Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed?

[Red Wind]

So many weepers and criers and apologists. If only this and only that. If only I won the Lotto.
So many ambiguities. So many apologies. So much cowardice.

To me, this is a God given right to self defense which the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights confirms.

We'll do a poll. It won't be for ever. But it will be ours. All responsibility rests on me. All positives and negatives. It may not be pretty. I will take the blame or the good.

 

[Rocketmedic]

It needs to be infringed to protect the public from the actions of a small, extremely dangerous minority that exploits their rights to obtain weapons capable of killing a lot of people really fast.

 

[mnrivrat]

It needs to be infringed to protect the public from the actions of a small, extremely dangerous minority that exploits their rights to obtain weapons capable of killing a lot of people really fast.

WOW your just as unrealistic on this thread as you are on the other one you started. Take away away the rights of 300 million so you can feel a little safer.

I think it was Franklin who wrote that those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.

 

[jdc1244]

"Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed?"

Of course it should not be infringed, 'truly' or otherwise.

However, the actual question is what constitutes infringement:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]” (DC v. Heller)

Firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence do not constitute infringement.

Firearm regulatory measures which do not comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence do constitute infringement.

 

[OldMac]

Shall no be infringed is clear. The welfare of the republic depends on it. There are lots of other places that infringe or completely ignore this God given right. Some are within walking distance if you feel safer there. The fact is, those places like Mexico, Honduras, Brasil, etc are not safer overall or everyday.

 

[DoubleMag]

Dude ^^^ needs to move to Canada. Unfortunately their piano is similarly tuned

 

[std]

2nd Ammendment

Any modification to it is infringement. It is clearly spelled out. Ant-gun liberals are the ones that want to make it difficult by trying to reinterpret the Constitution. Any new gun law is a road to eventual confiscation and denial of rights. Believe it!

 

[Sam1911]

We've had a lot of debates which focused much more specifically on questions of infringement than this thread does.

Superficially, the Right to Bear Arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Period. You can't expect a whole lot of disagreement with that statement here on a firearms site.

But where you'll find disagreement is over what constitutes an infringement.

We've argued over what acceptable restrictions are, against whom, when, where, etc. thousands of times here at THR. And those arguments haven't brought much agreement, though hopefully they've spurred people to really think about the question much more deeply than our political sound-bite society normally does.

At any rate, this poll seems pretty light-duty stuff. Predetermined outcome, rhetorical question. You've just asked the choir if they all want to go to heaven. I'm thinking you're going to get the answer you expected.

 

[onelastshot]

It needs to be infringed to protect the public from the actions of a small, extremely dangerous minority that exploits their rights to obtain weapons capable of killing a lot of people really fast.

Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center. Homicides and gun violence continues to drop, the only thing that has escalated are the radical left wing attacks demanding a gun free America so they can live in a world of rainbows and unicorns, free from violence and stress.

When some people go online and target specific sites to make comments knowing that their sole purpose is to antagonize others it's referred to as trolling.
If you honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment is like clay that can be molded and reshaped to satisfy radical social commentary, your time would be better spent reading and commenting on liberal media such as Huffington Post.

We also have a small, extremely dangerous minority that exploits their first amendment rights to the detriment of others; shall we infringe upon this right to protect greater society?

 

[chipcom]

It needs to be infringed to protect the public from the actions of a small, extremely dangerous minority that exploits their rights to obtain weapons capable of killing a lot of people really fast.

uh, no. Free societies don't preemptively assume their populations are all criminals or terrorists until government certifies them otherwise, in free societies all people are considered responsible, law-abiding and not a threat to their fellow citizens unless and until their ACTIONS prove otherwise. Free societies are not the most orderly, nor the safest...that is one of the costs of freedom, and if you are not willing to accept that cost, you have every right to find a place that gives you the sense of security you crave...but you do NOT have the right to infringe upon the freedom of others to satisify our own irrational fear of your fellow man.

 

[chipcom]

"Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed?"

Of course it should not be infringed, 'truly' or otherwise.

However, the actual question is what constitutes infringement:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]” (DC v. Heller)

Firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence do not constitute infringement.

Firearm regulatory measures which do not comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence do constitute infringement.

I disagree.

