The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right

[IndyDave1776]

I believe the 2nd amendment is a limited Right. As it is enumerated, I believe that right is limited soley by the technological means of the day, and that all firearms that have that are available, should be available to all able bodied persons who desire and can afford to obtain them, at fair market prices and under standard sales tax for their State if applicable.

I could be a wise guy and suggest deleting 'fire' out from in front of arms since that implies an unwarranted limitation, but seriously, it seems we are on the same page.

 

[printcraft]

I didn't miss his point. I used humor as a tool to reject his premise.

The practical use of firearms in hunting is made evident by it's success rate in that use. Firearms are eminently successful for game hunting.

The practical use of modern mil-spec tactical weapons as a tool for a well regulated civilian militia to defend the freedom of Indianapolis, Indiana, the mid-west or the country has not been made evident to my satisfaction.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

Your response leaves me feeling less than satisfied.

 

[hondatech2k2]

I didn't miss his point. I used humor as a tool to reject his premise.
And Wysko used his humor to reject YOUR premise!
The practical use of firearms in hunting is made evident by it's success rate in that use. Firearms are eminently successful for game hunting.
So are bow's, and cross bows...they proved themselves for thousands of years
The practical use of modern mil-spec tactical weapons as a tool for a well regulated civilian militia to defend the freedom of Indianapolis, Indiana, the mid-west or the country has not been made evident to my satisfaction.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

Ar style rifles have become extremely useful in hunting, as well as defense purposes.

Try using your traditional style rifle against multiple attackers or a tactical team that decide you are of interest to them. Mil spec rifles have more uses than your traditionals do, and always will.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Well, smart guy, when you learn the hard way how that works, don't expect any of us to help you.

If that's your position, than so be it. If anyone here ever needs help from me, all they need to do is ask.

 

[Ripper]

Forget for a minute that we even have a 2nd Amendment, probably not hard for you, do I have a natural right to defend myself and my family for anyone who would do us harm? Does that right apply both on my property and in public? If you can agree with any of that, shouldn't I be able to use a tool that is equal or better than what I can reasonably expect to be attacked with?

Why should I, a law abiding citizen, be restricted to a reduced capacity 10 round magazine when it's reasonable to assume, that if confronted by an armed attacker, he will be using a normal capacity magazine? He's a criminal after all. Where's his motivation to submit to an arbitrary magazine restriction when he's already committed to breaking much more serious laws?

If the need to use a firearm in self defense ever arises, I want every advantage that I can get. I don't want to be armed equally as my attacker, I want be be armed better. To restrict citizens rights in their choices of defensive tools puts them at a distinct disadvantage to the criminal element.

Fantastic explanation! May I use it elsewhere?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ar style rifles have become extremely useful in hunting, as well as defense purposes.

Try using your traditional style rifle against multiple attackers or a tactical team that decide you are of interest to them. Mil spec rifles have more uses than your traditionals do, and always will.

He hasn't figured out that the free state is made of the sum total of free citizens, not an institution, nor has he figured out that as a veteran and a gun owner, the present administration has already declared him an ENEMY as very clearly articulated in DHS documents. He is being obtuse enough to erode any sympathy I might otherwise have when they roll him up.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Fantastic explanation! May I use it elsewhere?

That't too long for a sig line!

 

[slowG]

I didn't miss his point. I used humor as a tool to reject his premise.

The practical use of firearms in hunting is made evident by it's success rate in that use. Firearms are eminently successful for game hunting.

The practical use of modern mil-spec tactical weapons as a tool for a well regulated civilian militia to defend the freedom of Indianapolis, Indiana, the mid-west or the country has not been made evident to my satisfaction.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)


Would you insist these brave civilians be at a disadvantage with inferior firearms?

I'd assume this one doesn't count either?

Sadly it should not take these events to prove our needs for our rights. Having to try and justify the constitution to an American is the saddest part of all.

 

[Ripper]

That't too long for a sig line!

Wise guy eh?

 

[thatgtrguy]

Easy, he's new There are more than a few around here who take their training kinda serious.

