Poll:Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed In Any Way?

[cliffy]

In what way is our Second Ammendment to our Constitution UNCLEAR?

A more straight-forward statement was NEVER written. Debate over this ARTICLE should NEVER occur within a free society! cliffy, the insensed as to how this could have ever happened within my lifetime. cliffy

 

[tim71]

I've debated this many times and have heard the M1 argument although usually somebody asks me if I think it's okay to own a stinger missile then.

Couple points. Even if there were no firearms restrictions, a Stinger and an M1 Abrams would still be illegal to own for several reasons. #1, classified military technolgy. #2, High explosives would be regulated under different laws.

All gun laws that I can think of make no sense whatsoever and I never agree with outlawing or restricting something that isn't a problem. The 86 gun ban only ensured that wealthy people could own a class 3 machine gun legally, and law-breakers could get one illegally. Where does the middle man fall in who obeys the laws?

Why did CA outlaw the .50 cal when no crime had ever been commited with one? Why were KTW rounds deemed "cop-killer" bullets when no cop had been killed with one?

How many shootings have you ever seen at a gun show? Now how many have there been in Chicago, D.C., etc?

Now, to go hand in hand with my no restrictions gun rights would be stiffer penalties for the criminals to offer a deterent. How's about prisons that weren't air-conditioned to comfort levels, no smoking, no TV, no rec rooms and work programs that had you wishing you've never dreamed of commiting a crime?

Some of our founding fathers used phrases like "to protect from a tyranical government" so obviously they were talking about weapons and arms that were sufficient to prevent the govt from just taking over. They weren't just talking about some watered-down rights that allowed us to carry stuff that's decent but still makes us submissive.

BTW, along these lines, why the heck is body armor illegal now for citizens? Somebody got smothered to death by a rogue vest? A vest go nuts and kill innocent people?

How I long for a polititian who would not only protect our rights, but fight to get back some we've had stolen from us.

Tim

 

[Byron Quick]

I'm always confounded by the people who cling to felons being prohibited from owning guns. They act as if this was set in stone by some prophet back in the mists of time.

Sorry, the federal prohibition is forty years old. Prior to that there was probably less gun crime than there is now. So it's really addressed the problem, now hasn't it?

The people who wrote and passed the GCA of '68 were not your friends. They did not write one single sentence of it to benefit you as a gunowner. None of it does benefit you-including the felon gunownership prohibition.

Another thing that needs to be considered is this: compare the list of felonies in 1908 to the list in 2008. It has grown substantially.

One way of backdoor gun control is not to ban guns. It is to incrementally turn every possible gun owner into a felon and thereby ineligible. Or tack on more misdemeanors that make one ineligible. Don't even have to be convicted of those...just charged.

Now, think of this present state of affairs here in Georgia...the first offense of carrying a pistol without government permission is a misdemeanor but the second offense is a felony. How many here would support that felon being stripped of his right to own, shoot, or even to touch a gun?

That's what you're doing and you're supporting a path that is liable to bite us all in the butt in the days to come.

Sorry, either a felon released from prison has paid his debt to society, is a free man with all of the rights inherent in being a free man, or he is not. And, if he is not, he should still be locked up. No one who is too dangerous to society to own weapons should be walking around loose.

 

[TAB]

No one who is too dangerous to society to own weapons should be walking around loose.

how do you determine that? WHO determins that? So if some one were to get say 5 years, at the end of that time if they are not safe should they still stay in jail? thier "debt" to socity has been paid.

 

[Byron Quick]

Personally, in the world according to Byron, it would work like this. Commit an unprovoked violent crime...never get a second chance to do so. You wouldn't have to worry about violent felons getting access to weapons as they would be where they couldn't...for their life spans.

And this would be for any violent offense. You feel the need to slap someone who has not harmed you or attempted to do so? Well, the only other people you'll have a chance to assault will be other violent offenders.

Problem solved.

Prisons would be much cheaper places, too. The conditions that WWII soldiers were barracked in is not unconstitutional in my opinion. No AC, no TV. Ceiling fans, radios if there is any family members who will send them one. If they want to eat then they had best get to work in the truck farm, with the chickens, rabbits, and hogs. Or they could refuse to do the work necessary and starve. While starving, they could riot and be mowed down with heavy machineguns and used to fertilize the truck farm.