First, the 2nd Amendment does not grant us any rights, it merely attempts to guarantee our basic human right to defend ourselves and our families and property via whatever means are available to us. This right predates governments and constitutions. SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution any way it wants, but the 9th Amendment prevents them from using their interpretations to deny us rights they have no power to grant or deny in the first place. Indeed, the Constitution is clear on what is required to change it...and the opinion of some court, based on a previous opinion or not, isn't one of them. This notion that the court is somehow superior to the People to the point where it has to tell us what the Constitution "really" means, is pure horsepucky. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the language is perfectly clear. The court's opinions are only relevant if we consent to abide by their opinion. Jury nullification is just one example of how we, the People can tell the court they are full of horsepucky.

Second, government is not superior to the people, it rules via the consent of the people...thus the people have a right to the same means of defense that the government does...indeed, it should be we regulating the government, not the other way around.

 

[Captain33036]

Ask the question the other way around.

Why SHOULD it be infringed?

About two thirds of all non-suicide gun deaths are criminal on criminal. About 10% is from law enforcement. SO...fully 75% of all non-suicide gun deaths are in the criminal element. Infringement will not touch that.

If mitigating crime is the goal, then infringing upon the 4th and 5th Amendments will yield much more significant results.

Anyone for that?

If mitigating needless deaths is the goal, then stricter controls on prescription drugs and recreational drugs will yield more significant results.

But, liberals want more ...liberal drug laws and less strict sentences.

SO....ask liberals what their goals are. If it is lowering crime or limiting needless deaths, the above two proposals are better solutions than to infringe upon the 2A.

If they want to limit the 2A, then their goal is clearly NOT to limit crime or gun deaths.

 

[txblackout]

So many weepers and criers and apologists. If only this and only that. If only I won the Lotto.
So many ambiguities. So many apologies. So much cowardice.

To me, this is a God given right to self defense which the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights confirms.

We'll do a poll. It won't be for ever. But it will be ours. All responsibility rests on me. All positives and negatives. It may not be pretty. I will take the blame or the good.

I think the laws we have now are pretty good, they just need to be enforced.

among other things:
1) I agree that people should have training to carry in public
2) I agree that violent felons should not be allowed to own guns
3) I agree that people should not have access to grenades, grenade launchers, land mines etc.

Therefore I believe the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed in some cases.

 

[txblackout]

Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center. Homicides and gun violence continues to drop, the only thing that has escalated are the radical left wing attacks demanding a gun free America so they can live in a world of rainbows and unicorns, free from violence and stress.

One thing I posted in the other thread is that gun murders have dropped more slowly than other types of murders. Freakonomics guys cited a study that the reduction in crime and violence is most closely tied to legalization of abortion. The people who would have committed those crimes (broken homes, poverty etc) were never born.

Yet gun murders have risen as a percent of all murders from something like 45 to 70%

The proliferation of guns possibly has slowed the decrease in gun murders.

 

[MEHavey]

According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state
power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army [enforcement
force]. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the "omnipotence of war". Yes, we are
advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist.
The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic
republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is
only by the power of the gun that the working class and the laboring masses can defeat
the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can
the whole world be transformed.

Everyone in power -- even Chairman Mao -- knows this as the core precept of final social control.

Those who would control the populace, control the weapons.
Hence "The People" as the most specifically-repeated phrase in the entire Constitution.
Twice in establishing the base authority of the main body, and then five of the ten original/Bill-of-Rights amendments.

This whole concept of who controls the power of the state -- and how -- is lost in the rush to "common sense" restrictions.

 

[stoky]

I am, by and large, a single issue 2A voter. To me, it encompass the question of whether or not the government trusts the people to be armed.
As depicted in a recent (closed) thread, some folks think the federal government should be responsible for all citizens having a job, insurance, absolute protection from any misadventure (real or imagined) that may befall them, and more. I can see how special problems (typically accompanied by shrill main stream media hue and cry) would be much more easily dealt with, if not for that pesky Bill of Rights in the way.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It specifies limitations on the powers of government. The Bill of Rights, in it's entirety, was indented to be a bulwark of the boundaries.

 

[Sam1911]

among other things:
1) I agree that people should have training to carry in public

Many states do not require proof of any training in order for someone to lawfully carry a gun in public. In fact, considering in how many states open carry is lawful without a permit, and the five or six states that now require no permit for carrying a firearm period, we can probably say "most."

