Is the right to bear arms unlimited?

[Yurt]

I can't keep up with all the gun threads, however, the central issue seems to be the 'right' to bear arms and whether it is unlimited or not.

i submit it is not. with that said, i wholly support gun rights for the individual. that doesn't mean i support nuclear arms for individuals. nor does that mean i support lefties attempts at restricting gun rights for unnecessary reasons, such as fear.

discuss.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

I can't keep up with all the gun threads, however, the central issue seems to be the 'right' to bear arms and whether it is unlimited or not.

i submit it is not. with that said, i wholly support gun rights for the individual. that doesn't mean i support nuclear arms for individuals. nor does that mean i support lefties attempts at restricting gun rights for unnecessary reasons, such as fear.

discuss.

I'd say it's all predicated on whether your region in which you live has a decent bear population............

 

[Yurt]

stfu

i should have posted this in the clean debate forum

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

stfu

i should have posted this in the clean debate forum

Get a sense of humor, Dirt. Life's too damned short to get your Depends in a bunch about something that will never happen.

 

[Leweman]

Arms should be equivalent to what a militia man would carry which would have been an equivalent to an infantry man in the army. So anything an infantry man could carry in today's military should be allowed for any individual who passes a background check and demonstrates a knowledge and responsibility with firearms.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lets be objective. No. It isn't. It is limited to guns and rifles that can be easily used by a civilian, with proper training. The term arms can be made to seem all inclusive, but in reality is isn't.

The right to bear arms that you can actually bear.. shall not be infringed.

Hows that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

stfu

i should have posted this in the clean debate forum

Get a sense of humor, Dirt. Life's too damned short to get your Depends in a bunch about something that will never happen.

Who says it wont? You must have not paid attention to history after what Hitler did in the Warsaw Ghetto. You can't fight back if you don't have guns to fight back with.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The right to self-defense is unlimited, so whatever is necessary to carry that out is also unlimited. Nuclear weapons, however, are not a defensive weapon, and thus do not meet this criteria. The right to self-defense does not include vaporizing innocent people.

 

[Lakhota]

Lets be objective. No. It isn't. It is limited to guns and rifles that can be easily used by a civilian, with proper training. The term arms can be made to seem all inclusive, but in reality is isn't.

The right to bear arms that you can actually bear.. shall not be infringed.

Hows that?

I prefer the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets be objective. No. It isn't. It is limited to guns and rifles that can be easily used by a civilian, with proper training. The term arms can be made to seem all inclusive, but in reality is isn't.

The right to bear arms that you can actually bear.. shall not be infringed.

Hows that?

I prefer the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

SCOTUS has ruled that military type weapons are the ONLY weapons protected by the 2nd. The weapon must have been in use by the military, of use to the military or currently in use by the military. The ruling was in 39 and it has been reaffirmed at least 4 times since.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Lets be objective. No. It isn't. It is limited to guns and rifles that can be easily used by a civilian, with proper training. The term arms can be made to seem all inclusive, but in reality is isn't.

The right to bear arms that you can actually bear.. shall not be infringed.

Hows that?

I prefer the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

SCOTUS has ruled that military type weapons are the ONLY weapons protected by the 2nd. The weapon must have been in use by the military, of use to the military or currently in use by the military. The ruling was in 39 and it has been reaffirmed at least 4 times since.

Funny how they keep forgetting that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The right to self-defense is unlimited, so whatever is necessary to carry that out is also unlimited. Nuclear weapons, however, are not a defensive weapon, and thus do not meet this criteria. The right to self-defense does not include vaporizing innocent people.

Well you do know about David Koresh [spl?] and his crew also with ruby ridge and in Davids case he embarrassed.the ATF and Janet Reno after the 1st round so they came after him with more firepower. Ruby ridge is lost in my memorie why the feds had to use such force on that local folk.

 

[BreezeWood]

if it is an individual right to bear Arms it is not related to the Militia and has its own interpretation - by the legislature, Congress - public Firearms defined as bolt or lever action per round with non detachable magazines ... shall not be infringed.

 

[Londoner]

For more than 100 years, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted as giving the right to bear arms to militias and not individuals. Militias were seen as proto-military structures and were clearly and legally differentiated from individuals.

This is why the Framers took pains to say militia and not individual.

Then, special interests (like the NRA) started pumping money into the political system and they got the law changed. The term militia was reinterpreted by an activist Supreme Court to mean "individual". [This is an example of the "Living Constitution" where the Constitution reflects not the intent of the founders but the prevailing winds or whoever has enough money to game the system]

In order to ensure that this reinterpretation of the Constitution was broadly accepted, the special interests poured money into Rightwing Think Tanks and a wide assortment of mass media. The goal was to downplay the militia reference and convince naive voters that the word "individual" was an original part of the Constitution, if not directly than implied. [FYI: some gun advocates argue that militias are made of individuals; therefore, therefore the concept of militia and the concept of individual are functional equivalents. But this is fucking moronic because Governments are also made of individuals too, but the word "government" and the word "individual" have completely different meanings, rights, and regulations under the law]

After shitting all over the Constitution and reinterpreting it to mean whatever suited them, the rightwing and its very naive voters continued to hold the Democrats to a much different Constitutional standard. That is, whenever the Democrats pushed for a legal interpretation that didn't jive 100% with original Constitutional Language - even in situations where the original language was left vague - they flipped out and crushed them.

