What the 2nd Ammendment is for

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by golfer

By the way, Bob, I was RIGHT ... this has led to interesting and diverse discussion...

http://rense.com/general85/pcrg.htm

Some highlights from the article:

"Gun violence" is not something committed by the vast majority of gun owners. "Gun violence" is the preserve of the criminal elements, such as gangs fighting over drug turf. Criminals are already prohibited from owning guns, but criminals pay no more attention to this law than they do to laws against robbery, rape, and murder. Why do Democrats think that disarming law-abiding citizens will disarm outlaws?


So much for gun bans. They only disarm the law-abiding and leave them defenseless."


Please feel free to replace the word Democrats with Politicians.

this is pulled from the article, and is an EXCELLENT point!!:

The progressive canard is that the Second Amendment, unlike the rest of the amendments to the Constitution, is not a constitutional right for citizens. Rather it is a right for a defunct organization known as the militia. Why in the world would the Founding Fathers, when laying out the rights of individuals, confound the point by sticking in among individual rights a right for a military organization?

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this is pulled from the article, and is an EXCELLENT point!!:

The progressive canard is that the Second Amendment, unlike the rest of the amendments to the Constitution, is not a constitutional right for citizens. Rather it is a right for a defunct organization known as the militia. Why in the world would the Founding Fathers, when laying out the rights of individuals, confound the point by sticking in among individual rights a right for a military organization?

some felt the bill of rights should not have been put in the constitution because they believed that by listing them it wouldn't recognize the rights not on the list.

The 2nd amendment is on the list and there are those that contort themselves every which way in order to see it otherwise.

I believe that the 2nd amendment is preemption -
while the individual state has the power to raise a militia it cannot fail to recognize the rights of the individual to bear arms or arm bears.

There is no limit on what arms. I imagine whatever the top of the line was. Meaning arms include guns, tanks, rocket launchers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7vCww3j2-w

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

There is no limit on what arms. I imagine whatever the top of the line was. Meaning arms include guns, tanks, rocket launchers.

I often have trouble uderstanding what you write, but did you just argue that every single American has a Constitutional right to own a tank?
While that is completely insane.....I have to admit.....I would rather enjoy getting to cruise down Michigan Ave in a tank.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I often have trouble uderstanding what you write, but did you just argue that every single American has a Constitutional right to own a tank?
While that is completely insane.....I have to admit.....I would rather enjoy getting to cruise down Michigan Ave in a tank.

Really bad on gas milage

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Really bad on gas milage

...try changing the oil in that baby!

[hi_im_god]

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

So....see ya in 200 years

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

there were rifles, and companies of riflemen in the the revolutionary war. rifles took longer to load, but were more accurate at longer ranges. i have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the framers of the constitution didn't foresee advances in weaponry. but they did foresee the need and ability of people to have and maintain their rights. by all means, if you don't want to exercise yours, don't-but i'd appreciate if you leave your hands off of my rights, regardless of whether you agree with my having them. i certainly have done nothing to warrant losing them. in all my arguments on this thread and elsewhere, keep in mind i haven't advocated anyone losing anything-while others have advocated taking them away. i won't feel safer if i lose them, and can't conceive that anyone else would. how anyone can argue that the constitution is inviolate, while arguing portions of that same document should be removed or done away with i don't know.