2nd Amendment: Out of "Guns and Freedom" thread...

Great Debates
21

Erratum:

Thank you! That does clarify it for me… at least it clears the way I’m saying it.

I agree that the freedom to bear arms means you can have a well-regulated militia. I’m arguing the need for it. Further, the emphasis on training to arms I placed above… how do you read that? No matter how I cut it I have to read in at least one level of government regulation (i.e. providing training that is base level for a well-regulated militia).

I read Cecil’s columns too… and I think I tend to agree. I never did say I don’t want people to have the right to bear arms; I do, however, think the amendment needs clarification for this day and age to best allow for a current understanding. If anyone can sit and debate this issue for days on end, indeed for years, wouldn’t this be best? So, in the spirit of the 9th to which I hold no allegiance anyhow…

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be subject to local registration and competentcy laws, providing for the formation of a well-regulated militia in times of need.”

Out of the frying pan into the firing range.

Also…

Hmm, see I realize this now that you say it. And I would counter that there are already militias which resemble standing armies and which work quite well. If a tyrannical government were to try to infringe upon the rest of the Bill of Rights, what’s stopping those who are already part of a formal militia from responding?
Granted, names and addresses would be known… as they would be if everyone was required to register a firearm. Maybe its a canadian thing, being supposedly socialist, “unorganized militia” sounds an awful lot like “posse” to me. Similarly, some unorganized militia in upstate new york could decide that Canada was representative of a tyrannical government who threatened to take away from their basic rights and freedoms, and so respond by an invasion of their own. Perhaps something to do with beer. Oh wait a minute. thats the plotline of Canadian Bacon. Nevermind.

Regards,

jai Pey

22

Do you feel that a ban on assault rifles or gun registration constitute an infringement of the right to bear arms? It seems to me that the NRA feels that it is a problem, otherwise they wouldn’t raise a fuss every time gun registration is brought up. Why does this happen? Banning assault rifles or enacting gun regisration doesn’t mean that people can’t own guns.

The first amendment is pretty clear about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, yet there are slander and libel laws which limit both of those freedoms.

Where is the difference? Is it the lobby strength of the NRA?

If I was discussing Lucy Lawless but I wrote Lucy Topless, would that be a Freudian typo?

23

Adam yax poignantly said:

Of course it doesn’t… and being allowed to hide behind the 2nd as if it were the 5th isn’t right either. This is what I mean when I say:

Requiring weapon registration is another way for someone else to know, like law enforcement agencies, who has control of what, and furthermore to provide a legal basis for the removal of all that is illegally held. Personally I think this gives greater responsibility to gun owners… Pony up, register your firearm freely and make no secret, and subsequently never be harassed about it again. If you don’t comply and you get caught, there’ll be bigger hell to pay.

Banning automatic assault rifles makes total sense to me. What use do I have for them? Sure as heck, not hunting… doesn’t do me any good to bag a duck and only have blood and feathers to show for it. Similarly, biger game is mauled as badly by using high-volume firearms. Assault rifles are specifically designed for specific tasks and that happens to be military application. All other uses are straw men.

“Hey grandma, go get the sand-bags… the Jones’ are firing their Uzi’s again.”

TIC,

Jai Pey

24

…and furthermore…
Lobby strength makes a difference??

[gasp] Noooo.

Perhaps this is what irks me the most about the whole thing. We’re not talking truth, we’re talking politics. And lobby groups tend to obsfucate the issue. So in the end, the ones who get forgotten are the people. I don’t think thats the intention of the Constitution either.

Jai Pey

25

“I’m arguing the need for it. Further, the emphasis on training to arms I placed above… how do you read that? No matter how I cut it I have to read in at least one level of government regulation”

I think that the original intent was probably “people who had guns”, since people who had them presumably knew how to use them. If you want to say that requiring gun training or gun safety classes before you can get a gun is permissible under the Constitution, then I have no quarrel with that (as long as the classes really are about gun safety and responsible ownership, and not a “propaganda tool”). However, I think you are hung up on the “militia” justification for why the government shouldn’t want to infringe on the right.

