Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As usual I'm in the minority.
I'm conservative and think it should greatly reduce the kinds of weapons that people are allowed to own.
The second amendment will NEVER be repealed, nor should it be.
That is my position, FWIW. Nobody needs assault or automatic weapons, but there are some that believe that is a slippery slope.
I also think that all this jumping up and down and blaming the NRA is badly misguided. The NRA is not the problem, but they are an easy target (pardon the pun).
Even if they were able to take down the NRA to assuage themselves, who would they go after the next time a shooting happened?
You have a right to bear arms, not a right to bear any kind of arms possible. Would you argue for US citizens to own bomber jets? Would you argue for citizens to own aircraft carriers? Why do you need military weapons? Take your shotgun, pistol, and other low ammunition gun and be happy.
What a ridiculous comment! How many people do you know that have their own bomber jet or their own personal aircraft carrier? You forgot to mention nukes. When you make comments like that you only end up making a complete fool out of yourself.
Quote:
"Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be hand carried--It's to keep and 'bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."-- "The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."--- Antonin Scalia (Heller vs DC) www.law.cornell.edu/suplt
*2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:* For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.*54–56.
AR15's and their semi automatic counterparts are ubiquitous, they constitute bearable arms and are indeed in "common use".
The Second Amendment affirms that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right which "shall not be infringed." It is not a right that has been granted by government.
Any attempt to repeal the Second Amendment is an infringement on that inherent right. You cannot "repeal" rights that come from God. The right to self defense is an unalienable right.
The Second Amendment does not specify specific types of firearms. At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, virtually all firearms were also "military" weapons. There was no distinction. During the revolutionary war, rifles and pistols were all used.
This is why Liberals hate the Constitution. They would quickly do away with the entire Bill of Rights if they could.
Of course the 2nd Amendment was created by the Government of the USA. It only exists in the structure of government.
Please show me where God said you have the right to a weapon. Is there a 3rd Testament I haven't heard of?
I agree with you that at the time of the Founders, the weapons were pretty much all the same. And that's fine. After all, I wouldn't want the well REGULATED militia turning out on the public square with weapons inferior to our common enemy.
I never see anyone being attacked. You live in a more exciting place than I do.
So I guess by your way of thinking is: Just because you've never seen it means it never happens to anyone? Then why do we even have a criminal justice system or prisons? I've never seen anyone get shot or stabbed before either. So then why the hell are we even arguing about guns since no one's ever been attacked before at least according to you?
Of course the 2nd Amendment was created by the Government of the USA. It only exists in the structure of government.
Please show me where God said you have the right to a weapon. Is there a 3rd Testament I haven't heard of?
I agree with you that at the time of the Founders, the weapons were pretty much all the same. And that's fine. After all, I wouldn't want the well REGULATED militia turning out on the public square with weapons inferior to our common enemy.
Your last comment is plain baloney.
The preamble to the Declaration of Independence states that: "We are endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable* rights". The Bill of Rights within the Constitution spells out what those inalienable rights are. It includes the 2nd Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say we are endowed by our government or an elected body of individuals. Therefore the only being that can rescind those rights is "our creator" whomever or what ever they may be. Whether you like it or not or disagree with it doesn't mean a God damn thing. That's how our Constitution and Declaration of Independence was written. Both are the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. All public officials put their hands on a bible and are sworn to uphold the Constitution "so help them God".
The 2nd Amendment and all of our individual civil liberties according to the founders of this nation are natural born rights. All they did was document them and establish them as the laws of the land who's purpose was to restrain the powers of government in order to prevent tyranny. Their reasoning behind that and ensuring all of our civil liberties is all spelled out in the Federalist Papers. After all they just fought and won their independence from the tyrannical British government. They certainly didn't want a repeat of what happened to them under King George III and the British Parliament. It would have made no sense whatsoever to set up our new system of government to be the same as the one they'd just overthrown.
Quote:
*Inalienable | Definition of Inalienable by Merriam-Webster www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
Define inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred — inalienable in a sentence
in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:
"freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
synonyms:
inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct, untransferable, nontransferable, ... more
I know that for those that want to eliminate the 2nd Amendment it's hard to come to grips with that. Too bad it is what it is. There's no way to twist it around to mean anything else.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 02-26-2018 at 12:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, it is.