I don't think there would be much violence on the streets after a bit. No fences, just a strand of wire that lets them know where the mine field belt begins. Maybe put up a 8 foot fence of hogwire to prevent the inhabitants from entertaining themselves by tossing each other into the minefield.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Restrictions rescinded while the justice system is remolded to actually keep crooks of the streets.

 

[Aran]

And this would be for any violent offense. You feel the need to slap someone who has not harmed you or attempted to do so? Well, the only other people you'll have a chance to assault will be other violent offenders.

I'm glad you're not in charge.

 

[K3]

I'm glad you're not in charge.

I rather wish he was. Or myself, as I think along the same lines. The current state of affairs doesn't work too well, does it?

It sounds like some posters would suggest that adding to the restrictions is what is needed. After all, it will probably take only a little more. It's like government's penchant for throwing money at problems. "We spent a billion on education, but things still aren't right. What we need is TWO billion."

We've got felony prohibition, Lautenburg, '1 year + misdemeanors', etc. What, people still aren't acting right? By golly, we need MORE laws and 'reasonable restrictions'. I wish for once that you gubbamint lovers would stop and really think what you are calling for and supporting.

Enough with the tired old arguments about restrictions on free speech. In truth, as I see it, there are no restrictions on it UNTIL you USE it wrong. This is NOT the same as guns. Felon prohibition, 922(r), NICS, etc, restrict prior to even possessing. The analogy between 1A and 2A does not hold water.

Enough with the M1 Abrams argument. Besides, I'm pretty sure a man could buy about any tank he wants if he has the $. He could even have an operational MA if he jumped through the proper BATFE hoops. I know of a guy who owns a fully operational T34. May not be an Abrams, but I daresay that in a civilian area, there'd be no stopping it until the NG was called in.

All of your 'reasonable restrictions' merely inhibit folks like you and I. Not the criminals. So, what's the point?

 

[Queltor]

We shouldn't have prohibitions because criminals break laws. Is that really your argument? By that logic we shouldn't have any laws that prohibit ANY activity.

Outlaw rape? Why? Rapists will just break the law.
Outlaw murder? Why? Murderers will just break the law.
Outlaw anything at all? Why? Criminals break laws and the law doesn't prevent that.

So what do we do now?

 

[Queltor]

There are wrongs which are mala in se (wrong in itself) and there are wrongs which are mala prohibita (wrong by a law). Murder and rape are mala in se (wrong in themselves). Regardless of if there is a *federally mandated law* against them or not, they are WRONG.

According to who? Which segment of society gets to define the "mala in se" you want us all to believe in? Which set of moral values should we all abide by?

What is the age of sexual consent? Is is rape or not? Depends on the state. Why? Laws. There is no mala in se.

What constitutes justifiable homicide and what's simple murder? Is an honor killing justified? Is it justified to kill your neighbor because you believe they're a child abuser when they've never been formally accused or convicted of anything? What happens when you're proven wrong? Which family member gets to kill you?

Laws, written and agreed upon by humans, are the only way to answer these questions. Mala in se is insufficient.

 

[yokel]

We shouldn't have prohibitions because criminals break laws. Is that really your argument? By that logic we shouldn't have any laws that prohibit ANY activity.

Outlaw rape? Why? Rapists will just break the law.
Outlaw murder? Why? Murderers will just break the law.
Outlaw anything at all? Why? Criminals break laws and the law doesn't prevent that.

So what do we do now?

This is the kind of absurd red herring argument that those who are happy to shred the Constitution in behalf of some agenda or the other try to claim Second Amendment hard-liners are making.

The government is happy to oblige, because shredding the Constitution removes constraints on the government's power.

They will repeat endlessly that Americans who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear. If this argument held any water, there would have been no point in the Founding Fathers writing the Constitution.

The position of the U.S. government is that the rights guaranteed Americans by the Constitution facilitate criminal activity. To be safe from criminals, the argument goes, we must allow the government to take liberties with the Constitution. This argument gives government the power to set aside the Constitution and, thus, enables tyranny. As Milton Friedman and many others taught us, rules are the essence of freedom, and discretionary power is the essence of tyranny.

 

[sqlbullet]

We have, it seems, gotten caught up in a debate about many problems, to which there are no simple solutions. Let us consider for a moment at whom the second amendment was aimed. The federal government.

I do not believe the 2nd amendment should be construed to deny the polity the ability to regulate firearms. A free people should be free to trade their freedoms for the promise of security, if such folly should appeal to them.

