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.
People have argued over the exact meaning for years. Yes, the interpretation that has been accepted is that every US citizen can own and bear arms....but it's not exactly working out now is it?
Do you want your rights restricted because of what someone else might do? Do you want to lose your right to free speech because someone else might scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater? I don't think so.
Quote:
To keep the status quo about a law that involves a technology that has change greatly over the last two hundred years is mind boggling.
Given that weapon technology had changed a lot at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it is reasonable to believe that the founders understood that technology would continue to change going forward. Would you feel comfortable restricting the freedom of the press to use only quill/ink, and old time printing presses?
Quote:
Now I suggest you do a little research on the term " militia " See how many times that term has been modified since the 2nd Amendment was written. Also " arms ".
It doesn't matter. The 2nd guarantees the right of the "people," not the right of the "militia."
Quote:
If the 2nd Amendment was so unchangeable why are certain " arms " ILLEGAL for you to own?
Simple reason, activist judges. The Constitution only says what the Supremes say it means.
Study up a bit on the history of the 2nd. Its basic purpose was to ensure that the citizenry could be armed with the same basic weapons as the army of the time. At the time of writing, that was a Brown Bess musket. Today, it is an M-16 rifle. Parity in basic weaponry between citizens and military in the US existed up until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was passed. A very bad piece of legislation judicially upheld under sketchy circumstances. After NFA '34, we could still own the same basic weapons as our military, but were heavily taxed for it. FOPA '86 (another piece of legislation passed under even sketchier circumstances) shut the door on that. Now we are restricted to owning those that existed prior to May '86. So, you can still own a machinegun, just not a new one.
The history of the 2nd is a very interesting study on the erosion of basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. What so many anti-gunners don't seem to realize, is that if Congress and the Supremes can erode rights guaranteed by the 2nd, they can erode ANY rights guaranteed in the BOR. Many don't care about guns, because they aren't into them, or perhaps they are a bit of a hoplophobe. But when your other rights start being eroded, you will scream bloody murder.
As for the second amendment The founding Fathers had no idea that #1 guns would be so plentiful in the future and #2 brains would not be.
Guns are lethal so people who want to own one should be schooled in the safe handling and storage of them. We make people take driving tests as a matter of public safety and owning a gun is just as serious as navigating a car.
The Founding Fathers also had no idea that the Federal Government would have access to nuclear weapons or bunker busters or bullet proof tanks, either. What they did know, and what is the true basis of the 2nd Amendment, is that history has proven over and over that governments can be corrupt and tyrannical and therefore, citizens MUST have an unfettered right to keep and bear arms for their own protection.
Driving a car is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
In some states they require you to pass a safety course, or hunting safety test in order to purchase an firearm. I think California put this in place years ago, but maybe this should be required nationwide. There would be no registration just that one has passed a basic safety test. I'm a firearm owner I think most firearms should be legal, but having worked in a gun store a few folks that came in bought a firearm really had no idea how to safely handing it.
I don't know about should in terms of legal requirements, but any intelligent person would probably want to take the time to know how to properly use the gun. So they certainly should take a course to have a basic understanding of how to shoot in terms of common sense.
To keep the status quo about a law that involves a technology that has change greatly over the last two hundred years is mind boggling.
Like the internet compared to labor intensive printing presses?
Here is how it was written in the Pennsylvania constitution in 1776, it predates the US Constitution. Benjamin Franklin was one of the major authors.
Quote:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
1790 Update:
Quote:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
do you want your rights restricted because of what someone else might do? Do you want to lose your right to free speech because someone else might scream "fire!" in a crowded theater? I don't think so.
well try yelling fire in a theatre and see just how far free speech goes. There are limits.
given that weapon technology had changed a lot at the time of the writing of the constitution, it is reasonable to believe that the founders understood that technology would continue to change going forward. Would you feel comfortable restricting the freedom of the press to use only quill/ink, and old time printing presses?
we can't get into their heads, and we have no way of knowing what they thought. However it doesn't matter. It's the reality of the change in technology that society has to deal with.
it doesn't matter. The 2nd guarantees the right of the "people," not the right of the "militia."
again, we could go on forever. People have been arguing whether it meant the right of people who belong to militia's to bear arms, and others any " people ". Of course at the time it was written blacks or women were not considered people.
simple reason, activist judges. The constitution only says what the supremes say it means.
so if arms can be interpreted and restricted, and the term people can change it's meaning and militia nuanced over the years, then why not push for a saner 21st century restriction.
study up a bit on the history of the 2nd. Its basic purpose was to ensure that the citizenry could be armed with the same basic weapons as the army of the time. At the time of writing, that was a brown bess musket. Today, it is an m-16 rifle. Parity in basic weaponry between citizens and military in the us existed up until 1934 when the national firearms act was passed. A very bad piece of legislation judicially upheld under sketchy circumstances. After nfa '34, we could still own the same basic weapons as our military, but were heavily taxed for it. Fopa '86 (another piece of legislation passed under even sketchier circumstances) shut the door on that. Now we are restricted to owning those that existed prior to may '86. So, you can still own a machinegun, just not a new one.
so how many drones are you planning on buying? Nuclear arms, tanks??
the history of the 2nd is a very interesting study on the erosion of basic rights guaranteed by the constitution. What so many anti-gunners don't seem to realize, is that if congress and the supremes can erode rights guaranteed by the 2nd, they can erode any rights guaranteed in the bor. Many don't care about guns, because they aren't into them, or perhaps they are a bit of a hoplophobe. But when your other rights start being eroded, you will scream bloody murder.
nah. The us has already lost many rights, by the patriot act. The real issue is that too many people treat the constitution and it's amendments as a sacred dead document. Although i'm no lawyer, i've never understood why an amendment can't be amended.
