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.
Your argument doesn't take into account that when it comes to the 2nd amendment there is no offsetting expansion of other rights.
By the way, at no point in the nations history, did the unborn not have rights, until very recently because only a certain portion of society has said it's first breath, a human being is not a being. That is of course, only until someone carrying an unborn child is killed and then the stops come out and the very same people promoting abortion rights change and want their measure for the unborn. Also, in the case of abortion, it was not a question of some portion of society dictating anything, society dictated it. Saying a portion dictated anything implied there was no law against abortion when the facts are there for anyone to know, there was a law and thus it was not the purview of a few or certain portion of society, the law represented all society.
Abortions have been preformed for eons. There were no laws forbiding abortions until the late 1800's.
there is no law or Constitutional provision or amendment affirming rights of the "unborn". Protections are provided for fetuses at the 24th week[start of the 3rd trimester] But no rigths are extended to the unborn.
If you know of any right or blanket protection afforded the "unborn" please cite those.
No, not another gun control thread but it is related.
We've expanded the freedom of speech to include burning flags and a host of other activities that were never included in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights. Abortion has become a right. Go through the list of "rights" and they are all expanded through time. There are some restrictions but in the balance, the rights are greatly expanded from anything envisioned when the founding documents were drafted. All except one.
Some of the rights expanded over time have resulted in the deaths of many people. According to a very large percentage of people in the US, the right to have an abortion has killed uncountable numbers of human beings yet when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, somehow certain people want to use the standards in place hundreds of years ago to decide the limits on those rights.
How many activities taken for granted today and protected as rights were never described in years long past, yet evolution of the founding documents is cited as a reason for the expansion of rights to cover those activities?
The expansion of some of the rights to cover certain activities can be seen as for the common good unless you limit who can be considered as part of the common good. When those deciding what is a right and what is not also decide who is part of the common good, the ends justify the means.
So what social mechanism allows such a disparity between what rights are going to be expanded and what rights will be restricted?
My take on this is that many things we call right were never clearly defined in the Constitution. The original intent of the Constitution was for certain enumerated obligations of the federal government and what is not covered belongs to the States to handle. However, in time this intent was twisted to the point we are today where the federal government has hold of many areas that in reality does not belong to it.
In some cases I actually have no problem with it but I also do not agree with many that claim that was the original intent. Many in my opinion force the issue claiming that is what the Constitution say. Take care.
What would the expansion of the 2nd ammedment rights be? The right to own grenade launchers? Tanks? Tactical nukes? You can already own some of that anyway. LOL
The right to own guns is still there, but they are regulated much like cars and the previously mentioned abortions. Ditto certain medicines, chemicals, etc. A free-for-all is not in society's best interests with the object/action can be deadly.
To me the problem lies in that the 2nd Ammendment as other, actually the Constitution also, was based in Common Law. Now people simply try to base it on the exact words. Well, words do not necessarily reflect the intent or spirit of the law when it was written.
Common Law developed through the centuries as laws that became into existance based on legal experience. In other words to me it was common sense.
Your point about tanks and nukes would be dictated on common sense. I do not thin many that support the second ammendment would have a problem with someone trying to own a nuclear weapon. Take care.
As much as people like to claim the founding fathers would support their position on a topic, I think its hard to know what they would really say in the modern world. For example, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when muskets were the "arms" being spoken of. There were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons and the government was not armed with guns more advanced than the average citizen could own with the exception of the military having plenty of cannons.
I have yet to hear anyone from the NRA come out saying we are being deprived of our rights to keep and bear arms because we cant go buy hand grenades, land mines, or surface to air missiles. Yet they demand people understand the idea that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, they have been infringed and I'm glad they have. I would think the founding fathers would most likely agree that letting anyone who wants to go buy hand grenades and missiles is a bad idea.
Where is the acceptable line? It varies from person to person. I don't currently own a gun, but am planning to get my concealed carry license sometime and have a personal weapon for self defense, so I am not anti-gun. That being said, I am for more background checks, in all buying situations including gun shows and private sales. For anyone who would say my view is an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights, I would ask them why they aren't mad that hand grenades aren't available to any and all citizens who want them?
As much as people like to claim the founding fathers would support their position on a topic, I think its hard to know what they would really say in the modern world. For example, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when muskets were the "arms" being spoken of. There were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons and the government was not armed with guns more advanced than the average citizen could own with the exception of the military having plenty of cannons.
I have yet to hear anyone from the NRA come out saying we are being deprived of our rights to keep and bear arms because we cant go buy hand grenades, land mines, or surface to air missiles. Yet they demand people understand the idea that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, they have been infringed and I'm glad they have. I would think the founding fathers would most likely agree that letting anyone who wants to go buy hand grenades and missiles is a bad idea.
Where is the acceptable line? It varies from person to person. I don't currently own a gun, but am planning to get my concealed carry license sometime and have a personal weapon for self defense, so I am not anti-gun. That being said, I am for more background checks, in all buying situations including gun shows and private sales. For anyone who would say my view is an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights, I would ask them why they aren't mad that hand grenades aren't available to any and all citizens who want them?
I do not think the Founding Father would have a problem even in today's world. A principle when it is founded on common sense can apply at any era.
Land mines? Common sense would simply say that they can be restricted because they would not apply for let us say home protection. The same could be said of missiles. I think people tend to go to the exaggerated area when issues like this are discussed.
