Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed?

[The Alaskan]

I used to do some contract work which included working with the National Training Center and other maneuver training centers. In the course of that, I had to act as a terrorist and come up with realistic plans -- for example, to make a chemical attack, I had to have a formula vetted by the Chemical Center AND locate the ingredients locally.

So with that background, I assure you a person can make "nerve gas" with locally available chemicals and can also make the deadliest biological agents in his kitchen.

I' very much aware of that, just based on my own, very limited, training in NBC warfare.

I'm sure you'll agree, however, that our government guards those recipes pretty closely. (Although, I'm sure it's on youtube somewhere-everything else is.) And that makes my point.

1.) Just because the government/military has access to a weapon, doesn't mean the general population should.

2.) Just because it's enshrined in the Bill of Rights (free speech is in there, but you're not allowed to teach people how to make chemical weapons or 3D printer plans for firearms), doesn't mean that it's a wide open free-for-all with no limitations whatsoever.

 

[M-Cameron]

2.) Just because it's enshrined in the Bill of Rights (free speech is in there, but you're not allowed to teach people how to make chemical weapons or 3D printer plans for firearms), doesn't mean that it's a wide open free-for-all with no limitations whatsoever.

not allowed according to who?.....what laws is there against me telling someone how to make a chemical weapon?.......or giving them .STL files to print a firearm?

 

[The Alaskan]

well seeing as the cost for the minuteman missle is on the order of $7Mil. a pop, not counting infrastructure.....i dont see that being an issue any time soon.

and seeing as we dont live in the bond universe, we dont really have to worry about millionaire evil-dooers firing missles out of their secret volcano lair.

Seven million? are they THAT cheap!? Dude! I'm only one lottery ticket away from that!!

You probably meant billion with a B.

 

[M-Cameron]

nope, 7 Million

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm

.....and seeing that your odds of winning the lottery are one in 175 million......im going to take my chances that a random lottery winner is not out to buy a nuke....

 

[The Alaskan]

someone explained it over in that discussion about the "plasma gun" where we're also talking about 3D printing of firearms. Defense Distributed or something like that got shut down. As for the chem warfare stuff, I'm not sure, but I do know that, back in the day The Anarchists Cookbook (I probably just set off some sensor at NSA someplace) was monitored. If you checked out a copy at your library, it was reported. I suspect that you would agree that tracking what your read or write (much like a 4473 and a NICS check for your gun) is an "infringement" of your 1st amendment.

 

[The Alaskan]

nope, 7 Million

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm

.....and seeing that your odds of winning the lottery are one in 175 million......im going to take my chances that a random lottery winner is not out to buy a nuke....

That's in 1970 dollars. That's about 43 million dollars in 2015. Still within the reach of a big lottery win. And, hey, somebody has to win, might as well be me, right?

But you're still missing the point. Intentionally I suppose.

Now that I think about it, $43 million is a pretty good value for that level of protection.

 

[M-Cameron]

someone explained it over in that discussion about the "plasma gun" where we're also talking about 3D printing of firearms. Defense Distributed or something like that got shut down. As for the chem warfare stuff, I'm not sure, but I do know that, back in the day The Anarchists Cookbook (I probably just set off some sensor at NSA someplace) was monitored.

Defense Dist. was asked to take it down because of potential ITAR regulations, which is a restriction on military materials and information being exported out of the country.

i can go out and hand out flashdrives with 3d print files to everyone i see walking down the street 100% legally.

as for the anarchist cookbook.....i cant really say ive ever heard reliable reports of that being "tracked" or traced.....hell, what library would carry that?....that being said, its not illegal to own, and i can hand out copies of it to anyone i want, 100% legally.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm sure you'll agree, however, that our government guards those recipes pretty closely. (Although, I'm sure it's on youtube somewhere-everything else is.) And that makes my point.

They don't and they can't guard those recipes.

