It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment

[Contumacious]

"No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."

Correct.

As Justice Scalia explained in Heller, writing for the majority:

“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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, the issue is not whether or not government may place restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as in fact it may; rather, the issue is what restrictions are warranted, appropriate, and Constitutional, and what restrictions are not.

Wrongheaded is the notion that any and all restrictions are 'un-Constitutional,' as a fact of law nothing could be further from the truth. That a citizen who yells 'fire' in a crowded theater is subject to criminal prosecution in no way 'violates' the First Amendment; likewise, reasonable restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms do not 'violate' the Second Amendment.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is now evolving and will continue to evolve for decades to come as the courts and lawmaking entities, through the process of judicial review, come to a consistent, settled, and accepted understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The right to life and to defend the same using firearms is UNLIMITED and NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION.


United States Supreme Court

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, (1875)

Argued: Decided: October 1, 1875

 

[SwimExpert]

Point well taken: Hitler only disarmed the people he wanted to eradicate

I do think it's an important distinction for us to understand Hitler's disarmament of the Jews as having more to do with his agenda for targeted discrimination than anything else. I think it's worth looking at the example of Saddam Hussein as a contrast. Hussein was a firm advocate of gun ownership, and the public was largely free to keep and bear arms under his rule. Yet he remained in power for decades and the people never rose up to overthrow his brutal government. In fact, after the invasion the US had to implement gun control measures as part of the plan to gain control of the country (which never really was accomplished). The ongoing insurgency persisted during the entirety of the US administration of the country.

While I do support the importance of gun rights to help enable the people to resist tyrannical government, I think that the examples of history show us that ultimately politics will rule supreme in this front. Peoples don't overthrow governments as long as the rulers are good enough politicians to prevent the people from having the will to overthrow the government. And generally speaking, any tyrant with the political talent to rise to power can be expected to have the talent to adequately wield political power to stay in power. At the same time, the freedom to keep and bear arms is a proven element in militia defense of a nation. It may event be a valuable ingredient in a tyrant maintaining sufficient political favor to remain in power.

 

[pismoe]

Keep and Bear Arms is the second amendment and is a God given Rights Kiwi !!

 

[SwimExpert]

Keep and Bear Arms is the second amendment and is a God given Rights Kiwi !!

If I don't believe in what you call 'God,' can I still support the second amendment?

 

[Contumacious]

Keep and Bear Arms is the second amendment and is a God given Rights Kiwi !!

If I don't believe in what you call 'God,' can I still support the second amendment?

HE MEANT NATURE'S GOD.


A NATURAL RIGHT.


.

 

[pismoe]

Keep and Bear Arms is the second amendment and is a God given Rights Kiwi !!

If I don't believe in what you call 'God,' can I still support the second amendment?

sure , you have the God given or Natural Right Kiwi but you don't have to exercise it . [thanks Contumacious] ---

 

[SwimExpert]

Keep and Bear Arms is the second amendment and is a God given Rights Kiwi !!

If I don't believe in what you call 'God,' can I still support the second amendment?

sure , you have the God given or Natural Right Kiwi but you don't have to exercise it . [thanks Contumacious] ---

What if I don't like kiwi? Can we make it a banana right? Everyone likes bananas.

 

[pismoe]

sorry SwimExpert . Had Kiwiman on the mind for some reason !!

 

[bripat9643]

Eventually, the 2nd Amendment will be reinterpreted/updated to meet 21st century realities. It's long overdue.

If anything, the Constitution needs to restrict government further, not give it more power.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

Another leftist loon trying to pretend the gun was the problem and not the Islamist jihadi who fired it?

Where do these nut cases come from?

Here I refer to silly people like lakhota, not the Islamic jihadi.

(You know there's a problem, when the same description applies to both the Islamic jihadis, and the liberals who keep covering for them.)

 

[Lakhota]

"No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."

Correct.

As Justice Scalia explained in Heller, writing for the majority:

“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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, the issue is not whether or not government may place restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as in fact it may; rather, the issue is what restrictions are warranted, appropriate, and Constitutional, and what restrictions are not.

