Understanding the 2nd Amendment

[SmarterthanYou]

apparently there's still some people out there who don't get the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms is for the people only, not the government, not the national guard, and not law enforcement organizations.

Simply repealing the 2nd Amendment does not do away with the right to bear arms because this right pre-exists the constitution.

Those who think that they can ban guns with laws and just send out gov forces to collect them all seriously need to rethink the idea, unless they actually want to pursue a higher body count than all the other governments combined in the last century.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

if they ban guns, I will buy one out of spite.

 

[Bonestorm]

The NRA won. Look, I'm all for remaining vigilant but the gun wars are over and the gun-grabbers lost. No one is going to repeal the 2nd Amendment or ban guns. Not going to happen.

 

[NOVA]

The US CONSTITUTION WON.......but never say never........Our freedoms are only as safe until the next election.....

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The US CONSTITUTION WON.......but never say never........Our freedoms are only as safe until the next election.....

The NRA may have won, since most states still require permits for firearms, but the constitution certainly has not won yet, especially since the only appeals court cases so far have decidedly determined that the USSC only defined the 2nd Amendment as a right to have firearms ONLY in the home and not in public.

 

[Bonestorm]

The NRA may have won, since most states still require permits for firearms, but the constitution certainly has not won yet, especially since the only appeals court cases so far have decidedly determined that the USSC only defined the 2nd Amendment as a right to have firearms ONLY in the home and not in public.

Isn't that all the Supreme Court did decide in Heller?

 

[Damocles]

The NRA won. Look, I'm all for remaining vigilant but the gun wars are over and the gun-grabbers lost. No one is going to repeal the 2nd Amendment or ban guns. Not going to happen.

If those who believe that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment means the same thing as "the people" in the rest of the constitution do not remain vigilant, I believe that the gun grabbers will continue trying. In fact I think they'll continue until they are successful.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Isn't that all the Supreme Court did decide in Heller?

the Heller case decided that prohibiting ownership was a violation. I still need to see what intellectual dishonesty and illogical reasoning someone came up with to be able to split the terms 'keep' and 'bear' in relation to 'home' and 'self', when there are many other cases previously, whose dicta suggests that 'bear arms' meant to have upon one's person for self defense in case of conflict. Even ginsberg has several of her opinions bearing this out.

Unless you're going to attempt to say that in over 200 years, nobody could possibly have known that the framers meant for 'bear arms' to mean carry in public, how does one come to the logical conclusion that 'keep and bear arms' applies only in the home?

 

[Bonestorm]

the Heller case decided that prohibiting ownership was a violation. I still need to see what intellectual dishonesty and illogical reasoning someone came up with to be able to split the terms 'keep' and 'bear' in relation to 'home' and 'self', when there are many other cases previously, whose dicta suggests that 'bear arms' meant to have upon one's person for self defense in case of conflict. Even ginsberg has several of her opinions bearing this out.

Unless you're going to attempt to say that in over 200 years, nobody could possibly have known that the framers meant for 'bear arms' to mean carry in public, how does one come to the logical conclusion that 'keep and bear arms' applies only in the home?

Whether there was a right to own a firearm in the home was the only issue presented for determination by the Court. Dicta don't matter.

 

[Bonestorm]

If those who believe that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment means the same thing as "the people" in the rest of the constitution do not remain vigilant, I believe that the gun grabbers will continue trying. In fact I think they'll continue until they are successful.

Like I said, I'm all for remaining vigilant, but talking about "body counts" and banning guns is a bit much in the current political environment. The NRA has been wildly successful not only at advancing gun ownership rights, but at preventing anyone from actually trying to impose restrictions on gun ownership.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Whether there was a right to own a firearm in the home was the only issue presented for determination by the Court. Dicta don't matter.

great. they decided that very narrow issue. how does that then mean that 'to keep' can be split apart and redefined or ignored from the 'bear arms'? and if dicta doesn't matter, why is it always brought up in other cases?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

i really need to donate to the NRA. It's amazing how passionate I am about gun rights given that I don't own a gun. I can't imagine what it's like for people like billy et al that actually do O_O

I think gun rights is the #1 issue I am most passionate about when it does not directly affect me.

