. Yeah, you do that.

Irresponsible people of all kinds regardless of what right we are talking about need to be punished for the harm they cause. But there is no need to restrict the rights of everyone else just because some are irresponsible.

My comments are in blue above.