Wrongheaded is the notion that any and all restrictions are 'un-Constitutional,' as a fact of law nothing could be further from the truth. That a citizen who yells 'fire' in a crowded theater is subject to criminal prosecution in no way 'violates' the First Amendment; likewise, reasonable restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms do not 'violate' the Second Amendment.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is now evolving and will continue to evolve for decades to come as the courts and lawmaking entities, through the process of judicial review, come to a consistent, settled, and accepted understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Amen! Even a NaziCon nut like Scalia knows the 2nd Amendment is not absolute and has limitations.

 

[Lakhota]

The New York Times' Front-Page Editorial On Gun Control Is Bad

It ignores most gun violence.

On Saturday, The New York Times printed a front-page editorial -- its first since 1920 -- calling for greater restrictions on gun ownership in the United States. You can read the piece here, but be warned: It's deeply flawed.

The Times doesn't use the term, but the policy it's advocating is what's generally called an assault weapons ban. Assault weapons bans are hard to write and implement, and easy to undermine and circumvent. Even a perfect assault weapons ban wouldn't do anything about most gun violence, because most gun violence involves handguns that aren't forbidden under such laws.

Perhaps most glaringly, though, this editorial fails to mention that electoral politics -- specifically Republicans' dominance of the U.S. Congress and the fact that some Democrats seem to be more afraid of the NRA than they are of gun control groups -- is the biggest reason why President Barack Obama wasn't able to pass even modest gun control measures in the wake of the Newtown massacre. Congressional Democrats tried pushing new gun control measures again on Thursday, by the way. Republicans blocked them all. But "if you want gun control, vote for liberal Democrats for Congress" would be a short editorial.

More: The New York Times' Front-Page Editorial On Gun Control Is Bad

I agree that The New York Times Editorial Board article was poorly written and failed to address the major problems.

 

[Wildman]

It's long overdue.

Mr. Squaw man, NEVER GONA HAPPEN AS LONG AS THERE ONE PATRIOT TO REIGNITE THE FIRE UNDER THOSE WHO NEED A GOOD SWIFT KICK IN THE ASS!!

 

[waltky]

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment

Granny says, "What's peculiar `bout it?

... it says in plain English...

... ya gotta right to own a gun...

... to protect yerself an' yer loved ones...

... what's so peculiar `bout dat???"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Eventually, the 2nd Amendment will be reinterpreted/updated to meet 21st century realities. It's long overdue.

Come and get it...er I mean, them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Keep and Bear Arms is the second amendment and is a God given Rights Kiwi !!

If I don't believe in what you call 'God,' can I still support the second amendment?

By all means.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."

Correct.

As Justice Scalia explained in Heller, writing for the majority:

“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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, the issue is not whether or not government may place restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as in fact it may; rather, the issue is what restrictions are warranted, appropriate, and Constitutional, and what restrictions are not.

Wrongheaded is the notion that any and all restrictions are 'un-Constitutional,' as a fact of law nothing could be further from the truth. That a citizen who yells 'fire' in a crowded theater is subject to criminal prosecution in no way 'violates' the First Amendment; likewise, reasonable restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms do not 'violate' the Second Amendment.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is now evolving and will continue to evolve for decades to come as the courts and lawmaking entities, through the process of judicial review, come to a consistent, settled, and accepted understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Amen! Even a NaziCon nut like Scalia knows the 2nd Amendment is not absolute and has limitations.

It is absolute in restricting the federal government.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment


True, because it isn't peculiar.

In modern language:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

The 2nd amendment means that government can have no voice in the decision of who gets to own or carry a gun.

None.

The only "peculiar" thing is the weird twists and lies the left keeps telling about what the 2nd says. Some of those are REALLY peculiar.

But the 2nd isn't peculiar at all. Liberals just wish it was.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

Earth to OP author: We just had two horrific jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than what you are now proposing. France's gun laws go beyond anything you are pushing for here.

ALL automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is also severely restricted; gun owners can only possess a small amount of ammo. To get a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution.

So why do you guys keep acting like the real problem is our right to keep and bear arms when France already has tougher gun laws than the ones you advocate and when clearly those gun laws were worthless when it came to preventing jihadist terrorism?

 

[kaz]

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

So government can charge a fee and decide who gets free speech and freedom from illegal search and seizure? Wow, I did not know that...

Also, no one is arguing gun rights are "unlimited." They can clearly be deprived with due process of law. Take your hand out of your pants and address people's actual positions