|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:46 pm
United States Constitution; Amendment II:
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 am writing this as a devils advocate)
How far does this right to gun ownership go? Is it an absolute right to gun ownership like the amendment states; i.e. any gun you wish including automatic machine guns? Does this include gun ownership for minors?
My views:
I am for gun reform. The current legislation, Brady law, has too many loopholes. Someone can buy a gun at a gun show without having to go through the normal process of a background check. Also, the criminal record database that is used is out of date. Fix those 2 and it would be much safer to have people own a gun. On the other hand, I am still tossed up between whether it is an absolute right to own any gun and how old the person should be.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:10 pm
I always took it that that meant that you are
allowed to have a gun, but if someone attacks
the US, you better get your a** out there and
defend it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:32 am
My Conscience Is it an absolute right to gun ownership like the amendment states; ... Good job framing the question in terms of your own conclusion. But it doesn't state an explicit and absolute right to own all guns. It states an explicit and absolute right to own and carry weapons, for purposes of serving in the militia, which at that time served as the primary defense against invasion and occupation. What those weapons should be is not specified - it's doubtful that they meant that you could keep a cannon under your bed, just in case, although they did have them. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to restrict the ownership of some guns. Not all guns, nor even most guns, but those which pose the greatest danger to the civilian population. Take the Thompson SMG, for example. Birthed the gun control movement single-handed. As fine a proof as any that weapons advances serve organized crime's interests as well as the police/military's. Anyway, you want a good hunting rifle, a shotgun or a pistol, be my guest. Faster rates of fire, greater "stopping power" and larger magazines tend to diminish the civilian utility of the weapon, but increase the potential danger, say if your gun gets stolen, or if you're a homicidal maniac. Not saying that you are, but they do exist, and given that mania is invisible, I assume that they could also swing by the gun show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:39 am
Wendigo My Conscience Is it an absolute right to gun ownership like the amendment states; ... Good job framing the question in terms of your own conclusion. But it doesn't state an explicit and absolute right to own all guns. It states an explicit and absolute right to own and carry weapons, for purposes of serving in the militia, which at that time served as the primary defense against invasion and occupation. What those weapons should be is not specified - it's doubtful that they meant that you could keep a cannon under your bed, just in case, although they did have them. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to restrict the ownership of some guns. Not all guns, nor even most guns, but those which pose the greatest danger to the civilian population. Take the Thompson SMG, for example. Birthed the gun control movement single-handed. As fine a proof as any that weapons advances serve organized crime's interests as well as the police/military's. Anyway, you want a good hunting rifle, a shotgun or a pistol, be my guest. Faster rates of fire, greater "stopping power" and larger magazines tend to diminish the civilian utility of the weapon, but increase the potential danger, say if your gun gets stolen, or if you're a homicidal maniac. Not saying that you are, but they do exist, and given that mania is invisible, I assume that they could also swing by the gun show. I completely agree. I wasn't biasing the question. The amendment does, however, state you have the right to own guns. They didn't state any restrictions. This does indicate that guns is refering to all guns. I was debating this topic in class and this came up. I didn't mean to bias it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:02 pm
That's the thing. The word is "arms." Not guns. Not firearms.
It does include firearms. In this case it is intended to - you wouldn't furnish a "well-regulated militia" with kitchen knives. But it doesn't refer explicitly to all guns, or to any gun in particular. If it suggests an absolute to own all guns when you read it, that would be because it's you reading it. To me, it suggests an unrestricted right to own, keep in your home or business and carry a long rifle, that being the standard weapon for militiamen at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:31 pm
Wendigo That's the thing. The word is "arms." Not guns. Not firearms. It does include firearms. In this case it is intended to - you wouldn't furnish a "well-regulated militia" with kitchen knives. But it doesn't refer explicitly to all guns, or to any gun in particular. If it suggests an absolute to own all guns when you read it, that would be because it's you reading it. To me, it suggests an unrestricted right to own, keep in your home or business and carry a long rifle, that being the standard weapon for militiamen at the time. Lets say there is a law that states "You have the right to say whatever you want." Unless you have restrictions, the law is ambiguous and subjective. That example I used literally states that you can say whatever you want. I can harass you, slander your name, defamation your name, call you any name in the book, tell you I am going kill you and you can't do anything about it. Unless you specifically state such exceptions, they are not implied laws. This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. I do not, however, agree with it. It should be amendment to be less ambiguous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:37 pm
My Conscience This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. Wait, so I could go out and buy a tank on loan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:43 pm
Lykus My Conscience This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. Wait, so I could go out and buy a tank on loan? Technically, under that amendment, you should be able to. That is why I don't agree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:20 pm
Lykus My Conscience This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. Wait, so I could go out and buy a tank on loan? You'd always get a parking space.. .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:50 pm
My Conscience This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. That's your take on it. I hold that you are misreading it; "The right to keep and bear arms" is exactly what it says it is, the right to own and carry weapons. What weapons those might be has not been specified, because they didn't want to hamstring their state militias. Only defense and all that. You say they can only own this, that gets developed, the British invade, suddenly we're all, uh, speaking English. 'Course, now we no longer have the militias necessary to defend our free states, 'cos we've got a standing army that accounts for half of all military spending worldwide. And the militias were absorbed into a "National Guard" long ago. But there are so many other uses for guns; hunting, home defense, drive-by shootings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:56 am
