second ammendment being " out dated "

we all hear the anti-gunners say the 2nd ammendment is out dated, our fore-fathers couldnt fore see the weapons of today. my argument is this! there was a reason for the 2nd ammendment being vague, the antis are right, the fore fathers couldnt for see the weapons of our armed forces today. the true reason for the 2nd ammendment is to protect ourselves from tyranny and oppresion. i believe the ammendment was meant for the citizens of this country to have the same type of fire power as the armed forces. i feel this is the true reason the government wants to destroy the second ammendment. its not to stop gun violence but to control the poeple with out any repercussion. how do you look at this subject. im trying to refine my arguement.

thanks for your time.

 

The second amendment for all intents and purposes is as old as the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments. If the second should be eliminated due to being outdated, so should the rest.
Let the antis who use that argument stew on that for awhile.

 

Well, the Fourth Amm. has been "outdated" for some time in my experience. Things such as "officer safety" and the airport stupidity we have to put up with now says to me that our elected officials just don't seem to be able to "govern" us all with that annoying Bill of Rights so they just ignore it and claim it's "outdated".

 

"outdated" 2A is moot.

I've also heard Antis say that SCOTUS ruled in 2008 that the government DOES have the right to "regulate" firearms ("...well regulated militia..."), however, whether it is out dated, obsolete, or a governmental body rules/legislates/enforces a new amendment, it doesn't matter.
The very idea of the second amendment is it's power! Not the paper it's written on.

Thought experiment:
If by some fluke Feinstein got ALL of her disarmament dreams,
How is the DOJ going to realistically enforce this new take on the US? WHO is going to go out and collect these newly illegal firearms?
Call in the DOD? Now you're REALLY riding roughshod on the Constitution!
Local law enforcement? You mean those folks who are already understaffed, under budgeted, and in some cases out gunned? Those folks who LIVE in the local community and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution?
I don't think so.

Even if they got their minimum demands, Hi-cap mag and sporting rifle ban, individual states will pass their own laws that allow these things and then it becomes a states rights battle. (WY) The DOJ is already looking at a states rights fight with WA and CO. How do you enforce laws without the help of local law enforcement?

 

First amendment's rather outdated as well. It's not like people need freedom of speech, religion, expression, and etc. Just look at China, an authoritarian dictatorship with a robust economy better than our own. (Actually, part of the reason the economy is so strong is because they lack freedom of speech.)

And it's not like the Founders could have foreseen the internet and modern mass media, so it's not like abridging them would affect the intent of the First Amendment, right?

 

They should not be igoring the constitution simply because they no longer agree with it. There is a method to ammend the constitution. But they know it would not pass, so they chose to ignore it. I don't agree with some taxes, can I simply ignore them? Sure I can, and end up in jail.

 

I'll tell ya what's outdated, the anti's trying to destroy the 2nd amendment. Well out of date....

 

Exactly. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

Do we have a government?

If the answer to that is "yes", then the Second Amendment is not outdated.

The Second Amendment is there BECAUSE of government.

 

The way i read feinstein's bill she would prohibit the transfer. so it would be your estate turning in your guns. Also by doing that she would completely de-value them, what's an item worth if you cannot buy, sell or trade that item ever.

I honestly think that nothing material will come of this... maybe a background check on all non-family transfers or something but i'll bet no sweeping rifle ban or mag ban.... i hope.

Now let me shift to conspiracy mode (thats easy for me)
Even if we had the worst case scenario and a the government created a ban on black rifles, like Germany, China, Russia etc... cant happen here?... Remember we (the USA) just 60 years ago rounded up millions of people because they had slanted eyes. We confiscated their homes, businesses and any personal possessions they couldn't fit in 1 suitcase and put them in concentration camps for years.

Anyway most of us honest law abiding citizens would comply with the law and turn them in. Some more militant of us would burry them or lock them in man caves. But you couldn't shoot them, trade them or even talk about them. They (the storm troopers) may pick a couple homes here and there to make examples out of but there would not be mass door to door confiscation or civil war, it would just quietly become 3rd page news and only the criminals would have them.

 

Fine, it's outdated. Then update the constitution, don't ignore it.

That's its purpose, that is why it has survived. That's why it's so important.


IF we truly are a different world and guns are no longer to be allowed to the people, then pass an amendment. But don't you dare, as an American, get behind an unconstitutional law or a $%@ executive order because of the way the wind is blowing today. Because tomorrow, the other side/bad guy/etc could just as easily be the one ramming through exec orders on freedom of press, assembly, or religion.

 

There are approximately 20,000 gun laws/regulations as of 2013 that infringe upon what is to be not infringed upon.

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.

How is there not infringement when ownership is so heavily regulated that that ability to have ownership is removed? California and NY have the most highly regulated gun laws in the country, how can they not be classified as infringing?

 

This was directly addressed in DC v Heller, page 8:

Now that that's been settled, the thread should end now.

Somehow I'm guessing it won't.

 

Maybe it is time to restrict the use of the first amendment to attack the second?:banghead:

 

The same document that establishes this government and gives it it's powers also restricts it. If the restrictions are "outdated" then so is the government it established.

With the authority comes restrictions. You do not get one without the other. Same document gives both.

 

did most of you just read the title and go off on that? my arguement was on gun "control" not the ammendment being out dated.

 

I think sir, that given the opportunity, they'd quite happily ditch the entire document.

 

There may be those in power who do want the guns to control the populace. I think a very large portion of people who are anti-gun and just been drinking the kool-aid being passed out by the media and other are just plain scared. It all centers around ignorance IMHO.

 

I also hear the argument that "back then it took 10 seconds to reload" a gun. As if since guns have changed that this amendment is no longer valid.

But the fact remains that the writers of the amendment allowed citizens to own the most powerful weapon of that time, so no reason to believe they wouldn't also be in favor of us owning the current modern weapons that are available.

False arguments include: the amendment is outdated, the amendment is about hunting, the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate the current modern weapons.

Fact of the matter is that US citizens were given the right to own the most powerful firearms available and that right was not to be infringed upon.

 

this is what i was trying to say.

 

The Second Amendment is only now becoming the vital "Liberty Teeth" that it was intended to be. I am sure the Founders never expected that the Second Amendment would stand unchallenged as tyranny built. Or that the mere presence of the words in the Bill or Rights would stop government encroachment on our liberty. It's the guns in the hands of citizens that put meat on the bones of those words.

 

I don't think this lady who speaks from experience thinks its 'outdated':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaa7TiK_Gk&feature=player_embedded

 

i dont feel the 2nd amm is out dated!!!!! its an argument point. but i do like the video couldnt agree more.

 

If the topic you have in mind was something other than the notion of the 2nd being outdated, perhaps you shouldn't have used the phrase in your title AND your premise.

If your topic is something else, I have no idea what it is.

 

That's what it comes down to. The Constitution was designed to be a living document. Parts have become outdated. Like counting blacks as three fifths of a person for the purpose of establishing voting population. Or the way we used to elect our Senators. Etc.

But when the population decides a part is "obsolete," they have to pass an new Constitutional amendment changing the prior part. If the anti's truly believe the 2nd Amendment is the problem, then they are welcome to try to nullify it. Legally and in accordance with the Constitution. Otherwise... it's the law of the land!

Gregg