And those folks lawfully carrying firearms have caused NO problems, and have statistically speaking, represented ZERO impact on rates of firearm accidents or unlawful shootings. In other words, we don't have a problem here to solve. Things are fine the way they are. Lawful carriers aren't any sort of public danger by any possible statistical measure we could apply.

It must be assumed that if you think people should have training to carry in public (in the context of government infringements this can only mean "be FORCED to have training") then you're seeking to impose further restrictions than we already have.

And those further restrictions are to change what, exactly? The NON-problem we have of lawful carriers NOT contributing to our crime or accidental shooting rates?

Why (OH WHY!?!?) do we clamor for restrictions to be placed upon our selves and others, which -- even if they aren't onerous (which they clearly are) -- don't solve a problem we ACTUALLY HAVE?

:banghead:

 

[danez71]

IMO, the question isn't clear enough.

You cant pick and choose which amendments you like with out taking all of them in context. Otherwise, you're not much different than the anti's.


There is the 5th Amendment which says, in part, ".... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...."

So, Yes, IMO, murderers should have their rights infringed as punishment for infringing on the ultimate Right (life) of another.

 

[yokel]

I agree that people should not have access to grenades, grenade launchers, land mines etc.

Therefore I believe the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed in some cases.

Don't you understand that the principal intent of the Second Amendment is that the American people be able to defend themselves from external invasion and internal tyranny, or the possibility of a government gone horrendously wrong?

It'd be nearly impossible to do so if we were downgraded to the relatively meager firepower that some judges, politicians, and bureaucrats see fit to allow us. No, you fight force with force, and to do so, you need the proper tools, e.g., heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and mortars.

 

[chipcom]

I think the laws we have now are pretty good, they just need to be enforced.

among other things:
1) I agree that people should have training to carry in public
2) I agree that violent felons should not be allowed to own guns
3) I agree that people should not have access to grenades, grenade launchers, land mines etc.

Therefore I believe the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed in some cases.

One should be well-trained on the use of ANY tool, but that does not mean we need laws requiring them to do so.

I also believe that once a criminal's debt to society is paid, their rights should be fully restored. If you can't trust them with those rights, then they shouldn't be freed in the first place.

As far as other munitions...if one is law-abiding and responsible, they are no threat to anyone, unless and until their actions prove otherwise. This is one of the key principles of freedom. Once you start preventing people from owning or operating things because they might, maybe, become irresponsible and cause damage to people or property, you have started down the slippery slope of totalitarianism...and lord knows we have been sliding down that slope for a long time.

 

[climbskirun]

Don't you understand that the principal intent of the Second Amendment is that the American people be able to defend themselves from external invasion and internal tyranny, or the possibility of a government gone horrendously wrong?

It'd be nearly impossible to do so if we were downgraded to the relatively meager firepower that some judges, politicians, and bureaucrats see fit to allow us. No, you fight force with force, and to do so, you need the proper tools, e.g., heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and mortars.

Agreed, I don't believe in arbitrary restrictions either, tho regulating the use of such items would be in order because we can't have people just showing up to a national forest and firing their recoilless rifle

I'd like to see shooting clubs with private land sufficient in size and protection where such activities are carried out safely and without endangering the public. Maybe operators should require some form of training, delivered through such clubs. I think it'd also be a reasonable ask that more destructive weapons be stored in a manner that prevents misuse or theft.

This is in line with the ethos of individual liberty and personal responsibility, which we all (I hope) strive to live by.

 

[hso]

protect the public

You've repeated the lie that the public is affected. A tiny number of people are murdered in this manner and as such they're not the greater body of "the public". You're exaggerating the risk.

 

[hso]

1) I agree that people should have training to carry in public

You won't find a pattern in the data comparing states with training requirements and those that don't that support that opinion (and I'm a huge training advocate). Therefore the opinion that there would be a public safety benefit from mandatory training for carry isn't based on the comparative data between states that do and don't require this.

 

[Deanimator]

It needs to be infringed to protect the public from the actions of a small, extremely dangerous minority that exploits their rights to obtain weapons capable of killing a lot of people really fast.

You mean the BATFE?

 

[DeepSouth]

The extremists that wrote the second amendment seemed pretty clear to me.

I would argue, if you make the decision to become a violent member of society you should forfeit most of the freedoms associated with living in a free society.

Apart from that, shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me.

I'd point out once you decide to ignore part of the founding documents who to say where you have to quit ignoring them. Just look at our history, the bill of rights is practically gone.