Although i'm no lawyer, i've never understood why an amendment can't be amended.
Technically an amendment is forever, it can only be overruled by a new amendment which requires 3/4 of the states(38 of them) to vote in it's favor. The Constitution is purposely made difficult to change so the rights of the minority could not be trampled by the majority.
Originally Posted by taxphd do you want your rights restricted because of what someone else might do? Do you want to lose your right to free speech because someone else might scream "fire!" in a crowded theater? I don't think so.
well try yelling fire in a theatre and see just how far free speech goes. There are limits.
It appears that you didn't understand the question. I understand what will happen to me if I yell fire in a theater. The question is, do you want YOUR free speech rights restricted based on something that I MIGHT do?
given that weapon technology had changed a lot at the time of the writing of the constitution, it is reasonable to believe that the founders understood that technology would continue to change going forward. Would you feel comfortable restricting the freedom of the press to use only quill/ink, and old time printing presses?
we can't get into their heads, and we have no way of knowing what they thought. However it doesn't matter. It's the reality of the change in technology that society has to deal with.
I guess you didn't want to deal with the analogy of the quill, ink, and printing press, did you?
it doesn't matter. The 2nd guarantees the right of the "people," not the right of the "militia."
again, we could go on forever. People have been arguing whether it meant the right of people who belong to militia's to bear arms, and others any " people ". Of course at the time it was written blacks or women were not considered people.
And how have those arguments turned out? The people still have the right to keep and bare arms.
Expanding the definition of people to include blacks expands those that enjoy rights, it doesn't do anything to erode rights, which is what the anti-gunners wish to do.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that women weren't considered people at the time of the writing of the Constitution?
simple reason, activist judges. The constitution only says what the supremes say it means.
so if arms can be interpreted and restricted, and the term people can change it's meaning and militia nuanced over the years, then why not push for a saner 21st century restriction.
The meaning of militia hasn't been "nuanced." The Militia Act was passed which completely changed the original meaning of the word.
study up a bit on the history of the 2nd. Its basic purpose was to ensure that the citizenry could be armed with the same basic weapons as the army of the time. At the time of writing, that was a brown bess musket. Today, it is an m-16 rifle. Parity in basic weaponry between citizens and military in the us existed up until 1934 when the national firearms act was passed. A very bad piece of legislation judicially upheld under sketchy circumstances. After nfa '34, we could still own the same basic weapons as our military, but were heavily taxed for it. Fopa '86 (another piece of legislation passed under even sketchier circumstances) shut the door on that. Now we are restricted to owning those that existed prior to may '86. So, you can still own a machinegun, just not a new one.
so how many drones are you planning on buying? Nuclear arms, tanks??
Reading is fundamental. Please note the part where I said "basic weapons," and then provided examples. Your hyperbolic response is silly in that context.
the history of the 2nd is a very interesting study on the erosion of basic rights guaranteed by the constitution. What so many anti-gunners don't seem to realize, is that if congress and the supremes can erode rights guaranteed by the 2nd, they can erode any rights guaranteed in the bor. Many don't care about guns, because they aren't into them, or perhaps they are a bit of a hoplophobe. But when your other rights start being eroded, you will scream bloody murder.
nah. The us has already lost many rights, by the patriot act. The real issue is that too many people treat the constitution and it's amendments as a sacred dead document. Although i'm no lawyer, i've never understood why an amendment can't be amended.
Really? Your rational for further eroding Constitutionally guaranteed rights is that it's OK because other rights have already been eroded?
This discussion is a good illustration of why having our Constitution is so important, to protect us from people like you.
I think it should be required but that doesn't guarantee that the person with still use or handle the weapon safely. I remember when I was in the Army in Germany when the Berlin wall went up (Aug 61), we picked up our rifles and got in the trucks and one of the guys was trying to load the clip backwards in his rifle. Now he surely had enough training but still didn't grasp the basics. By the way, we took his ammo away from him.
Several other states have similar hurdles in their "permit to purchase" system, complete with racist enforcement
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
In some states they require you to pass a safety course, or hunting safety test in order to purchase an firearm. I think California put this in place years ago, but maybe this should be required nationwide.
There would be no registration just that one has passed a basic safety test. I'm a firearm owner I think most firearms should be legal, but having worked in a gun store a few folks that came in bought a firearm really had no idea how to safely handing it.
Michigan used to require taking the state-run class before you could even apply for a concealed carry permit. Of course the class was only offered once a year, at a facility inaccessible by public transit, and the waiting list was measured in years... unless you were white, and knew the sheriff.
In some states they require you to pass a safety course, or hunting safety test in order to purchase an firearm. I think California put this in place years ago, but maybe this should be required nationwide. There would be no registration just that one has passed a basic safety test. I'm a firearm owner I think most firearms should be legal, but having worked in a gun store a few folks that came in bought a firearm really had no idea how to safely handing it.
I think this is a great idea. . . AFTER we pass a law requiring prospective parents to take a parental fitness test
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.
Several other states have similar hurdles in their "permit to purchase" system, complete with racist enforcement
Sounds a lot like 
