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.
I have wondered about this too, not as a pro or anti gun person, but I do wonder how and where (or IF) a line is drawn in applying the 2nd amendment. Surely a line must be drawn somewhere. What about missiles? Nuclear weapons? Submarines with torpedoes? Bioterrorism agents? WMD?
If the Constitution is a living document that has evolved, and things like electronic media has complicated the interpretation of the 1st amendment, then certainly the 2nd amendment is not simple to apply either.
Electronic media hasn't complicated the 1st amendment, it's expanded it's scope to include all forms of communication. Using that as a benchmark it's completely reasonable for the 2nd amendment to include all modern forms of weapons as well.
The hysterical rantings of the paranoid gun-haters are so easy to predict.
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says that:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
Liberals hate that, because it gives citizens power over government. In the liberal view, anything that renders government any less than all-powerful, is unacceptable... though they don't dare say why.
Well, I hate that Patriot Act and many laws will disallow a lot of people from arming self as they please. But, nice job doing the expected... taking the need for "well regulated" completely out of the picture for a convenient "modern day" rhetoric that you tried to pass as the real second amendment.
I said it's obsolete in the context of its original intent and meaning. We've adapted, for instance, the 1st Amendment to 2012 realities and modern communication technologies.
I'm fine with adapting the 2nd Amendment as well. That's what our Supreme Court did in the recent DC v Heller decision. For the first time in US history, the Heller decision considered (declared if you want) the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right. It adapted the 2nd Amendment to modern times and ruled that it protects the right of individuals to own firearms for self-defense purposes - but under municipal regulatory frameworks.
I approve of that. I like the Heller decision.
great, then lets lake the 2nd Amendment read more like this.
Quote:
The rights of the people to own, posess, carry and use all weapons suitable for defense of self, family, community and country without regard to operation, capacity, features or style shall not be infringed. All levels of government are prohibited from regulating, licensing or taxing this right, or the weapons.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawa1992
For the sake of freedom, I think the right to bear arms should include automatic guns, etc etc etc. Not sure about ICBMs though. Right now, criminals get guns and convert them to be automatic. They'll find ways to get guns through illegal means. Banning certain guns hurts the law abiding citizen.
And terrorists get shoulder fired missiles, why isn't the NRA fighting for the right to own them?
Can Ahmedinejad claim this for a nuclear weapon's program?
Ahmedinejad can make whatever claim he 1. wants and 2. can back up.
The issue here is, can our government restrict our access to certain weapons and does such resrictions from the past, leave us unable to make the claim that they cannot/should not make such claims in the future.
As an American I seek to defend the position that the right to keep and bare arms is NOT given to me by the state. But is in fact a natural right. Therefore, the state is restricted from curbing my natural right.
Now, what I cannot do and what the constitution does not protect is my right to "arm up" with intent to do harm to innocents around me. Natural rights do not provide Ahmedinejad that right either.
So right wing pro gun logic means individuals have the right to purchase nuclear missiles right?
No. All it means is we ignore idiot's.
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.
