Lawrence Hunter Explains the 2nd Amendment

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition?

As far as someone being allowed to carry a gun on them any time? Someone who not only has no history of any mental illness or any criminal record, but also displays competency during required rigorous training and testing, as well as possesses a knowledge of all required laws and a willingness and desire to follow them to the strictest standards.

Just "being a good person" should not qualify you to carry a gun and use it as you see fit.

NickZac is one of the few gun people out there who I have felt displays a true willingness to do the right thing, or to at least have discussions about it.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by samiwas

As far as someone being allowed to carry a gun on them any time? Someone who not only has no history of any mental illness or any criminal record, but also displays competency during required rigorous training and testing, as well as possesses a knowledge of all required laws and a willingness and desire to follow them to the strictest standards.

Just "being a good person" should not qualify you to carry a gun and use it as you see fit.

NickZac is one of the few gun people out there who I have felt displays a true willingness to do the right thing, or to at least have discussions about it.

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to hear that in your opinion I am qualified to carry a concealed weapon.

Sadly, the City of New York throws in additional qualifications... i.e. political connections.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Chundles

How is everyone having guns going to stop a tyrannical government? Especially when that government has access to nukes?

The proper solution is to just give everyone nukes.

I can imagine it now, red neck in barely together 70's beat up truck speeding down highway with nuke in back...

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by samiwas

As far as someone being allowed to carry a gun on them any time? Someone who not only has no history of any mental illness or any criminal record, but also displays competency during required rigorous training and testing, as well as possesses a knowledge of all required laws and a willingness and desire to follow them to the strictest standards.

I'll go a step further.

I believe an "upstanding citizen" wouldn't insist on carrying a loaded gun at all times. An "upstanding citizen" would embrace peace and understand the risk in carrying his gun outweighs his/her personal need to feel secure.

The most "upstanding citizens" are armed with compassion, patience, peace and courage.

They don't need to carry guns.

Just my two cents.

[jasonvp]

I think the opening sentence in the essay needs to be re-read by everyone. It said:

It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it.

That last part of the Second Amendment, the part that reads, "...shall not be infringed." is what the author is referring to. As it turns out, any "gun control" law on the books is an infringement on that right, and is therefore, technically: illegal.

If you're serious about gun control, get the votes together to amend the Constitution. Stop blithering about the need for more infringement laws and go whole hog. Pass an amendment that repeals the Second or significantly changes its wording.

jas

[Eraserhead]

You're forgetting all about the militia part at the start...

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

You're forgetting all about the militia part at the start...

Didn't SCOTUS already have something to say about that?

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Didn't SCOTUS already have something to say about that?

Yeah, in 2010. I presume they will change their mind.

[jasonvp]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

You're forgetting all about the militia part at the start...

I've forgotten nothing. I actually understand the Second Amendment as written versus trying to spin it. It very clearly states that we as people have that right to keep and bear, and said right shall not be infringed. It's not talking about the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms, otherwise the word people wouldn't be included in the writing.

Again, the author's simple point is: stop bandying about and get the Constitution amended if you don't like the Second. Any other law controlling arms is, by definition, an infringement of the people's rights by the government.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.

jas

[skunk]

Originally Posted by jasonvp

Again, the author's simple point is: stop bandying about and get the Constitution amended if you don't like the Second. Any other law controlling arms is, by definition, an infringement of the people's rights by the government.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.

jas

There are already restrictions on that "right".

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by jasonvp

I've forgotten nothing. I actually understand the Second Amendment as written versus trying to spin it. It very clearly states that we as people have that right to keep and bear, and said right shall not be infringed. It's not talking about the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms, otherwise the word people wouldn't be included in the writing.

Again, the author's simple point is: stop bandying about and get the Constitution amended if you don't like the Second. Any other law controlling arms is, by definition, an infringement of the people's rights by the government.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.

jas

I think you are taking a far too black and white view of the constitution. The supreme court has always re-interpreted stuff.

[jasonvp]

Originally Posted by skunk

There are already restrictions on that "right".

I understand that, and technically by following the letter of the original law of the land: those restrictions are invalid. I'm certainly not going to challenge them and get my butt thrown in jail while a lawyer appeals the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But it doesn't invalidate the fact that those restrictions are technically illegal.

jas

[bradl]

Originally Posted by jasonvp

I've forgotten nothing. I actually understand the Second Amendment as written versus trying to spin it. It very clearly states that we as people have that right to keep and bear, and said right shall not be infringed. It's not talking about the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms, otherwise the word people wouldn't be included in the writing.

Again, the author's simple point is: stop bandying about and get the Constitution amended if you don't like the Second. Any other law controlling arms is, by definition, an infringement of the people's rights by the government.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.

jas

Actually, what you are getting into is semantics, which none of us here are in any position to argue how the meaning of the sentence is stated, because .. well, here we go.

Originally Posted by 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.

