would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

[danielpalos]

that is beyond stupid because Heller didn't affect state laws

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Those privileges and immunities are up to the several and sovereign States not the Union.

 

[OpportunityCost]

lol. The People are the Militia. The only ignorance is from the right wing.

lol. Not in the context you wish, as you believe it confers the power to government to interfere in the lives of the people as a whole. Not that you have a logical basis for that, SCOTUS has denied it over and over as not being applicable to 2nd amendment rights.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Not in the context you wish, as you believe it confers the power to government to interfere in the lives of the people as a whole. Not that you have a logical basis for that, SCOTUS has denied it over and over as not being applicable to 2nd amendment rights.

lol. That is what being a Citizen must mean.

 

[jamesrodom]

those reasonable restrictions were mainly at a state level because at the time Heller was issued, the second had not (a real puzzler) been incorporated by the 14th, and because Scalia was worried that Kennedy might join the other side if the commerce clause nonsense was stricken

State restrictions on the right to bear arms are totally, useless, and always will be so long as we have the right to travel freely from state-to-state/

 

[Bodi]

lol. Not in the context you wish, as you believe it confers the power to government to interfere in the lives of the people as a whole. Not that you have a logical basis for that, SCOTUS has denied it over and over as not being applicable to 2nd amendment rights.

...And SCOTUS ruled that denying equal rights to black people was Constitutional for hundreds of years too... :roll:

 

[ataraxia]

The Second Amendment is poorly written. It's much too ambiguous - it needs to be written clearly so we don't need a Court to tell us what it means.

Here's my proposed Amended amendment:

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. . . Ever. . . I'm totally serious. . . Any lawmaker who infringes on this Right shall be punished to the full extent of the Law.

So we can put nuclear arms on sale at WalMart?

 

[ataraxia]

The Second Amendment is poorly written. It's much too ambiguous - it needs to be written clearly so we don't need a Court to tell us what it means.

What the founding fathers really meant by "the right to bear arms":

 

[CLAX1911]

I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed. So, what say you? Would you vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? yes or no

Vote for fewer rights? No way. That's a hard sell.

 

[ataraxia]

Vote for fewer rights? No way. That's a hard sell.

Fewer? You can always have the right to a musket if you want. That will never change. :lamo

 

[American]

Those privileges and immunities are up to the several and sovereign States not the Union.

So, in this case, we need to determine the definition of Police Power.

 

[American]

Fewer? You can always have the right to a musket if you want. That will never change. :lamo

You're a giver. :thumbs:

 

[CLAX1911]

Fewer? You can always have the right to a musket if you want. That will never change. :lamo

Yes fewer if you don't have the right to own an AR-15 fully automatic machine gun you have fewer rights than if you did have the right to own it.

Right now as it stands I can own an AR-15 or an AK-47 or a musket that's more rights then if I could only own a musket.

 

[American]

So we can put nuclear arms on sale at WalMart?

YES!!!! That's the spirit.

 

[danielpalos]

So, in this case, we need to determine the definition of Police Power.

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation.[2] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia

 

[American]

...And SCOTUS ruled that denying equal rights to black people was Constitutional for hundreds of years too... :roll:

Irrelevant.

 

[Bodi]

Irrelevant.

Except that it is completely relevant to counter the argument that I was addressing... :shrug:

 

[Bodi]

Yes fewer if you don't have the right to own an AR-15 fully automatic machine gun you have fewer rights than if you did have the right to own it.

Right now as it stands I can own an AR-15 or an AK-47 or a musket that's more rights then if I could only own a musket.

More choices does not mean more rights! :lol:

 

[ataraxia]

Yes fewer if you don't have the right to own an AR-15 fully automatic machine gun you have fewer rights than if you did have the right to own it.

Right now as it stands I can own an AR-15 or an AK-47 or a musket that's more rights then if I could only own a musket.

That's EXPANDED rights since the 2A was written. As the technology has continued to progress, it has become a game-changer and really gotten out of hand.

As you may know, "dirty nukes", capable of taking out several blocks of a city and dousing the rest of the city with radioactivity, carriable by a single infantryman, are coming into technological possibility. The founders would never even have dreamed of it.



You still think if these things become widespread, there should be no regulations on any kook's freedom to buy them at Walmart?

 

[NoJo]

i'd probably support an update with about fifty fewer commas and maybe a specification that howitzers, bioweapons, and nuclear bombs aren't covered.

I really want a howitzer though https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dSp7CipN1pw/mqdefault.jpg

 

[Helix]

I really want a howitzer though https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dSp7CipN1pw/mqdefault.jpg

I'm sure you're not alone.

 

[ataraxia]

I really want a howitzer though https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dSp7CipN1pw/mqdefault.jpg

I want THIS on my porch, just to shoo away burglars:

 

[mrdeltoid]

Maybe a better word than 'repeal' would be 'clarify'.