It's the "kinda" part that doesn't really instill confidence

Here's my response to you yesterday. These are not rhetorical questions. I really wanna know what you think. You are distinctly unusual around here in that you reject the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as it is understood by the vast majority.

I think forums can be self-reinforcing echo chambers. They skew our perception of reality

Forget for a minute that we even have a 2nd Amendment, probably not hard for you, do I have a natural right to defend myself and my family for anyone who would do us harm? Does that right apply both on my property and in public? If you can agree with any of that, shouldn't I be able to use a tool that is equal or better than what I can reasonably expect to be attacked with?

Why should I, a law abiding citizen, be restricted to a reduced capacity 10 round magazine when it's reasonable to assume, that if confronted by an armed attacker, he will be using a normal capacity magazine? He's a criminal after all. Where's his motivation to submit to an arbitrary magazine restriction when he's already committed to breaking much more serious laws?

If the need to use a firearm in self defense ever arises, I want every advantage that I can get. I don't want to be armed equally as my attacker, I want be be armed better. To restrict citizens rights in their choices of defensive tools puts them at a distinct disadvantage to the criminal element.

I totally agree with you. In a self defense scenario; you should take every advantage available to you. I will to. No one is taking out my wife or kid if I have anything to say about it.

Now let's get back to 2A: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

The goal of 2A (in my non-expert opinion) is the free state. The right to bear arms is a mechanism to achieve that goal. The unrestricted ownership of guns is not the goal in and of itself.

Also, if the militia is not particularly well regulated; it breaks the entire spirit of 2A anyway.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The goal of 2A (in my non-expert opinion) is the free state. The right to bear arms is a mechanism to achieve that goal. The unrestricted ownership of guns is not the goal in and of itself.

Also, if the militia is not particularly well regulated; it breaks the entire spirit of 2A anyway.

Let's see if we can break this down into terms you can understand, challenging as that appears to be. The amendment clearly specifies that this is a right OF THE PEOPLE. That means the people. Not some subset of them, not an organization, not any agency of government. Well regulated means that it works right. That does not mean that it necessarily requires training to your personal satisfaction. You might as well get off your damned horse with the military superiority complex. You are in the outside world now. Everyone has rights, not just the 'special ones'.

If unrestricted ownership of weapons were not the purpose, why does it prohibit infringement. Look that up in the dictionary.

Now, I am going to really tax your brain. Go study the quotes of our founding fathers regarding liberty and personal ownership of weapons. Come back after you have learned enough to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[thatgtrguy]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)


Would you insist these brave civilians be at a disadvantage with inferior firearms?

I'd assume this one doesn't count either?

Sadly it should not take these events to prove our needs for our rights. Having to try and justify the constitution to an American is the saddest part of all.

You don't have to prove or justify anything to me. I never asked anyone to. I would simply like to openly dissent in these forums. I live in Greenwood and I own guns. I think these things are worth discussing. I find value in having my ideas challenged. I'm willing to change my stance.

I respect all of you. And have benefitted greatly by your continued engagement.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You don't have to prove or justify anything to me. I never asked anyone to. I would simply like to openly dissent in these forums. I live in Greenwood and I own guns. I think these things are worth discussing. I find value in having my ideas challenged. I'm willing to change my stance.

I respect all of you. And have benefitted greatly by your continued engagement.

But have you read what the founding fathers wrote concerning the 2nd Amendment or are you just here arguing with people because you really are not willing to learn and maybe change your mind.

Read carefully what they meant when they said regulated, doesn't mean what every anti-gunner thinks it means.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You don't have to prove or justify anything to me. I never asked anyone to. I would simply like to openly dissent in these forums. I live in Greenwood and I own guns. I think these things are worth discussing. I find value in having my ideas challenged. I'm willing to change my stance.

I respect all of you. And have benefitted greatly by your continued engagement.

If you are trying to generate thought-provoking discussion, there are plenty of ways to go about it without taking something that is remarkably plain and generally only argued with those who start with their conclusion and look for an argument to 'justify' it because their true motive is not politically palatable. That is the entire problem with the gun control argument. It has nothing to do with anything but setting us up for the elimination of a free country.