For example, one of the deadliest biological agents known is Botulinum Toxin (BTX), a neurotoxic protein produced by the bacterium Clostridium Botulinum and related species.

Botulinum Toxin is also called "Housewife's Disease." It is formed by improper home canning -- you will notice that the lids for home canning jars are domed. When the hot food is poured into the jar and the lid screwed down, as the jar cools, the dome inverts with an audible "click."

If the jar is improperly sterilized, the botulism organism, Clostridium Botulinum, will begin to grow inside the jar, creating pressure and causing the dome to pop back up. If a housewife didn't check the dome before opening the jar, the internal pressure would produce a spray of BTX, often fatal and almost always devastating.

 

[The Alaskan]

They don't and they can't guard those recipes.

For example, one of the deadliest biological agents known is Botulinum Toxin (BTX), a neurotoxic protein produced by the bacterium Clostridium Botulinum and related species.

Botulinum Toxin is also called "Housewife's Disease." It is formed by improper home canning -- you will notice that the lids for home canning jars are domed. When the hot food is poured into the jar and the lid screwed down, as the jar cools, the dome inverts with an audible "click."

If the jar is improperly sterilized, the botulism organism, Clostridium Botulinum, will begin to grow inside the jar, creating pressure and causing the dome to pop back up. If a housewife didn't check the dome before opening the jar, the internal pressure would produce a spray of BTX, often fatal and almost always devastating.

I'm familiar with it. I do a lot of canning myself. Botulism is the no. 1 food poisoning in AK, and improper home canning methods is the no. 1 cause. Although, and not to be racist here, it's almost always the Native Alaskans who get it. I rarely hear of Europeans (white people) getting it. (knock on wood) There was an outbreak earlier this year that hit a number of villages as the original family that got it distributed the food to extended family members in other villages-even AFTER the state dept of health tracked it back to the one family.

And now we're WAYYYYY off topic.

Canned moose & potatoes anyone?

 

[gbran]

No matter how many law abiding citizens are armed or unarmed, society's fear should be directed towards armed criminals and tyrants. BTW, the 2A is not contingent on crime stats or crime control.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Absolutely not in any way shape or form. EVERYONE, even those convicted of violent crime, should not be without the means to effectively protect oneself from whatever may come.

My other nitch on this is that it is not a "god given" right. A lot of the opposition to 2A don't care much for your god. Frankly, neither do I. It was a right given to us by our forefathers and the people of that time. Who were wise enough to bequeath such a gift. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

If infringment means barring me from owning AR-15 type rifles, then absolutely not.

Once a list of guns that we shouldn't be allowed to own is started, where does it stop? We'll be down to single shot 22's in no time.

When someone says I shouldn't be allowed to own an AR, based on their own flawed stereotypes and perceptions, it makes me want to run out and buy one. Wait a second....I did!

Its my way of giving those people the middle finger.

 

[Tinpig]

Any modification to [the 2nd Amendment] is an infringement.

Not necessarily.

Of course the 2nd Amendment should not be infringed.

But "infringed" implies an illegal undermining or breaking of a law or agreement.

The same Article V of the Constitution that gave us the Bill of Rights also incorporates the legal means to take those rights away.

If the 2nd, or any other part of the Constitution is modified, changed, rewritten, amended, weakened, or even repealed in accordance with the provisions of Article V, it would not be an "infringement" no matter what we might think. It would be "Constitutional."

Fighting the antis with rhetoric, slogans, and chest-thumping feels good, but at the end of the day our rights will be won or lost by our prowess within the legal/legislative system.

Tinpig

 

[Black Knight]

Using their logic since some in the news media have a difficult time telling the truth we should infringe on the first amendment.

 

[Red Wind]

Lots of cool stuff here. Thank you all for the fine, civil discussion!

 

[yokel]

Fighting the antis with rhetoric, slogans, and chest-thumping feels good, but at the end of the day our rights will be won or lost by our prowess within the legal/legislative system.

