Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:10 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,788,452 times
Reputation: 4174

Advertisements

As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?

 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:14 AM
 
30,072 posts, read 18,678,343 times
Reputation: 20892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law". But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?

Exactly right. The "heavy weapons" of the day were cannon. There were no restrictions in the consitution regarding "heavy weapons". The idea is to keep the population on par with regard to armaments relative to the government, which may at some point decide to use those weapons on the population.

I don't think we are well enough armed, relative to the military.
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,138 posts, read 22,824,585 times
Reputation: 14116
A rejected draft of the 2nd Ammendment? :
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, however only Federal institutions may possess flintlock arms and rifled barrels, while free men must only acquire matchlock smoothbore firearms and bladed weapons"



As if the Founding Fathers knew where technology would go in 200 years?
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:21 AM
 
5,524 posts, read 9,941,585 times
Reputation: 1867
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Exactly right. The "heavy weapons" of the day were cannon. There were no restrictions in the consitution regarding "heavy weapons". The idea is to keep the population on par with regard to armaments relative to the government, which may at some point decide to use those weapons on the population.

I don't think we are well enough armed, relative to the military.
I would love a live nuclear warhead as a coffee table or a tank for my daily commute.
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:23 AM
 
5,524 posts, read 9,941,585 times
Reputation: 1867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
So then what is the definition of a "Well regulated militia?
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,830,565 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
It ain't the law. We should be discussing, why the word "regulated" was incorporated, much less emphasized further as "well regulated".

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,805,597 times
Reputation: 24863
At least your coffee and certain body parts would be kept warm and very few drivers would cut you off without using turn signals.
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:27 AM
 
5,524 posts, read 9,941,585 times
Reputation: 1867
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
At least your coffee and certain body parts would be kept warm and very few drivers would cut you off without using turn signals.
Precisely. And if by chance the US Government decides to turn on us I can fight back.
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:28 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,788,452 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
It ain't the law. We should be discussing, why the word "regulated" was incorporated, much less emphasized further as "well regulated".

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
As I already pointed out, this was part of the REASON why the right cannot be taken away or restricted, not a CONDITION on the right being taken away.

If you like, see http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm for a detailed analysis of the language in the 2nd.

Back to the subject:
Why did the Founding Fathers refuse to insert the word "unreasonably" before the word "infringed", as so many of our posters here seem to think they "actually meant"?

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
 
Old 07-31-2012, 11:30 AM
 
Location: southern california
61,288 posts, read 87,449,435 times
Reputation: 55563
the founding fathers did a good job. btw they tried to get it passed w/o the bill of rights and could not. there is a reason.
bear in mind the mentality u deal with today. if the founding fathers were alive they would be jeered and mocked and voted out of office immediately.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top