However, the federal government has no legal or constitutional standing to pass any law restricting ownership of any weapon. I disagree with the courts ruling on cases that would dictate otherwise. The security of a free state was dependent on the people having ready access to such arms as to defeat a professional army.

Now, it may be that the individual states, or the municipalities, could, or should enact restrictions that would help safe guard against an unstable person sitting in their living room with a plutonium trigger in their hands. But as I read the constitution, it prohibits any law at the federal level which restricts access to arms.

Interestingly enough, this means I disagree with both Miller and Heller I suppose. I have chosen to live in a state that further ensures my individual right in it's state constitution. I your state does not preserve that right to you, it is time for you to become politically active at the state and local level to ensure your rights.

I further believe it is illogical to believe a law prohibiting a felon from possessing a gun will have any effect other than to disarm those who can now be trusted. And the comparison above to murder and rape is ridiculous. Possession of a firearm is not inherently harmful to anyone. I am not saying we should decriminalize criminal behavior. But we should stop criminalizing that which does result in personal injury or property damage.

 

[Queltor]

Way to ignore my actual argument and respond to select portions taken out of context. You completely failed to respond to the core question.

Without laws, determined through a governing body and agreed upon by our elected representatives, how is a society supposed to establish common values?

The Federal, State, and Local governments have power because we give it to them. The government has power because the Constitution (Federal or State) gives it to them. Your claim of an omnipotent government is bull****.

Do you want to lock felons up for the rest of their lives, like some people on this board? "If they aren't trustworthy enough to own a gun, they shouldn't be walking around." Giving the government THAT power is OK, but giving them the power to do other things (like say felons simply can't own firearms) isn't? That makes no sense. How is depriving someone COMPLETELY of their liberties better than depriving them of only one?

You want us all to believe we're just victims of the people WE elect.
Just as we elect them, we can kick them out of office.

 

[yokel]

Alas, the issue is not quite as simple and straightforward as some would like to portray it.

Maryland, for example, is a de facto single-party state. This means that only one political party controls government and holds effective power to the point where there is no effective opposition.

There are openly-democratic competitive elections and a few token members of an opposition party are tolerated.

 

[Byron Quick]

I'm glad you're not in charge.

Heh, so am I.

How is depriving someone COMPLETELY of their liberties better than depriving them of only one?

One big difference between my scenario and the one you depict.

No one would be deprived of any liberty without due process as well as knowing full well that unprovoked violence was a one way ticket to prison. And no one would lose any liberty by anything except by being convicted by a jury of their peers of laws, the penalty of which had been taught to them by their parents, their teachers, their church members, their neighbors, and society every single day of their lives. Now, after all of that, someone who hasn't learned the lesson by then and is dumbfounded by the sentence he's received for the crime he committed...well, there isn't much hope for him anywhere at anytime, is there?

I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who wish to use violence upon others with no legally justifiable cause.

Tell you what, though. I'd be willing to settle for making lethal force as a legally justifiable response to any violent attack which is unprovoked.

That way no one's liberties would be infringed by government. The only people that would have to worry would be the ones who want to be bullies.

Before someone starts with the whining, I'm not advocating doing such now under existing laws.

But, I think the laws governing self defense and the legal limitations on the use of lethal force should be drastically broadened. I also believe the laws governing what is considered to be assault should tightened greatly regarding what is considered assault after undue provocation. And there is much in current law that is considered to be no reason to assault another that I consider to be completely justifiable provocation to respond to by assault.

Once again, take note of the fact that I am saying I think that some laws should be changed. In no way, am I stating that current law relating to self defense should not be followed.

Somebody wants their liberties? Fine, be willing to allow everyone else their liberties. The last time I tried to start a fight I was ten years old. I ran that other kid for ten blocks before I cornered him up in the corner where two fences enclosing a tennis court came together. That skinny little kid (I thought I had chosen wisely) turned around and tore me out of the frame. He ran home down the street and left me lying on the tennis court looking like Beetle Bailey after Sarge got through. Best thing that ever happened to me.

But I don't see much evidence that violent adults are as teachable as I was at ten.

 

[Queltor]

Byron,

That was a good post, and I agree with you in part:

No one would be deprived of any liberty without due process

If you remember my initial post in this thread, I said that some limits must apply and listed only a few of the limits that are currently in place:

Mental defectives. Felons. Dishonorably discharged.