I, for one, am not terribly sanguine about the prospect that our ultimate salvation will lay in the courts and legislative bodies.

Organizing letter writing campaigns and making financial contributions to advocacy groups is all fine and good, however, our ability to act as militia is the ultimate check upon tyrannical usurpation of Constitutional authority.

You can bet that any self-respecting govt will flatly refuse to countenance any changes in policy with respect to the strict regulation and restriction of the material capacity to resist and overthrow them, should the need ever arise.

Don't you comprehend the peril to which the republic is exposed from tyrannical "justices" and "legislators" who through arrogance and deception determine to impose their will on the people?

These are exponents of the concentration of power that breeds tyranny and totalitarian horrors.

Unfortunately, these rogues have lost all perspective. They are too weak to control their tyrannical tendencies. If these people are too weak, immature, or gripped by fear to meet the requirements of the job, then we need to take whatever measures are necessary to either replace them or strengthen them. They apparently cannot resist the corrupting effects of a lifetime of power and privilege. Too often, they become cold, bitter, petty, infantile and insane. Yes, insane.

The ultimate arbiter will (hopefully) always be the armed wing of all the people, those with a keen understanding that the issue that faces us is momentous involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this Republic but of civilization itself.

 

[Ironicaintit]

My other nitch on this is that it is not a "god given" right. A lot of the opposition to 2A don't care much for your god. Frankly, neither do I. It was a right given to us by our forefathers and the people of that time. Who were wise enough to bequeath such a gift. Religion has nothing to do with it.

How 'bout, "natural born right", to satisfy your disbelief?
The point in the term, "God given right", is that it is a right we are naturally endowed with.
To say it is a right "given" to us by mans laws, presumes that it can also be rightfully taken away.
I disagree.
Go try and tell a mountain lion that he has no right to his tooth and claw

 

[gamestalker]

The 2A is what provides Americans with the lawful written directive, and the means to defend all freedoms in America. Without it, we would be like the rest of the world, in that we wouldn't have absolute freedom.

So no, the 2A, nor any other right should not be infringed upon to any extent. But the sad truth is, not all states seem to agree with that. Instead many states and federal government impose infringements upon the 2A, and regard it as if it's little more than a notion, rather than the written, lawfully protected, and enforceable right that it is.

I gotta stop now, before I start going off. This is the USA, if someone doesn't appreciate the full meaning of freedom in it's God given fullness, then just surrender your citizenship, and then move to the UK or something.

GS

 

[samweller]

I'm with gamestalker. If you don't like freeedom, find a better country.

 

[AlexanderA]

What are we talking about? The Second Amendment has already been infringed.

Two things are worth noting, in terms of the original purpose of the 2nd:

1. The "constitutional militia" is the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms. This isn't limited to any organized militia such as the National Guard.

2. The "constitutional militia" is to be as well armed as the standing army.

The modern interpretation of the 2nd is as different from this as night is from day. The 2nd, as originally conceived, had nothing to do with hunting, sport shooting, or even personal protection. It was, indeed, the ultimate political right.

 

[LSMS]

What are we talking about? The Second Amendment has already been infringed.

Two things are worth noting, in terms of the original purpose of the 2nd:

1. The "constitutional militia" is the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms. This isn't limited to any organized militia such as the National Guard.

2. The "constitutional militia" is to be as well armed as the standing army.

The modern interpretation of the 2nd is as different from this as night is from day. The 2nd, as originally conceived, had nothing to do with hunting, sport shooting, or even personal protection. It was, indeed, the ultimate political right.

This. It annoys me to no end when I hear an anti ask why we need Gun A for hunting deer or Gun B to shoot ducks.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The modern interpretation of the 2nd is as different from this as night is from day. The 2nd, as originally conceived, had nothing to do with hunting, sport shooting, or even personal protection. It was, indeed, the ultimate political right.