Let me review that a right is derived from your existence as a human being, and is not to be infringed, is not condition, and you need not justify exercising it. A privilege, by contrast, is granted by government, is revocable or changeable, may require justification to the satisfaction of some government agent, may require license, and is subject to whatever terms and conditions the government may place on it.

The Second Amendment is a right, and specifically declares itself a right of the people which shall not be infringed. It means what it plainly says.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The goal of 2A (in my non-expert opinion) is the free state

The Free State is simply precatory. Statement of purpose does NOT define a right. NAACP v. Alabama.

The unrestricted ownership of guns is not the goal in and of itself.

No, that is the goal of the Second Amendment to put the right to arms out of bounds for any government. From the unrestricted possession and lawful use of arms, a well-trained militia would spring.

The Supreme Court of Georgia, applying the Second Amendment to the state of Georgia, sums it up quite well in one of my favorite antebellum decisions:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/nunn_v_state.txt

Also, if the militia is not particularly well regulated; it breaks the entire spirit of 2A anyway.

The well-trained militia is part of the statement of purpose. It does not define the right.

 

[Cerberus]

Now let's get back to 2A: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

The goal of 2A (in my non-expert opinion) is the free state. The right to bear arms is a mechanism to achieve that goal. The unrestricted ownership of guns is not the goal in and of itself.

Also, if the militia is not particularly well regulated; it breaks the entire spirit of 2A anyway.

Ok I'll address what seems to be a misconception that you are advancing here. The 2A does not in any form intend to regulate militia, it is the advancement of an idea (belief) that an armed populace is the final regulator of the militia. Militia was the founders intent for the principal means of defence of this nation, they did not trust standing armies and rightly so. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791, amended somthing in the original Constitution, which was ratified in 1787. The constitution provides for the right of Congress and the President to call forth militia for various things, the 2A provides for the starting point for the populace as a whole to reject that militia being used as a illegitimate use of force by a tyrant. Is it perfect, no nothing is, but it at least helps cement that initial fighting chance for that final last resort option that no one really wants to have to use.

 

[sepe]

I will see your excellent post and raise you a 'Where the hell does the Second Amendment say anything about any 'sporting purpose' and did the OP not read the words of the founding fathers indicating that their idea of a 'sporting purpose' was hunting tyrants?'

I'm really shocked that people are shocked that members on here have that sort of view or stance regarding the 2nd. There have been quite a few that have come out saying (in the past) that they don't care to own semi auto rifles or military type rifles because they don't see the purpose. Same with semi auto handguns.

A clip I saw of Judge Napolitano made it pretty clear that he understood why the 2nd was in place and that it had nothing to do with sporting purposes unless you'd included the "hunting tyrants" thing.

 

[thatgtrguy]

But have you read what the founding fathers wrote concerning the 2nd Amendment or are you just here arguing with people because you really are not willing to learn and maybe change your mind.

Read carefully what they meant when they said regulated, doesn't mean what every anti-gunner thinks it means.

Once again. I'm not anti-guns. I own guns. I plan on buying more.

I think in the forum environment, it's probably more helpful if you tell me which part of the founding father's writings specifically pertain to this conversation than for me to try to guess.

here's an interesting writing

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

The spirit of this section is for the militia to be made available for the needs of the union. Not to rise up against the union as many here have suggested they are willing to do if an AWB is passed.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Ok I'll address what seems to be a misconception that you are advancing here. The 2A does not in any form intend to regulate militia, it is the advancement of an idea (belief) that an armed populace is the final regulator of the militia. Militia was the founders intent for the principal means of defence of this nation, they did not trust standing armies and rightly so. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791, amended somthing in the original Constitution, which was ratified in 1787. The constitution provides for the right of Congress and the President to call forth militia for various things, the 2A provides for the starting point for the populace as a whole to reject that militia being used as a illegitimate use of force by a tyrant. Is it perfect, no nothing is, but it at least helps cement that initial fighting chance for that final last resort option that no one really wants to have to use.

But now we live in an era where we do trust our standing army. Can you go anywhere without seeing a "support our troops" bumper sticker or flag?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But now we live in an era where we do trust our standing army.

That does not impact the Second Amendment in any way.

Are you familiar with the Bonus Army?