"unabridged" 2nd amendment - Page 7
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 117

Thread: "unabridged" 2nd amendment

  1. #61
    Yes...there are weapons now that did not exist when the Constitution was written...there are a lot of things in the world that did not exist then...it's called progress.

    The framers recognized there would be changes...with weapons for example, they had seen improvements over the period of their lives and were aware that there was a time guns didn't exist at all...do we really think they were so stupid that they thought all progress had stopped?

    Actually, they were smart enough to make the Constitution "updatable" by including the procedures for amendment. If we today (or at least a portion of us) believe that the 2nd amendment should include some exceptions, the vehicle is there to insert those exceptions rather that just try to twist the words that exist and justify violating it by saying there are reasons that the founders never imagined.

  2.   
  3. #62
    This discussion reminds me of the story about the man and woman who find themselves seated beside each other on a train traveling cross coutry. They strike up a conversation and eventually the talk turns a little toward sex and prostitutes. The woman says, "I don't see how anyone could sell themselves like that for money". The man replies, "Well would you sleep with me in my berth tonight for a million dollar? No one would know except us." She said, "I suppose that I could go along with that." He said, "Well how about ten dollars"? She exclaimed, "No, just what kind of woman do you take me for"? He said, "I think we have established that, we are now just haggling over the price".

    This is the same way with 2A. One may claim that 2A describes an unlimited right but unless you are OK with the third grader taking the suitcase nuke to school for show and tell and it is OK for prisioners to carry while in jail then you agree that there are some limitations to 2A. The discussion is over where that limitation lies. Right now I find those limitations to be way to strict, however I also find that I cannot agree with many that proclaim an unlimited restriction on any type and everyone being able to carry any where they desire.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    This is the same way with 2A. One may claim that 2A describes an unlimited right but unless you are OK with the third grader taking the suitcase nuke to school for show and tell and it is OK for prisioners to carry while in jail then you agree that there are some limitations to 2A. The discussion is over where that limitation lies. Right now I find those limitations to be way to strict, however I also find that I cannot agree with many that proclaim an unlimited restriction on any type and everyone being able to carry any where they desire.
    As written, there are no exclusions to the 2nd...

    Most might agree that certain exclusions are acceptable (even possibly good ideas), but I really thought the question here regarded how the 2nd is written...not how we would wish it written.

    Allowing the government to violate the 2nd because we feel there are weapons that "should" be banned or restricted to government agents is basically undermining the constitution as a whole and giving the government carte blanche to do as it will without regard to those pesky rights supposedly reserved to the people.

    Saying that violating the 2nd is OK because you don't agree that private citizens should have certain weapons is identical to saying that violating the 1st is OK because one doesn't like what someone is saying or because you don't approve of a given religion.

    If enough people agree that there are restrictions to be made...in the 5th, the 1st or any other portion of the constitution, the vehicle is there to legally make changes without just saying "Do what you wish...the constitution is outdated and irrelevant"...


  5. If by the standards presented here, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is not be strayed from. You are OK with a known violent felon walking down your street in the middle of the day with a fully automatic riffle. The prisoner in his jail cell cleaning his Glock 9mm pistol. Also with the terrorist driving on your street with a mini-gun strapped to the roof of the armored SUV heading to your kids grade school. Your neighbors 12 year old kid on the playground with an Uzi and his psychopathic father finishing up the assembly of his thermonuclear bomb in his garage?
    No restrictions means just that, anyone can have what ever, where ever and when ever they want.
    I am not saying that the only firearms we are allowed to have and carry are smooth bore muzzle loaders and swords as our forefathers would have had, but there has to be some common sense applied. Reasonable restrictions must be permitted in order to prevent violent criminals and other undesirables from unfettered access to firearms. I am a strong believer in the second amendment, but do not believe that violent criminals or terrorists, very young children or the mentally unstable should have access to guns. I would be categorize anyone that believes they should into the mentally unstable section. On the other side of the coin, I don't think non-violent criminals (white collar criminals, etc) should loose the right to keep and bear arms. I don't see why the stock broker should loose this right just because he was convicted of a non-violent crime.

    Carry on.

  6. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxMentis View Post
    As written, there are no exclusions to the 2nd...

    Most might agree that certain exclusions are acceptable (even possibly good ideas), but I really thought the question here regarded how the 2nd is written...not how we would wish it written.

    Allowing the government to violate the 2nd because we feel there are weapons that "should" be banned or restricted to government agents is basically undermining the constitution as a whole and giving the government carte blanche to do as it will without regard to those pesky rights supposedly reserved to the people.

    Saying that violating the 2nd is OK because you don't agree that private citizens should have certain weapons is identical to saying that violating the 1st is OK because one doesn't like what someone is saying or because you don't approve of a given religion.

    If enough people agree that there are restrictions to be made...in the 5th, the 1st or any other portion of the constitution, the vehicle is there to legally make changes without just saying "Do what you wish...the constitution is outdated and irrelevant"...

    It all goes back to defining the right. For example, the right against self incrimination does not include signing a tax return under penalties of perjury. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press does include malicious libel. Possession of a weapon by a felon is not a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. All by definition of the "right" under consideration.