I wasn't arguing for the entire list, which can be found here: http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/legal/prohibitions.htm

Some people attacked me as if I was ADDING limitations. For example, La Pistoletta, in post #118 said, "Anything can, and frequently has been throughout history, be construed as mental illness. You do NOT want to go down that road. Keep things objective."

Many others expressed fear that restricting felons was dangerous because "too many" things were considered felonies and they didn't want to lose their rights if convicted. Some of these same people want "dangerous people" locked up forever. They're afraid of the government's power to define a felony, but for some reason they have no trouble letting the government define a "dangerous person."

If someone is being convicted of a felony (whether you agree with the law or not) or being defined a generically "dangerous person" and locked up because they aren't trustworthy, due process should apply.

Due process is, by the way, also defined by the government. That's the Catch-22 of government power and why there are so many bureaucratic steps to getting anything done.

But I don't see much evidence that violent adults are as teachable as I was at ten.

I agree. I also don't see much evidence that persistent lawbreakers are teachable, which is why I don't have a problem with felons, not just violent felons, being prohibited from firearms ownership.

 

[Fleetwood_Captain]

By Mala In Se and Mala Prohibita, that would be comparable to what most consider to be "natural law."

When the NAZI war criminals were tried, they wern't being charged with breaking any German laws. After all, they were doing their jobs and enforcing German laws on the books when they committed the "crimes" they were being charged with. After all, concentration camps were deemed perfectly legal in WWII Germany.

Mala In Se and Natural Law are concepts suggesting that people have natural rights that should be respected, even in the absense of law. The backbone supporting the idea is that just because you have the option of legally doing something unethical, it doesn't mean that it is right.

Under traditional statute laws, the only crimes the NAZI war criminals could have been charged with were corruption and treaty violations. However, the idea of natural law created a movement to punish them for "crimes against humanity", another new concept at the time.

As far as Felons are concerned, I believe there should be paths an ex-con could persue clear their name. After all, there lies the question as to where the line is drawn where punishment ends and it is assumed that an offender has learned their lesson. Especially in the case of a non-violent offense.

Although it is clear that a large portion of the prison population cannot be rehabilitated, there may be hope for a modest minority.

 

[Byron Quick]

The biggest concern I have with the felon prohibition is the enormous expansion in laws creating new felonies over the past century. My paternal grandfather never owned any firearm except a shotgun as far as I know. (He died in 1932) However, he could buy any type of existing weapons for cash and carry with no strings attached. Felony for 74 years now. He could grow anything he pleased. Felony for 74 years now. and the list goes on and on.

What's the list of felonies going to look like a hundred years from now?

Speeding a felony? How about spitting on the sidewalk? Talking back to authority? Jaywalking? Lack of respect to lawful authority? Giving some official the finger? Complaining about taxation? Questioning the actions or motives of an elected official?

I believe that anyone who reviews the new felonies enacted in the past one hundred years and extrapolates that trend into the next one hundred years will be very uncomfortable with what the felony prohibition might one day mean to their grandchildren or great grandchildren.

Then, again, maybe they simply won't care about the fates of their yet unborn grandchildren or great grandchildren and I'm just a Cassandra wailing upon the walls of Troy.

I'm a libertarian that tends toward rational anarchism(I don't need a government to tell me what to do but I recognize that government is more than a necessary evil-it is inescapable-as there exists too many people who DO need government to hold their hands and tell them that everything is going to be alright. It's a pathology but part of the human condition.) The crimes I recognize are infringements upon the rights of others...if my actions do not harm any specific individual then there can be no crime. My society does not agree with me.

 

[Queltor]

There's a funny thing about using 100 years as a comparison. There were essentially no federal crimes 100 years ago. Murder, rape, kidnapping, and countless other serious crimes could be evaded simply by crossing state lines.

Also, 100 years ago the FBI was created. Now they manage the agency who keeps people's criminal records on file (CJIS). The days of crossing state lines to evade past crimes are over.

 

[solareclipse]

i voted as no in any way because once you begin excluding people... you know the rest

that said, certain people should not have them. felons i would not immediately put in that category (they get them anyway), but mental people definitely

 

[rfurtkamp]

mental people definitely

If they're "mental" enough to be denied a gun, why not just get them declared unfit and committed?

It's the felon argument all over again - if someone is safe to be on the streets, they're safe to be on the streets. If not, use one of the existing mechanisms to remove them.