2nd amendment right ... where should it end? (page 2)

TD

Why don't you read the majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller? --Much of your question is answered.

Simon

If guns were only useful in a militia setting you may have made a half intelligent point.

If you realized that the only right for having guns according to the constitution is in a militia setting you may have understood why Scalia was such a nincompoop.

This is to highlight the ridiculousness in 2016 of the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, not to decide whether all guns should be banned or any guns serve some useful and benign purpose for some people.

Would putting limits on certain types of weapons be against the constitution? No, of course not. If you think it is then you shouldn't be allowed to limit anything so why shouldn't people own tanks, military jets, battleships and the like whether from their own wealth or "lent" to them by a foreign power.

Surely they have the right?

Simon

You might feel that the Bundy's where wrong and the government was right, that is fine I don't want to argue that point. However in this situation they had the local populations support, sheriff support, and LOTS of armed men. In this situation the government DID back down. The people got to defend what they thought was their right, and everybody went home safe and sound

They avoided a shootout but they didn't back down - the criminals involved are now facing prosecutions. In Oregon they let them disperse before trying to apprehend them and one of them decided to go out guns blazing.

People forget that those nuts are exactly what the 2nd amendment is all about. It's all smoke and mirrors - who really believes that shooting at "the government" will ever mean you'll walk out of court because of the 2nd amendment?

If it meant something it would extend to shooting, not just be an excuse to allow gun sales which is all it is. You have no right to use the weapons for the purpose the amendment claims.

Simon

Edit: Screw this. Just deleted my comment. Nothing I say is going to make a difference to Simon.
He hates guns, hates people that like guns, You can't reason with hate

Shame you resort to name calling instead of trying to point out the error in my reasoning.

You see it's not about hate - it's about pointing out the fallacy of the "right" and the interpretation of it.

If it was really a right then you shouldn't ever have it taken away, but it often is. Every citizen should have the right to have a gun if it was a genuine right - whether they have a past criminal conviction, mental health issues or anti-government political outlook. Isn't that what the holy writing of the 2nd amendment says?

If my comments made no sense you'd be able to address them, but instead you resort to name calling. Please find and highlight where the 2nd amendment stops applying and why as per the original question.

Hadriel

"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."

I don't see the limitation for Militia only.

What I read is the right "to KEEP and bear arms". The comma is intentional. If only for the purpose of militia there's be no need to KEEP the arms correc? There are two parts here. Yes a militia is needed. A way for common citizens to ban together to be trained for the purpose of defending against a rogue government.

The second part is to KEEP these arms. Why does it say that? It's because Britain was preventing not only the banding together and training of the militia but also the right to keep the weapons in the first place. You can't train without the weapons! It was written this way for very specific reasons.

So no the 2nd amendment is not limited to just the first part of the sentence.

I'm no historian but it is clear the Euros were greedy. They oppressed people with taxes in lands they were providing zero services for that tax. They came up with every possible scenario to keep the colonies from being able to fight back and defend themselves from the oppression. Kinda reminds me of the Watchtower and its summarily dismissing those that speak the truth as a means to silence them. All kidding aside it is the same principle.

Americans had enough of this chicanery and learned a hard lesson. The 2nd amendment is about not letting that happen again.

If gun prohibition yielded safer states I could see an argument here, however the facts are it is the exact opposite as I've pointed out.

Bottom line just because nut cases exist in the world doesn't mean I don't have the right to protect myself and my family.

Simon

I think they speak a bit like Yoda but there is a definite link between the right to bear arms being necessary for the security of a free state and those cannot be separated.

If it's to protect against foreign invasion then it has been superseded by structures now in place. There are other amendments that are never heard of because they simply don't apply to society anymore. Thinking they are the holy word of god and can never be questioned is fine if you want to live in the past but surely the wellbeing of people alive now should take precedence over tradition.

They oppressed people with taxes in lands they were providing zero services for that tax.

Ah, the old "fighting against taxation" that you were probably taught?

The "tax / trade war" with Britain was because Britain took tax *off* it's tea products to boost sales to handle the east india tea company collapse (the leheman brothers of their day). The lower prices of British tea then undercut the local produce that relied on slavery ... also talked about being outlawed and abolished. It wasn't so much fighting against tyranny as tyrants fighting against freedoms.

And gun prohibition has yielded safer nation states - just not American ones.

just because nut cases exist in the world doesn't mean I don't have the right to protect myself and my family

Again, people are confusing the reason in the 2nd amendment with the right to own a gun.

There is no contradiction to say that the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable and valid but we still think people should be able to have guns for personal protection. That is actually what the current interpretation is - but it is clearly, IMO, not what the 2nd amendment uses as the reason - anything at all to do with an armed militia force.

Finkelstein

Its almost like the 2nd. Amendment was written 200 years ago specifically for that time and social environment ?

naaaaaaa

freemindfade

Bottom line just because nut cases exist in the world doesn't mean I don't have the right to protect myself and my family.

Excellent point

Let me tell you a story about a non militia situation.

I lived in NYC during hurricane Sandy. A friend of mine, lifelong new yorker, lived on a affluent area of the south shore of Long Island. Early 40's, never owned a gun in his life, never thought about owning one. After hurricane sandy his whole community became completely cut off, declared a disaster area and left to its own. The were no civil anything there, no police, no fire, nothing, but the people were still there, families in their homes. Rules change when there is no police, he told me he never felt so vulnerable in his life. Those intent on harming and stealing entered other peoples houses at will. Here is a grown man, with a wife and two young children and no options for protection. From that day forward he realized the insurance value of owning a firearm, some of his neighbors had written on their houses that they were armed and not to try to break in. This was not an overnight thing by the way.

You see a gun can be like care insurance. Its something you hope you never need. But the time you might need it can be out of your control. In his situation it wasn't rising up against the government, the WAS NO GOVERNMENT. Gone overnight. An affluent relatively safe place turned into a lawless free for all in a very short amount of time. No police, no national guard. It happens.

Simon

And those are the points that should be made for gun ownership, not "200 years ago we might have to fight with muskets".

I think the obsession with 2nd amendment rights is less relevant that an argument for personal protection.

But then proper limits can be drafted to stop people having huge arsenals of weapons and weapons of such power that it really negates the point of a gun for personal protection.

If I was in the US and felt I needed a gun to protect my family I would be in favor of the types of weapons available being limited. Otherwise, I end up with pea shooter when everyone else has an uzzi.

The 2nd amendment didn't have any limits because at the time, they hadn't reached the kind of limits of technology that we have now and couldn't forsee such things,.

freemindfade

America is america take it or leave it.

If america was Australia we'd have no guns, but as a russian friend of mine would say, "if my grandma had balls she'd be my grandpa."

if if if if

I have the choice and I choose to carry. I'll never get around to starting a militia and don't care about amendments-shmendments. I live in america and can tell you its got bigger problems. Yes Obama crying like a little b*itch and the blood-lusting media wants you to believe the almighty gun is the downfall of america but its not. There are such more subversive things going on costing more lives and lending to more deaths and keeping the need for illegal guns and drugs flowing. But no one wants to talk about that in this age of micro internet aggression... but that's none of my business.

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

Share this