“* I do, however, think the amendment needs clarification for this day and age*”

You aren’t clarfifying here, you are amending. It’s perfectly okay to say we need to amend the 2nd amendment (I tend to disagree, because I like the Bill of Rights being inviolate, and don’t see a pressing need anyway). Most gun control advocates, however, think that you’re version is what the amendment already says, which isn’t the case.

“If a tyrannical government were to try to infringe upon the rest of the Bill of Rights, what’s stopping those who are already part of a formal militia from responding?”

The fact that they are a part of the hypothetical oppressive government, and would be perpetrating the oppression, rather than fighting it?

““unorganized militia” sounds an awful lot like “posse” to me”

Eh, what have you got against posses? A “posse” is, from my observation of western-themed TV shows, merely the temporary deputization of a civilian force for a lawful purpose (e.g. tracking down a dangerous fugitive). I think you are trying to equate “posse” with “lynch mob”, but there’s a difference.

“Do you feel that a ban on assault rifles or gun registration constitute an infringement of the right to bear arms?”

The “assault weapon bans”, to my eyes, are violations of the 2nd Amendment. Keep in mind that the “assault weapon bans” are not talking about automatic weaopons, but about semi-automatic weapons that look scary when politicians hold them up on TV. Fully automatic weapons and converting semi-autos to fully automatic weopons was already mostly illegal before any of these “assault weapon bans”. I can understand the NRA argument about registration being “well, then the government knows who to try to oppress first”, but I don’t know if I feel strongly about this one way or the other. What goal are you trying to achieve with registration? Also, I think the NRA’s slippery slope arguments are pretty understandable, since people are trying to interpret their rights out of existence.

Also, if you want to couch any gun-control logic in terms of militias and then take it to the logical conclusion, then the argument “Assault [weapons] are specifically designed for specific tasks and that happens to be military application” says that these are precisely the guns people should have (note that I switched “rifles” to “weapons”, because “assault rifle” is a word that actually means something, so politicians refuse to use it, they like the slippery “assault weapon”). Remember that the second amendment was passed shortly after a war, and the guns they were talking about were the kind of guns that were used to fight that war. Gun control advocates can’t have it both ways. The “milita” argument is usually used to say “we’ve got the national guard, so the guns of individual citizens are unnecessary”, but nobody seems to be really saying that here.

26

Can you address why gun registration or a ban on assault weapons is more of a problem to the second amendment than slander or libel laws are to the first amendment?

If I was discussing Lucy Lawless but I wrote Lucy Topless, would that be a Freudian typo?

27

I think the point of the Second Amendment is so that the people WOULD have access to assault rifles.

(which begs the question of “What IS an assault rifle?”)

There is no doubt that the Framers intended people to be armed with the exact same weapons as an infrantry man of any time. What is the use in having an armed population than can not compete with the army?

Would you agree that the first amendment should not apply to the net because it is not
a printing press? Should we ignore computers? Obviously no. But if we are to pick a standard where the concept remains the same even though technology advances, then you must use the same standard for all the amendments to maintain an objective law.

When you speak of registering firearms, would you consent to register before practicing your religion?

How about registering before you are allowed to become an author, or even post on a public forum such as this one? And BTW…the government is going to give you a proficiency test to make sure you know how to write first. While you are waiting for the test or if the government fails you, you will not be able to write.

If we allow the government the power to license gun ownership, we concede that the right to own firearms originates from them. If the right to bear arms originates from the government, then they can rescind that right someday.

This leads us to a repeal of the the Second Amendment. If the Bill of Rights only ENUMERATES certain rights, (recognizes prior existing rights) how can you repeal the Second? It is a right regardless of whether or not our government wants to acknowledge it. Far from removing our right to bear arms, they actually make themselves an illegitamate government.

The fact that we have a standing army and National Guard actually argue more for the neccesity of an armed citizenship than against. In the founder’s eyes, a standing army was dangerous, and an armed population was the counter balance to keep it in check.

People seem to think that America did not have a standing army at the time. In fact, the British army was their standing army. It was through an armed citenzenship that they retained the power to overthrow a oppressive government when it became neccesary.