    "freedom of speech" and "witness against himself" and "bear and keep arms" have no intrinsic universal meaning. They have to be given definition by those who employ those phrases. Once we define those rights, then and only then, does the "shall not be infringed" prohibition become operative.

    Those who argue "shall not be infringed" defines the right itself are putting the cart before the horse. They do so with emotional rhetoric rather than intellectual reasoning.

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    So now we have to determine who is fit to make the decisions with regards to the type of arms one can have. Who is fit to determine what a reasonable restriction is? What is a reasonable restriction by definition? The term reasonable has no intrinsic value... No two people will agree on what reasonable is....

    So it's the luck of the draw and the bias of the judges that make the decisions...

    My question to all; When they decide the "Right" does not exist for all and it's time to turn them in and hand them over, what say you all? Will you comply and become the obedient subject?
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  8. #67
    There is nothing in 2A about reasonable and that actually is not a part and ahs nothing to do with it. As for who makes the determination, that has already been decided. Congress, local legislaters and the SCOTUS makes the determination of what falls under 2A and reasonable may or may not be a part of it. It is up to each one of us to help those in charge of making the decisions decide on what 2A should include. If you want 2A to include suitcase nukes then get with the program of letting your representatives know or run for office yourself and become a decision maker. The same way if you think that all arms should be banned. We can argue all day on a message board about what 2A means but we don't have the decision power but we can influence those that do.

  9. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    So now we have to determine who is fit to make the decisions with regards to the type of arms one can have. Who is fit to determine what a reasonable restriction is? What is a reasonable restriction by definition? The term reasonable has no intrinsic value... No two people will agree on what reasonable is....

    So it's the luck of the draw and the bias of the judges that make the decisions...

    My question to all; When they decide the "Right" does not exist for all and it's time to turn them in and hand them over, what say you all? Will you comply and become the obedient subject?
    Now here we are getting into another amendment...the 5th.


  10. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Reasonable restrictions must be permitted in order to prevent violent criminals and other undesirables from unfettered access to firearms.
    I agree, but the problem is that the government doesn't often delineate between law-abiding citizens and bad guys. Take for instance, the Texas constitution. The say we're all allowed to keep/bear, but that the state reserves the power to regulate that right with an "eye to prevent crime".

    That would be all fine and good if it actually worked that way, but as written, the Texas penal code prevents EVERYBODY from carrying a handgun (unless licensed to do so) - including law-abiding citizens. Tell me, how is it "reasonable" that law-abiding citizens are prevented from exercising their 2A rights when they aren't the people that should be "reasonably" restricted?

    Further, firearms restrictions against felons are, by and large, absurd and pointless due to the criminal nature of felons, and restrictions against against the insane are equally pointless because they probably can't tell (or simply don't consider) the difference between right and wrong.

    Sure, I suppose they should have laws against which they can prosecute the bad guys, but restricting the rights of everyone else in the process is just plain wrong.

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    There is nothing in 2A about reasonable and that actually is not a part and has nothing to do with it. As for who makes the determination, that has already been decided. Congress, local legislaters and the SCOTUS makes the determination of what falls under 2A and reasonable may or may not be a part of it. It is up to each one of us to help those in charge of making the decisions decide on what 2A should include. If you want 2A to include suitcase nukes then get with the program of letting your representatives know or run for office yourself and become a decision maker. The same way if you think that all arms should be banned. We can argue all day on a message board about what 2A means but we don't have the decision power but we can influence those that do.
    Yes correct. There is nothing written in 2A regarding reason specifically by design.

    I spent much time and effort assisting with campaigns for individuals running for office who would have worked to protect the rights of gun owners across MA. Instead we get another 4 years of the same old Rights trampling *********... H4102 is another bill proposed here in MA that will restrict the number of firearms one can purchase per month to 1 and eliminate the ability of gun owners to sell firearms to each other in face to face transfers. Private sales would have to take place through a FFL licensed in MA and be subject to restrictions. FFL transfer fees can run $35.00 per transaction or more.

    At the beginning of this year I sold one, bought 2, and traded a non firearm item for 2 others that were acquired via face to face transfers. All of that took place in 45 days. If the above bill had been signed into law, all of that would have taken me 4-5 months and cost an additional $70.00... One of the transfers could have been debated due to the firearm not being listed on the roster of approved firearms for sale in MA. That's right folks they have a list of the models that we can purchase here new in MA. Many guns I'd like to own are not on the list. Kimber, Glock, Springfield Armory, Kel-Tec, along with many others are "can't have legally" guns...

    I'm perhaps sensitive to the idea of compromise and interpretation because all we (gun owners) do here is compromise when it comes to our rights and freedoms. I'm considering moving from MA for career and cost of living reasons. Working the details out...

    When you have some free time and perhaps feel the need to bring yourself to the point of physical illness, read the gun laws here in MA.

    I caution all of you who advocate restriction and interpretation when it comes to your God given right to "Keep and Bear Arms"... At what point do you cry "UNCLE"?

    Think it through before you say yes. Eventually one aspect of gun ownership that effects you will come under fire...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 06:57 PM
  2. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 05:02 PM
  3. 2nd Amendment extended to states and local governments
    By Stiofan in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 12:39 PM
  4. Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 08:37 PM
  5. Americans Say 2nd Amendment Is Individual Right
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 11:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast