2nd amendment rights...

[Cruentus]

I figured that we could have a simplistic discussion on our 2nd amendment.

What does the 2nd amendment mean to you? Where do you think the line should be drawn for restrictions on weapon ownership? Should we be able to own everything and anything that we can get our hands on, or should there be some restrictions on what civilians can own? If there are some restrictions, then what logic determines those?

I am curious to hear what people have to say on the matter...

Paul Janulis

 

[Cruentus]

Oh...and for those of you curious, here is the actual wording of the 2nd amendment:

"Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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."

 

[Seig]

Getting into the Second Ammendment can be tricky.

Full Bill of Rights Here

While a well regulated militia is no longer required of each state, the ammendment does plainly say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The intent of this bill goes to the belief espoused at the time that an unarmed populace does not constitute citizens but subjects.
The fourth ammendment states that people have a right to be secure in their homes. The forefathers were terrified of a government "for the people and by the people" becoming another tyranical governement such as they had just won independence from.
People generall do not know their constitutional rights and this causes problems, we could have several debates about each ammendment.

 

[KenpoTex]

We've had several debates about this issue in the year or so that I've been on this board, but what the hell, here goes.

I believe that law abiding citizens should have the right to own pretty much any type of firearm they darn well please, including full-automatic weapons. I feel that my position is "in line" with the original intent of the men who wrote the 2nd ammendment which, as Seig stated, was put into place to make sure that the government would not ever become the oppressive reigm that they had just spent several years fighting to get away from. The 2nd Ammendment was not put in place to protect people's right to hunt ducks with granddaddy's shotgun, or for people to have a means of self-defense, those two functions were taken for granted. Furthermore, I believe that waiting periods, permits, restrictions as to types of firearms (caliber, capacity or action type), and any type of registration/licensing are infringments upon our rights.

Anyway, those are my thoughts in a nut-shell. :mp5:

 

[loki09789]

Oh...and for those of you curious, here is the actual wording of the 2nd amendment:

"Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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 have no problem with background checks, registration of firearms, safety courses.....

I do have a problem with the thought that it is within your rights to own things like a .50 cal machine gun, tank, howitzer field piece unchecked, unregistered.

The 'up side' to the right to bear arms issue for the early government was that they didn't need to provide all the weapons to a militia/army as it was being formed...money and time saver. If you had a former British aristocrat/former military officer who had lots of personal scratch and could outfit his own unit (which happened), that was a win for the emerging gov.

I don't think that we live in the same context of government or technology as they did.

 

[dearnis.com]

Whatever, however, wherver, up until your first conviction of for a felony (violent or otherwise); then cannned w/ all your other civil rights. To paraphrase, act right, don't bother anyone else, and own/carry/shoot what you like.

(let the flames begin)

 

[KenpoTex]

I do have a problem with the thought that it is within your rights to own things like a .50 cal machine gun, tank, howitzer field piece unchecked, unregistered.

Who said anything about .50 cal machine-guns, tanks or artillery pieces? No one is seriously arguing that we need to be able to have a LAWS rocket behind the bedroom door or a Sherman tank in the driveway.

I don't think that we live in the same context of government or technology as they did.

So all we should own are hunting rifles and shotguns? If we apply this same logic to some of the other Ammendments then freedom of the press would only cover what you could write with a quill-pen or run off on a hand operated printing press. The 4th ammendment rights to privacy wouldn't include telephone conversations or information transmitted over the internet.

Whatever, however, wherver, up until your first conviction of for a felony (violent or otherwise); then cannned w/ all your other civil rights. To paraphrase, act right, don't bother anyone else, and own/carry/shoot what you like.

Well said.

edit for spelling

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I do have a problem with the thought that it is within your rights to own things like a .50 cal machine gun, tank, howitzer field piece unchecked, unregistered.

This is a distraction and a slippery slope argument. Nobody has claimed that.

Currently one can legally possess a .50 cal if they can afford the tax stamp ($250), the gun (several tens of thousands, I believe) and the ammuniton (over a dollar a round). To get the stamp one has to go through a complete background check.

One can own a cannon--20mm and up-- with the tax stamp. Each ROUND requires its own tax stamp which also costs an additional $250 a piece. This doesn't include the price of the round. The government is aware of each round you have. I suppose there are laws concerning their storage, as well, but I'm unaware of them.

We have the technology and ability to identify criminals and psychotics and keep them from purchasing guns. We haven't fully implemented it. If we should, some will still slip through the cracks with illegal purchases and transfers.


Regards,


Steve

 

[gozanryu]

My thoughts on this subject cover allot of area. However, I do know this: The safety of private ownership of guns is found in their silence. There are millions of guns in this country. The huge majority of those guns are never involved in any gun realted crime, I believe the stat is something like 99.989 percent of firearms are NOT involved in crime. If you compare that to say, the amount of People who drink alchohol who are involved in crime, well, you get the idea. With that said, it brings to mind that MOST people are reasonable.
Another poster voiced his concerns over someone pessesing a .50 M2. I would say, I dont care at all. Why, because the guy that can afford the $12000 that they are fetching, and the travel time to go where it can be legally fired, and pay the taxes and get the appropriate license is probably a safe bet. As we have learned, a cessna 172 is a far mar "lethal" weapon than a Chinese AK. Its about reasonability. Even though I cannot see the need for a guy to want an MG34 (as it would cost, at 1200 RPM, about $600 a minute to operate!), if he can swing it, good on ya. Assault rifles, and the fear associated with them is ridiculous, to me. Crimainals RARELY pony up the funds to legally purchase high end firearms.

As far as constitutionality is concerned. Again, reasonability must prevail. What was the INTENT of the writers of that document. It is quite simple. Let me paraphrase
"The right of the citizens (thats us Americans) to defend ourselves against you (thats the Government) shall not ever be relinquished. The way we will insure that is by making it a law, no, a RIGHT to keep and possess firearms in perpetuity" It is quite simple when you take yourself out of our lax, relatively peaceful, get what we want, big government will protect me, times. When men were fighting and dying for a dream that they would never live to realize, they wanted to make sure that that dream had the teeth to stay a reality. Simple, this nation was born of mayhem, tyranny, and bloodshed. No different than if a coup attempt was to happen tommorrow in DC. Outlandish? Ridiculous? Yes, and thats exactly waht happened to create this nation. A bunch of people WITH GUNS decided that come hell or high water, they would seek a new path, and that people were gonna get hurt in the process. So, they took there method of exerting their will (guns) and went after the group that was currently exerting it's will on them (with guns)

The second amendment was a bold and clear statement to the fledgeling goverment. "You are in power because we trust you and put you in power, but do not mistake that for blind allegience, do the right thing, or we will get somebody who will"

seems pretty simple to me.
And thats all I have to say about that.

 

[AC_Pilot]

Kenpotex's first post says it for me. Thanks for saving me the typing, buddy