Wendigo My Conscience This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. That's your take on it. I hold that you are misreading it; "The right to keep and bear arms" is exactly what it says it is, the right to own and carry weapons. What weapons those might be has not been specified, because they didn't want to hamstring their state militias. Only defense and all that. You say they can only own this, that gets developed, the British invade, suddenly we're all, uh, speaking English. 'Course, now we no longer have the militias necessary to defend our free states, 'cos we've got a standing army that accounts for half of all military spending worldwide. And the militias were absorbed into a "National Guard" long ago. But there are so many other uses for guns; hunting, home defense, drive-by shootings. How far would you say "You have the right to say whatever you want." goes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:43 am
My Conscience Wendigo My Conscience This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. That's your take on it. I hold that you are misreading it; "The right to keep and bear arms" is exactly what it says it is, the right to own and carry weapons. What weapons those might be has not been specified, because they didn't want to hamstring their state militias. Only defense and all that. You say they can only own this, that gets developed, the British invade, suddenly we're all, uh, speaking English. 'Course, now we no longer have the militias necessary to defend our free states, 'cos we've got a standing army that accounts for half of all military spending worldwide. And the militias were absorbed into a "National Guard" long ago. But there are so many other uses for guns; hunting, home defense, drive-by shootings. How far would you say "You have the right to say whatever you want." goes? Up until slander, defamation of character, and "Fire!" in crowded spaces, at which point it stops. The amendment says "Right to bear arms" and appears to have no exceptions because, at the time of its writing, there were not tanks and nukes and biological weapons. Now, we have more laws that keep people from purchasing these things. You can't just walk into a gun store and say "Yeah, I'd like to reserve an order of a 12-pack of ICBMs" Similarly, we didn't used to have laws that said you couldn't hijack airplanes. Now that we have airplanes, we have laws against that kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:51 am
Lykus My Conscience Wendigo My Conscience This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. That's your take on it. I hold that you are misreading it; "The right to keep and bear arms" is exactly what it says it is, the right to own and carry weapons. What weapons those might be has not been specified, because they didn't want to hamstring their state militias. Only defense and all that. You say they can only own this, that gets developed, the British invade, suddenly we're all, uh, speaking English. 'Course, now we no longer have the militias necessary to defend our free states, 'cos we've got a standing army that accounts for half of all military spending worldwide. And the militias were absorbed into a "National Guard" long ago. But there are so many other uses for guns; hunting, home defense, drive-by shootings. How far would you say "You have the right to say whatever you want." goes? Up until slander, defamation of character, and "Fire!" in crowded spaces, at which point it stops. The amendment says "Right to bear arms" and appears to have no exceptions because, at the time of its writing, there were not tanks and nukes and biological weapons. Now, we have more laws that keep people from purchasing these things. You can't just walk into a gun store and say "Yeah, I'd like to reserve an order of a 12-pack of ICBMs" Similarly, we didn't used to have laws that said you couldn't hijack airplanes. Now that we have airplanes, we have laws against that kind of thing. *slaps his forehead* I wasn't talking about the 1st amendment. I was talking generically. That hypothetical law is too ambiguous. It just says you can say whatever you want. Just like with the 2nd amendment. It just says you can own firearms. Without any exceptions or specifications, it seriously means you can own any firearm. Just like when that hypothetical law says you can say whatever, you realistically can with that law. Now don't get me wrong. Our society changes and so do our laws need to change to keep up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:24 am
My Conscience Lykus My Conscience Wendigo My Conscience This law specifically states arms. There are no exceptions. That's your take on it. I hold that you are misreading it; "The right to keep and bear arms" is exactly what it says it is, the right to own and carry weapons. What weapons those might be has not been specified, because they didn't want to hamstring their state militias. Only defense and all that. You say they can only own this, that gets developed, the British invade, suddenly we're all, uh, speaking English. 'Course, now we no longer have the militias necessary to defend our free states, 'cos we've got a standing army that accounts for half of all military spending worldwide. And the militias were absorbed into a "National Guard" long ago. But there are so many other uses for guns; hunting, home defense, drive-by shootings. How far would you say "You have the right to say whatever you want." goes? Up until slander, defamation of character, and "Fire!" in crowded spaces, at which point it stops. The amendment says "Right to bear arms" and appears to have no exceptions because, at the time of its writing, there were not tanks and nukes and biological weapons. Now, we have more laws that keep people from purchasing these things. You can't just walk into a gun store and say "Yeah, I'd like to reserve an order of a 12-pack of ICBMs" Similarly, we didn't used to have laws that said you couldn't hijack airplanes. Now that we have airplanes, we have laws against that kind of thing. *slaps his forehead* I wasn't talking about the 1st amendment. I was talking generically. That hypothetical law is too ambiguous. It just says you can say whatever you want. Just like with the 2nd amendment. It just says you can own firearms. Without any exceptions or specifications, it seriously means you can own any firearm. Just like when that hypothetical law says you can say whatever, you realistically can with that law. Now don't get me wrong. Our society changes and so do our laws need to change to keep up. Of course. On its absolute own in modern society, I certainly wouldn't agree with the absolute right of everyone to own any weapon, either. Now, I can't be sure as I have no interest in guns, but I think I can safely assume that there are laws against civilian possession of various more dangerous weapons. If there's anyone around here who knows more and can clarify or correct me, I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:03 pm
My Conscience How far would you say "You have the right to say whatever you want." goes? Since there is no such amendment, I'd say it doesn't go anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