The right to bear arms is simply a principle that an individual has the rigth to protect his life and his property. Is it necessary to have a nuclear missile to do so? I think the Founding Fathers would laugh at people using such exaggerated tactics to deny the principle behind a right they felt Americans have.
I am with you regarding background checks if they show an individual shows he is a menace to society if he has a weapon. At some point people can forfeit something if they abuse a right. It is no different than liberty. That is why we have jails when someone becomes a menace to society. Take care.
As much as people like to claim the founding fathers would support their position on a topic, I think its hard to know what they would really say in the modern world. For example, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when muskets were the "arms" being spoken of. There were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons and the government was not armed with guns more advanced than the average citizen could own with the exception of the military having plenty of cannons.
I have yet to hear anyone from the NRA come out saying we are being deprived of our rights to keep and bear arms because we cant go buy hand grenades, land mines, or surface to air missiles. Yet they demand people understand the idea that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, they have been infringed and I'm glad they have. I would think the founding fathers would most likely agree that letting anyone who wants to go buy hand grenades and missiles is a bad idea.
Where is the acceptable line? It varies from person to person. I don't currently own a gun, but am planning to get my concealed carry license sometime and have a personal weapon for self defense, so I am not anti-gun. That being said, I am for more background checks, in all buying situations including gun shows and private sales. For anyone who would say my view is an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights, I would ask them why they aren't mad that hand grenades aren't available to any and all citizens who want them?
Right over here....
In your ignorance (not an insult, just lack of knowledge) you fail to realize that Lexington and concord and from that the entire founding of this country occurred because the Americans resisted the British taking their privately owned ARTILLERY!!!!!!
Also please not that 'registration' (which is what background checks are) are universally followed by confiscation.
If the founding fathers were here today, they would likely be in Guantanamo bay!
In your ignorance (not an insult, just lack of knowledge) you fail to realize that Lexington and concord and from that the entire founding of this country occurred because the Americans resisted the British taking their privately owned ARTILLERY!!!!!!
Also please not that 'registration' (which is what background checks are) are universally followed by confiscation.
If the founding fathers were here today, they would likely be in Guantanamo bay!
I'm not a gun owner, and prefer the Australian and British model, but you are right about one thing.
The Constitution makes no mention of what kind of arms, it just states "arms".
In reality, I believe the 2nd Amendment means just that, all "arms". The ordinary everyday joe blow does have a right to own a nuclear weapon, machine gun, etc. according to that 200 plus yr old and outdated document. In the future, joe blow has a right to own a "phaser" or some other such weapon that could kill thousands in minutes. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it qualify what type of weapons? It doesn't.
My solution would be to amend the Constitution, but that will never happen as this country and govt is so dysfunctional now. I hope it does come to pass that in the future Americans start acquiring all kinds of weapons. Maybe it will force some kind of resolution.
I'm not a gun owner, and prefer the Australian and British model, but you are right about one thing.
The Constitution makes no mention of what kind of arms, it just states "arms".
In reality, I believe the 2nd Amendment means just that, all "arms". The ordinary everyday joe blow does have a right to own a nuclear weapon, machine gun, etc. according to that 200 plus yr old and outdated document. In the future, joe blow has a right to own a "phaser" or some other such weapon that could kill thousands in minutes. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it qualify what type of weapons? It doesn't.
Usually people read a law two ways, either by the spirit of it or by the letter. To me there is where part of the problem lies.
What was the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote that? What did they show in action at the time? To read the Constitution by the letter as you are doing does not mean that is what they had in mind. As I wrote in a previous paragraph much of what they wrote was with the Common Law mentality of the times. Based on that, I believe that the spirit of the law would be more appropriate. This means that the community would not allow you to own a nuclear weapon or have have a huge tank park outside your house. That is why it is important to see what was the original intent of any law, not just read the words.
That seems to be the mentality that exists today when reading laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
My solution would be to amend the Constitution, but that will never happen as this country and govt is so dysfunctional now. I hope it does come to pass that in the future Americans start acquiring all kinds of weapons. Maybe it will force some kind of resolution.
I do agree with you in ammending the Constitution but now with what you have in mind. Also, if (and that is a big if) you were correct as far as saying our govt is dysfunctional it is the problem of the American people for not getting involved enough. Take care.
In my opinion, technology has expanded the rights in the second amendment much as it has expanded the rights in the first. When the original constitution was signed the form of mass communication was large meetings and the printing press. Now we have the internet, e-books, and i-pods. The second amendment dealt with muskets. Freaking muskets! The difference between a musket and a semi automatic sniper rifle is enormous.
If you look at the "Federalist Papers" that deal with this subject you will find a different intent from the founders of the Constitution. Their intent was to protect the States and it's citizens from the possible abusive powers of a Central Government. If the Central government (Federal) formed a "standing army" then it is the right of the States to form a citizen milita of equal or even greater strength. At this time in the formation of the government all armies were of a citizen milita, once the war was over the "Continental army" was disbanded, this only left the citizen soldier to do the protecting until another army could be put together. This was the intent of the founders, a citizen should be armed for self protection and the protection of the State if called upon. One must remember that most households had firearms, it was important for the gathering of foods. The founders new this very well and relied on it for the protection of the citizens.
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.