 

[NOVA]

the Heller case decided that prohibiting ownership was a violation. I still need to see what intellectual dishonesty and illogical reasoning someone came up with to be able to split the terms 'keep' and 'bear' in relation to 'home' and 'self', when there are many other cases previously, whose dicta suggests that 'bear arms' meant to have upon one's person for self defense in case of conflict. Even ginsberg has several of her opinions bearing this out.

Unless you're going to attempt to say that in over 200 years, nobody could possibly have known that the framers meant for 'bear arms' to mean carry in public, how does one come to the logical conclusion that 'keep and bear arms' applies only in the home?

The 'gun grabbers' refuse to recognize how the 2nd Amendment was viewed when it was written into the Bill Of Rights....its obvious how citizens owned and carried firearms in
those days......and its just as obvious that those rights have been and are being eroded little by little every day, over the last 200+ years.....
the gun grabbers are making advances and the ranks of the pinheads are ever growing......thus, the Constitution is always in danger of becoming meaningless....

 

[/MSG/]

Like I said, I'm all for remaining vigilant, but talking about "body counts" and banning guns is a bit much in the current political environment. The NRA has been wildly successful not only at advancing gun ownership rights, but at preventing anyone from actually trying to impose restrictions on gun ownership.

It depends on how you define restrictions. While overt laws are not being pushed, even in traditionally anti gun districts (except California of course), less obvious approaches, like the ATF having no written procedure for classifying a machine gun. They, as an example, are entirely arbitrary and essentially make up the rules based on either who is enforcing it at the time, or whatever preconceived agenda they want to fulfill.

Then you still have things like the 1934 NFA, the 68 GCA, the illegally passed Hughes amendment. Police brutality over exercising of carry rights (this isn't limited to just 2A rights, but it fits in). While significant gains have been made in that past few years, it is by no means perfect, or over.

 

[Disillusioned]

i really need to donate to the NRA. It's amazing how passionate I am about gun rights given that I don't own a gun. I can't imagine what it's like for people like billy et al that actually do O_O

I think gun rights is the #1 issue I am most passionate about when it does not directly affect me.

I'm actually stuck in between both extremes with both sides hating me. I'm all for gun ownership, I even like concealed carry permits, but I want registration and I want people with a criminal record prohibited from owning guns. Now let me finish first, when I say criminal reccord im talking about felonies, not misdemeanors and I want convictions, I don't care if a guy who was caught speeding owns a gun but I definitely don't want somebody who's been convicted twice of domestic violence owning a shotgun so that when he gets drunk he can kill his wife.

 

[/MSG/]

I'm actually stuck in between both extremes with both sides hating me. I'm all for gun ownership, I even like concealed carry permits, but I want registration and I want people with a criminal record prohibited from owning guns. Now let me finish first, when I say criminal reccord im talking about felonies, not misdemeanors and I want convictions, I don't care if a guy who was caught speeding owns a gun but I definitely don't want somebody who's been convicted twice of domestic violence owning a shotgun so that when he gets drunk he can kill his wife.

Why registration?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

but I want registration

you realize that registration leads to confiscation, right?

 

[Onceler]

Maybe I'm naive on the subject of registration, but if a gun isn't registered...how do they trace it back to the owner when investigating a crime?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Maybe I'm naive on the subject of registration, but if a gun isn't registered...how do they trace it back to the owner when investigating a crime?

several factors can come in to play. If the original owner bought it from an FFL, the serial number trace can come back to the FFL who sold it, and then to who it was sold to. If the secondary owner had it stolen and he filed a report, then the serial trace will come back to the last known owner. the important issue to remember, though, is that the last known owner isn't necessarily the criminal who committed the crime with the gun. That also isn't the reason that registration needs to be disavowed.

 

[Disillusioned]

you realize that registration leads to confiscation, right?

Sure that's why when you buy a car the government steals it, and every time you register a patent the government steals that, and, and, and.
By the way, this is Sarcasm.