Semantically, "militia" and "right" are compound subjects in the sentence, with "shall" being the singular verb. That makes the verb applicable to both sides, meaning that neither shall be infringed.

Furthermore, "infringed" as defined by the US Constitution, states:

infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

So your 'shall not be infringed' argument carries no weight, as I believe SCOTUS has a bit more knowledge on the fact and meaning than you.

BL.

[jasonvp]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I think you are taking a far too black and white view of the constitution.

Am I? Please tell me how you interpret the Second Amendment? And explain why it is you interpret it that way.

The supreme court has always re-interpreted stuff.

And generally when "gun control" laws have appeared on their docket, they've voted in favor of what the amendment to the Constitution says.

jas

[bradl]

Originally Posted by jasonvp

Am I? Please tell me how you interpret the Second Amendment? And explain why it is you interpret it that way.



And generally when "gun control" laws have appeared on their docket, they've voted in favor of what the amendment to the Constitution says.

jas

Which is why they did nothing on the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994. I see now. Bad SCOTUS. BAD! go to your room!



BL.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by jasonvp

Am I? Please tell me how you interpret the Second Amendment? And explain why it is you interpret it that way.

The most gun control heavy way to interpret it would be to argue that it merely states that the army reservists (a.k.a "the militia") have to be allowed to have guns as long as people are generally allowed to join it perhaps.

Personally I think the militia statement is significant (it is right there in black and white after all), and that compulsory education, and preventing the mentally unstable from access to guns would be perfectly legitimate, but with a wider idea of what militia means than merely army reservists.

Originally Posted by jasonvp

And generally when "gun control" laws have appeared on their docket, they've voted in favor of what the amendment to the Constitution says.

In recent years they have voted (5-4) in favour of your interpretation that is true. But that may well change in the future.

Demographics mean that US politics is going to become more liberal over time.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by bradl

Which is why they did nothing on the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994. I see now. Bad SCOTUS. BAD! go to your room!



BL.

Did the NRA ever challenge the law in court?

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by bradl

Which is why they did nothing on the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994. I see now. Bad SCOTUS. BAD! go to your room!



BL.

The assault weapon ban was not worthy of challenge, as it was purely cosmetic in scope and really was moronic from the outset (as I suspect any future assault weapon ban will be).

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Firearms are stored in a vault or full safe. Only I have the password/key. Basic safety training for all is yes. I rarely carry as I tend to avoid places that I feel I would need to carry a gun with me to be safe.

You avoid places that you feel you would need a gun to be safe, but yet you have a gun in your house in order to feel safe? I am not understanding this logic.

My advice to someone who feels they need a gun in the shower is to start looking for a nicer neighborhood.

I could just as easily extend that thinking out to anyone feeling the need for a gun in any room of the house. And that they too should start looking for a nicer neighborhood. I am not sure why needing a gun with you in the bathroom is bad, but needing it in the bedroom or wherever you store it is good. Can't a home invasion happen just as easily while you are in the shower as opposed to sitting on the couch?

Another thing I thought of along the babysitter lines I had yesterday are family visits. Lots of parents let their kids go stay with Grandma or have Grandma come over and watch the kids. So, unless she is a rifle toting granny, I guess that's all out, right? More examples of how this fear based logic doesn't give people more freedom, it gives them less.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by jasonvp

I understand that, and technically by following the letter of the original law of the land: those restrictions are invalid. I'm certainly not going to challenge them and get my butt thrown in jail while a lawyer appeals the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But it doesn't invalidate the fact that those restrictions are technically illegal.

How are those restrictions "technically illegal"?

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I am not sure why needing a gun with you in the bathroom is bad, but needing it in the bedroom or wherever you store it is good. Can't a home invasion happen just as easily while you are in the shower as opposed to sitting on the couch?

Apparently he hasn't seen "Psycho".

[Chundles]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

I can imagine it now, red neck in barely together 70's beat up truck speeding down highway with nuke in back...

Nukes in ailes at the local sports and bomb stores.

Small tactical nukes at the checkout.

[samiwas]

Unfortunately, the Second Amendment was written so poorly (the language of it sounds like a sentence from a poorly-educated middle-schooler) that people can interpret it to mean whatever they want.

"It means anyone ever should be allowed to have a gun!"
"It means militias can have guns!"
"It means that only well-regulated militias can have guns!"
"It's a stupid piece of writing that serves no purpose!"

I still think the majority of gun nuts are so specifically because the Second Amendment exists and it's a way for them to say "Look at me! I exercise my rights!!! Don't infringe on me!"

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Chundles

Nukes in ailes at the local sports and bomb stores.

Small tactical nukes at the checkout.

The tactical nukes would be be positioned to attract impulse buyers, then? I like your thinking

[quasinormal]

This is literally one god damned stupid thread and in monumentally poor taste given recent events.

IMO those suggesting gun ownership is necessary against the possibility of government tyranny is guilty of treason and should be shot with their own weapons.