I wish more people would just give up this notion, especially the one about personal protection that I keep hearing from the courts. My interpretation of it is the freedom to arm yourself against a tyrannical gov't. Having just fought a tyrannical gov't for independence it would seem a good proclamation to have up front. The existing English gov't just wanted to tax the hell out them without any representation in parliament, they didn't want to disarm them so they couldn't protect themselves. That just wasn't a reality in 1770 because everyone had to be armed to survive in the frontier.

Everyone wants to sidestep this concept because it doesn't seem like a good reason or even a good idea these days but that was the singular reason for the 2A. The courts are just not willing to recognize a need to be armed at the level of local LE and for sure not the military but that's what 2A addressed even if it's a scary thought.

At least a few on this forum understand it. I don't own any AR's/AK's but I can read with a fair amount of comprehension.

I wish the courts would just acknowledge this concept and say they are going to infringe your rights again.

 

[herrwalther]

I am going to be an unpopular detractor here. I think there should be some regulation of the 2nd Amendment. The other Amendments have some regulation and always have. The 2nd is no different. As of right now there is too much regulation on the 2A but I do agree with some provisions. A few examples...

There should be no regulation on SBRs, SBS, or supressors. Get the government out of barrel length and noise essentially.

Loosen (but not remove) regulations on select fire weapons. I don't think every person needs to have a crew served weapon or select fire shoulder rifle. Under current regulation and law they are impossible to get unless you find a grand fathered weapon. I would like it to be easier to get a select fire weapon but not as easy or inexpensive as a semi-auto version of the same weapon.

I like background checks, at a gun store. NICS is a government system so by definition it is not perfect. The big improvement would be around mental health. Everyone in the government, whenever they talk about expanded background checks for get about "danger to self or others." Someone who is depressed or anxious is not a danger to self or others, typically. Someone who writes a manifesto about killing and planting explosives in a school is not "venting" that is a plan to cause danger. That is the kind of person to check against.

 

[benEzra]

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.

Except that the guns you and Bloomberg et al are pushing to ban aren't particularly used for that, and don't offer any more "killing ability" than the guns Bloomberg isn't stumping to outlaw.

You're pushing to outlaw some of the least misused firearms in America:

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI UCR)

...and you're being too closed minded to even consider that government facts contradict the corporate media shibboleths that you're repeating here. Not to mention the fact that law enforcement would not enforce your dream law, and the public would neither accept it nor abide by it.

Your "dream law" isn't even in place in *England*, never mind continental Europe. It certainly wouldn't fly here, even under some sort of hypothetical totalitarian regime that you appear to be advocating.

If you truly want to address gun violence (or violence in general), there are plenty of aspects that can be looked at, but banning civilian guns that "look scary" is asinine and pointless, and banning all civilian guns that fire one shot per trigger pull is simply Not. Going. To. Happen.

 

[The Alaskan]

This is beginning to border on anti-government, insurrection madness.

Before I depart, so as not to be associated with those who would advocate the violent overthrow of our government, I would just like to point out that, regardless of what you think the 2nd amendment means, or might have meant in the 18th century, any attempt by you and your cohorts to use violence to "keep the government in check" is illegal, no matter how stringently you disagree with whatever the government has done or might do.

Personally, I'm particularly disgusted by some political events of late, but I know that I don't have a right to take up arms against my "tyrannical" government.

You know, I sometimes wish that some of you guys would just lose it and step over that line and try to use your assault weapons to "defend your freedom."

Then we would have this arcane, idiotic notion, out in the open, and put to rest once and forever. You do not have the right to mutiny, and those of you "Oath Keepers" - more like oath breakers - who have served in the armed forces know darn well you do not have that right.

Whether you agree with the government or not is not relevant. We have a properly and legally elected government, put there lawfully by the people of this nation. For you to advocate usurping that government is the true threat to freedom and democracy in this country.

So discussing the 2nd amendment in the guise of some sort of of Mel Brooks "Patriot" revolution is pretty well senseless.