You ask:

The answer is that the main focus of the Second Amendment is to protect America from a time when those forces BECOME the threat. After we have just completed the bloodiest 100 years of history, with the majority of killings inflicted by governments on their own population, we have no right to assume that any country will always be able to trust their government.

28

Very simple.

We have an accepted standard for the use of free speech. As long as you stay within the law, you are not required to do anything but live your life and exercise your rights.

We already have an accepted standard for the use of firearms. If you use a firearm in a murder, rape, robbery or assault, you will end up in court just like with libel or slander. (just criminal vs. civil)

Registration makes you jump through hoops to justify yourself just so you can legally exercise your right.

Like I said above, would you approve of registering before you joined a church or other religous organization?

Would you approve of the being licensed before you could write?

As long as you are living a legal life, there can be (should?) no restrictions or prior restraints on exercising your rights.

29

So there should be no limits at all on what arms one may keep and bear? AK’s, TEC-9’s, Uzi SMG’s? Thompsons? LAW’s? RPG’s? 77mm Skysweepwers?

Where do you draw a line? (Or should everyone have the right to drive a tank to work and keep HE grenades in the car?)

-andros-

30

I think that you missed at least part of my point. First of all “You must be registered in order to post a topic or reply in this forum”, this is at the top of the screen when you hit the reply button. We are all registered here.

Secondly, generally speaking, writing and religion don’t cause death. The NRA always say that “when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns”. The problem is outlaws seem to have ready access to guns right now. As Jai Pey said

What is wrong with this? Or do criminals have the right to own guns?

Again I think you missed my point. The first amendment has already been circumvented. Yeah, I don’t have to be registered to write something, but that doesn’t mean I can say that a person is an animal abusing, child molesting drug dealer(if they aren’t) without repercussions.

31

As far as FIREARMS go, I think there should be no limits.

Concentrate on the criminals. If someone commits a violent gun crime, put them away for 20 years, but don’t ask me to negotiate away even ONE INCH of my freedom.

Ummmmm…

I am not quite sure this even deserves a response, but here goes anyway:

I am also registered at a gun range. This is a PRIVATE gun range where they can make any rules they want (within the law). I have ZERO problems with this. If I didn’t like the way they ran the place, I am free to go out and open my own gun range.

This is a PRIVATE board. They Straight Dope has the right to set rules. If you don’t like them, go open your own board.

Now…

Would you be comfortable if you had to register with the government before you could post here or anywhere else?

:slight_smile:

C’mon…

Do you think that the British thought the Declaration of Independence was death free?

And Religion? Please…Even though I am religous, I have to admit that many many people have died because of religion.

Look at Ireland, The Crusades, Inquisition, Muslim Terrorists…

I am sure I have not even scratched the surface on that one.

If guns are just tools, I would have to guess that propaganda and religion have more than their fair share of victims out there.

Now your getting it!!! At least, I think you are…

If criminals will always have guns…then why would you ever want lawabiding citizens to give theirs up? Does helplessness look attractive to you?

I have already explained why I don’t like registration, read it again if you don’t understand, or ask me a specific question.

Screw the criminals. This is the worst arguement out there. If someone commits a violent crime with a gun, add 20 years to their sentence. Add more, I don’t care, and I doubt most legal gunowners do either.

I think I covered this too. But let me try and approach it a different way.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Slander:

1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person

Libel

2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

You want to compare libel and slander, two acts done with the intent to harm, to my legal ownership of a firearm.

Think of it this way. Your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa.

Mere ownership of a firearm does not infringe on your rights at all. Not one bit. Libel and slander are two acts which infringe on your rights. These are apples and oranges. Before the fact and after the fact.

I say it again:

Would you care to register with the government before you are allowed to write?

Would you care to register with the government before you are allowed to worship?

I have just as much Constitutional protection of my right to bear arms, and I promise you that I find registering my firearms as offense as you would find registering to use any of your first amendment rights.

32

I don’t want to beat it into the ground, Freedom, but I still need some clarification. You say,

Now, my dictionary has the following definitions in it:

and

(Both from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992.)

Now, firstly, I want to make sure you understand you correctly. The above definition of “firearm” would include the aforementioned 77mm AA gun, as well as SAMs and tank guns (since the definition says especially pistols and rifles, not exclusively). Is it in fact your contention that weapons meeting that definition should be legal?

