Devil505
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,512
- Reaction score
- 315
- Location
- Masschusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
"Shall not be infringed" == no.Do we collectively (the government) have a right to regulate/control a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights?
"Shall not be infringed" == no.
In what terms? I mean this debate has always sorta spun out to some level of absurdity. If we're merely talking firearms, such as hand guns, assault rifles, fully automatics, etc; then no I don't think there can be proper regulation on it and still be constitutional. But we can always take things to extremes, what about nuclear weapons, biological, etc. At some point when we go into machinery and weaponry there becomes a point in which everyone says "ok, the People cannot be allowed to have X".
In terms of firearms, I don't even like background checks...I can grudgingly put up with them if they are instantaneous. I don't believe in waiting periods, permits, or anything else which infringes upon the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and which attempts to turn the right into a privilege.
"Shall not be infringed" means you can't decide what type of weapon, nor can you inhibit a person toting that weapon down the street. Going into a place, public or private, is a different matter. As access itself is already limited and controlled, there is no impediment to also denying access to those who are considered inappropriately armed.Under all circumstances/locations & with any type of weapon?
Some good points there but I am think in terms of weighing an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs our collective right (government) to protect ourselves. Don't we collectively have that right?
Some good points there but I am think in terms of weighing an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs our collective right (government) to protect ourselves. Don't we collectively have that right?
A collective doesn't have rights, only individuals possess rights. Government also inherently has no rights.
Your correct and I guess we shouldnt be calling it a "right". But the(government) still posses the powers granted by the constitution. So I guess he is asking should the government have more power(s) then the "people" as individuals.
Government has privilege and duty granted to it by The People. The government uses our power and sovereignty to operate and does so through our consent.
The government is allowed to do a great many things since some things are easily handled on the aggregated scale of the federal government. But it may not act against the rights and liberties of the People.
I have no problem with some minor limitations. Wait periods do not bother me, registration does not bother, limits on fully automatic weapons don't bother me. I would not go past that point though.
I voted yes, but only reasonable regulations. People must remember that the were no such things as flame throwers (though I do not see the harm in a person owning one), nuclear weapons and other modern technology. Thus, only handguns, rifles, and the such should be unregulated.
I have no problem with some minor limitations. Wait periods do not bother me, registration does not bother, limits on fully automatic weapons don't bother me. I would not go past that point though.
The problem with federal government regulations is the constitution does not grant them the powers to impose much of what they have done. I believe this includes firearms.
So it would be ok in your book if, on New Years Eve (let's say) some people wandered around (drunk) in Times Square with loaded flame throwers strapped to their backs? (serious answer please)
Registration and permits turn a right into a State granted privilege. It is important that we not abdicate our rights into the realm of State granted privilege.
So it would be ok in your book if, on New Years Eve (let's say) some people wandered around (drunk) in Times Square with loaded flame throwers strapped to their backs? (serious answer please)
I do not see it that way. It's not going to be a case where we are going to convince the other, so arguing about it is probably not worth the effort.
I do not see it that way. It's not going to be a case where we are going to convince the other, so arguing about it is probably not worth the effort.
I do not consider registration of firearms an infringement on rights, either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?