The substance of the amendment notwithstanding, it has to be the most awkwardly-worded amendment to the Constitution, consisting as it does of one long, run-on sentence. It's pretty clear that the original purpose referred to the Founders' understanding of what a "militia" was.

And then there was the Supreme Court's bizarre decision in Heller. which held, simultaneously, that the Second Amendment does refer to an individual's right to own a firearm, and yet there ARE reasonable limitations and restrictions on the right to bear arms.

On second thought, yeah, maybe repeal it.

I posted this on the wording, in response to another poster. I copied and pasted here. Take a look at it and let me know what you think. The wording indeed seems murky. I zoned in their use of the words "the people" in the 2a, and what they meant by it, and what it meant in other areas. Here's that post:
"That's an interesting perspective. Are you saying then, that the second part of the amendment applies only to able bodied males between 16 and 45 that are or may become militia members? What about a male over 45? Or a female? Or a physically challenged male? The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", is pretty broad. The framers were pretty intelligent. You would think if they wanted the 2a to apply only to current or potential militia members, they would've written it that way. If they DID intend it for current or future militia members, why would they want all other citizens to be unarmed? To what end? They were highly distrustful of government militias/armies of any kind. When they used the words "the people", they are referring to US citizens. The preamble to the constitution " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union," Every time they used it in the bill of rights, they were referring to "all citizens in general For instance: the 1st amendment:" the right of the people peaceably to assemble," the 4th amendment:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect ", the 9th amendment":The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". the 10th amendment:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
It doesn't make sense that every single time they used the words "the people" in the preamble of the constitution, and bill of rights, it was meant to mean the people as a whole, all inclusive, except the 2nd. Doesn't add up...…. "

 

[CLAX1911]

That's EXPANDED rights since the 2A was written.

No it hasn't. The word 'arms' in this context isn't fixed to a certain era. If it is you'll have to show language in the Constitution to support that.

As the technology has continued to progress, it has become a game-changer and really gotten out of hand.

No it hasn't. From 1787 to today, I'm pretty sure the acreage per capita of fun related violence has decreased significantly. In fact it's decreased in aggregate by 51% over the last thirty years despite the population increasing by nearly 25%.

As you may know, "dirty nukes", capable of taking out several blocks of a city and dousing the rest of the city with radioactivity, carriable by a single infantryman, are coming into technological possibility. The founders would never even have dreamed of it.

This isn't really a good point, purchasing a radio active isotope is controlled strictly by the federal government, such a substance is not considered an armament but a radioactive material.

You still think if these things become widespread, there should be no regulations on any kook's freedom to buy them at Walmart?

Radioactive material is strictly regulated, and it isn't considered an armament.

In the NDT profession there is a method of volumetric examination called radiography, you can use an X Ray camera or a gamma Ray camera. The gamma Ray camera contains a pill of Cobalt 60 or iridium 192. People can and do procure this and it's radioactive enough to kill you. It's not a weapon it's a tool.

You can get radioactive material now.

 

[ataraxia]

It doesn't make sense that every single time they used the words "the people" in the preamble of the constitution, and bill of rights, it was meant to mean the people as a whole, all inclusive, except the 2nd. Doesn't add up...…. "[/I]

It does once you take into account the game-changing nature of the change in technology since it was written.

 

[ataraxia]

No it hasn't. The word 'arms' in this context isn't fixed to a certain era. If it is you'll have to show language in the Constitution to support that.

It was written before the industrial revolution, and just at the dawn of the scientific revolution. Science and technology at that point moved very slow. The idea of game-changing technology was very much an alien concept at the time. Scientific knowledge and new technologies would not change even over the course of centuries at a time. We live in a very different world now. Just like with other parts of the Constitution which have changed over the centuries (eg, expanding voting rights to include those other than property-owning white protestant Englishmen), you can't live in a modern 21st century society with 18th century laws.

This isn't really a good point, purchasing a radio active isotope is controlled strictly by the federal government, such a substance is not considered an armament but a radioactive material.

No it's not. Stricly speaking from a Constitutional perspective, nuclear arms are a type of arms. Why are you OK with its infrigement? The infringement on nuclear arms is just a slippery slope to Obama personally coming over and taking away your nail clippers. Beware! Fight it every step of the way. Don't give them an inch!


Radioactive material is strictly regulated, and it isn't considered an armament.

In the NDT profession there is a method of volumetric examination called radiography, you can use an X Ray camera or a gamma Ray camera. The gamma Ray camera contains a pill of Cobalt 60 or iridium 192. People can and do procure this and it's radioactive enough to kill you. It's not a weapon it's a tool.

You can get radioactive material now.[/QUOTE]