What is amazing is the degree to which they get away with this stuff. All it takes, I guess, are corrupt politicians and stupid voters . . . as the body bags created by lax gun laws continue to pile up.

Little children can be slaughtered by the dozens because the gun lobby owns our politicians. Indeed, the US suffers one gun masacre after another, but the Right says that nothing can be done because the Framers wanted retarded psychopaths to have easy access to guns and high capacity magazines without so much as a background check. But, somehow, if 3 people die by two religious "lone-wolves" (with zero ties to terrorist groups), than the rightwing goes into action, asking us to turn Washington into a Soviet Style surveillance state ala Bush & the Patriot Act.

From Watergate to Iran-Contra. . . from illegal wiretapping to fabricated war intelligence, the USA is being slowly destroyed by a corrupt group of radicals and their moronic talk radio hordes. Is it any wonder that they continue to shred the Constitution?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

if it is an individual right to bear Arms it is not related to the Militia and has its own interpretation - by the legislature, Congress - public Firearms defined as bolt or lever action per round with non detachable magazines ... shall not be infringed.

Pretty sure that's not what the Constitution says.

 

[Wyatt earp]

if it is an individual right to bear Arms it is not related to the Militia and has its own interpretation - by the legislature, Congress - public Firearms defined as bolt or lever action per round with non detachable magazines ... shall not be infringed.

but we still have the 1968 gun law.. shall I post it again? it stood up for this fucking long it is the law of the land. I can pass it can you?

Who Cannot Have a Gun in America? - U.S. Government Info/Resources

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For more than 100 years, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted as giving the right to bear arms to militias and not individuals. Militias were seen as proto-military structures and were clearly and legally differentiated from individuals.

This is why the Framers took pains to say militia and not individual.

Then, special interests (like the NRA) started pumping money into the political system and they got the law changed. The term militia was reinterpreted by an activist Supreme Court to mean "individual". [This is an example of the "Living Constitution" where the Constitution reflects not the intent of the founders but the prevailing winds or whoever has enough money to game the system]

In order to ensure that this reinterpretation of the Constitution was broadly accepted, the prevailing special interests poured money into Rightwing Think Tanks along with a wide assortment of mass media. The goal was to downplay the militia reference and convince naive voters that the word "individual" was an original part of the Constitution, if not directly stated than directly implied. [FYI: some gun advocates argue that militias are made of individuals; therefore, therefore the concept of militia and the concept of individual are functional equivalents. But this is fucking moronic because Governments are also made of individuals too, but the word "government" and the word "individual" have completely different meanings, rights, and regulations under the law]

After shitting all over the Constitution and reinterpreting it to mean whatever suited them, the rightwing and its very naive voters continued to hold the Democrats to a much different Constitutional standard. That is, whenever the Democrats pushed for a legal interpretation that didn't jive 100% with original Constitutional Language - even in situations where the original language was left vague - they flipped out and crushed them.

What is amazing is the degree to which they get away with this stuff. All it takes, I guess, is corrupt politicians and stupid voters . . . as the body bags created by lax gun laws continue to pile up.

Little children can be slaughtered by the dozens because the gun lobby owns our politicians. Indeed, the US suffers one gun masacre after another, but the Right says that nothing can be done because the Framers wanted retarded psychopaths to have easy access to guns and high capacity magazines without so much as a background check. But, somehow, if 3 people die by two religious "lone-wolves" (with zero ties to terrorist groups), than the rightwing goes into action, asking us to turn Washington into a Soviet Style surveillance state ala Bush & the Patriot Act.

From Watergate to Iran-Contra. . . from illegal wiretapping to fabricated War Intelligence, the USA is being slowly destroyed by this corrupt group of radical extremists and their moronic talk radio hordes. Is it any wonder they continue to shred the Constitution?

You are beyond wrong. The Amendment SPECIFICALLY states it is a personal private INDIVIDUAL right. The amendment conveys to protections, one to the States to maintain Militias and the other to the Individual to be armed.

Further read the framers own words in the debates about the amendments and their purpose.

We can provide evidence and proof it has always been a private individual right.

 

[Lakhota]

However, if we read Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion, we find that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. Here’s what the court said:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose. … Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [a 1939 ruling allowing restrictions upon sawed-off shotguns] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time.”

Those who contend that the amendment prohibits background checks, or control of military-type weapons, just haven’t read the case.

More: The Second Amendment: Case law doesn't preclude background checks | StarTribune.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I can't keep up with all the gun threads, however, the central issue seems to be the 'right' to bear arms and whether it is unlimited or not.

i submit it is not. with that said, i wholly support gun rights for the individual. that doesn't mean i support nuclear arms for individuals. nor does that mean i support lefties attempts at restricting gun rights for unnecessary reasons, such as fear.

discuss.

To be consistent, you must also oppose rightists attempting to defeat reasonable, Constitutional regulation for unnecessary reasons, such as fear.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

For more than 100 years, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted as giving the right to bear arms to militias and not individuals. Militias were seen as proto-military structures and were clearly and legally differentiated from individuals.

This is why the Framers took pains to say militia and not individual.

So let me see what a Londoner, the loser of the War of Independence is trying to imply here.

There was no professional military in the beginning. It was all individuals that would take up arms in the time of need. As a matter of fact they originally planned on militia's disbanding once the threat was taken down.

SO please tell me again how the right to bear arms wasn't meant for the individual.