Secondly, you’ve ensured that we’re using a straight and literal interpretation of the 2nd. Why, then, do you specify firearms? Again, it’s “especially,” not “exclusively.” If we’re talking about the right to keep and bear arms, it sounds to me that you’re in favor of private ownership of any weapon, up to and including nukes.

Can you clarify this for me please?

-andros-

33

Of course, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. I’m sure you already understand you. :slight_smile:

34

In partial answer to Andros’ question, let me head off one false argument the absolutists make about the definition of arms. They’ll tell you that “arms” only includes individual weapons, not crew-served weapons, and that thus “arms” only includes ordinary handguns, rifles, shotguns, and edged weapons. A couple of points:
(1) individual weapons include 40mm grenade launchers;
(2) individual weapons include fully automatic weapons.

Do you or do you not think the Second Amendment guarantees (or enumerates or whatever) the right of every non-convict to own fully automatic weapons and 40mm grenade launchers? I’m not asking about the legal status of machineguns; I’m not asking for you to explain the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons; I’m asking your Constitutional opinion.

In reply to Boris B’s earlier question about Article I Section 8 clause 16, I think the Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline” the militia gives them some latitude to determine the armament and required training for the militia. If they choose to require training, they have that power. If they choose to exclude 40mm grenade launchers from militia armaments, they have that power.

Any similarity in the above text to an English word or phrase is purely coincidental.

35

By the way, I meant to say, “Individual weapons include some fully automatic weapons” like the MP 5, the Colt submachinegun, M16A1, etc.

36

Andros, I often I WISH I fully understood myself.

For the sake of clarification.

I accept Boris’ definition of arms.

I would say anything that you could expect the AVERAGE infrantry man to carry in the army at whatever time period, would be covered by the Second Amendment.
Now about nukes…

You have to admit, if I had one, it would be pretty hard to take it away from me :slight_smile:

No, any weapon of mass destruction is obviously not something you would expect the civilian population to have in there homes.

Switzerland would be a good example of what I think most people on the pro-2nd Amendment side would use as a good illustration. Every man there is REQUIRED to have a fully automatic rifle in their home.

37

Then I’m glad I don’t live in Switzerland. I don’t own a gun and you can’t make me. :stuck_out_tongue:

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

38

To be honest, I don’t know how they deal with that.

Does anybody know?

My response would be that anybody who is not willing to pay the price to be free does not deserve freedom.

39

Freedom,

Here we agree entirely. Anyone who is not willing to pay the price for freedom won’t have it.

Up, WAAAAY up again… The difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapos is neglible for the layman. Anyone who’s ever fired one will testify to this… you won;t get the same number of rounds per second, but it’ll still chew up a target.

Erratum, from waaay up:

You have no quarrel with me, this is what I mean exactly. For those that want them, some type of information and training MUST be provided. I can’t bend on that, too many people I know have been hurt by sheer negligence, I suppose.

I’m not as jaded as I read from others. Admittedly again, I’ve no allegiance to your government to begin with. And maybe its that darn canuck sense of socialism. The militia aspect grabs me because I can honestly follow the logic I see presented: Freedom to bear arms equitable to those held by any government force in the interest of protecting against tyranny makes logical sense. Realistically, I don;t see how allowing automatic weaponry into the public solves matters much.

“In case of Government Tyranny, open fire.” on the gun rack. “Hey Ma, the Army just marched into town and herded up all left-handed pianists. Time to respond Constitutionally with our carefully kept and oiled assortment of automatic and anti-tank firearms. No, not the FMJ rounds… I was Explosive, hollow point stuff. Hurts more.”

I’m satisfied. You folks have put up a good defense. Whether I mean AMEND when I say UPDATE is moot now. All said and done, this will end up being another thread with me railing against this classical American Isolationist type of policy. Vive le Republic!

:rolleyes:

Jai Pey

40

Jai Pey,

You may want to be careful about visiting this country.

It looks to me like you are almost being reasonable about the Second Amendment :slight_smile: I would hate for you to take a fall off the deep end and become a full fledged freedom loving capitalist :slight_smile: