Possible new gun laws

[Zythryn]

I am curious, do you draw any lines?

For example, in your opinion, does the 2nd amendment protect my right to keep a nuclear missle?

[Moontanman]

I am curious, do you draw any lines?

For example, in your opinion, does the 2nd amendment protect my right to keep a nuclear missle?

 

I hope so, I'd hate to have mine taken away, i only target the bad neighborhoods in case they flare up I want MAD deterrent!

 

Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority! Yes with the NNS system just attached to any garden hose you too can have the peace of mind you deserve! For any size target from a city block to your neighbors dog house! Get NNS today! :hihi:

[REASON]

Like Thomas Jefferson said, The assailants will not turn in their guns if a law requires them too, only law abiding citizens will. Do not murder unless in self defense. Law-abiding citizens follow this law, but there are serial killers on the loose killing numerous people each day. Also, when the unarmed man is attacked, he may be attacked with great confidence because the assailant has the power of the gun while the unarmed is considered almost defenseless. Thomas Jefferson also said about needing the right to bear arms because of tyranny in government.

 

I agree with all of this.

 

 

The first thing Adolf Hitler did in his power, was to take away the right to bear arms, and the people were defenseless. Um, what is Obama doing. I think, hopefully, that he will not take a way this right, and I think it is rather less likely for it to happened because he can not use one of his "5 executive orders in one week" to get rid of the second amendment.

 

I don't know, you tell me. Name one thing Obama has done that has been an infringement on the rights of gun owners.

 

If you think the President of the United States has the power to overturn the Second Amendment to the Constitution with a stroke of a pen you are being misled. The president does not have such power, not even with the use of executive orders. A repeal of any constitutional amendment must make it through the US Congress and then must be signed into law by the president. Overturning the Second Amendment in this country would be an extremely tall order even with an overwhelming majority of progressives in congress. The public outcry over such a move would be astounding.

 

The issues with the Second Amendment have to do with interpretation and what is reasonable in the law with regard to the rights of citizens to "bear arms."

 

But I believe anyone who is worried that President Obama is going to try and take away the second amendment is spending too much time listening to right wing fearmongering.

 

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as part of The Bill of Rights.

 

As Zythryn asked above, what is your interpretation of the statement I bolded? Should there be any limits to the right of the people to "keep and bear arms?"

 

What is intended by the term "arms?" What qualifies as "arms" in our society today?

 

Besides a nuclear missile, should I have the right under the second amendment to walk around with concealed hand grenades? If the government establishes a law that says I cannot, wouldn't that be an infringement on my second amendment rights? Since the government has taken away my right to keep and bear hand grenades, 50 caliber machine guns, and bazookas, does this mean we are on the slippery slope to overturning the second amendment in this country?

 

Reasonable people can establish reasonable governance with regard to gun ownership in this country without it being an all or none proposition.

[Mpsipos3]

What is Obama doing? I'll tell you. Nothing at this point. You are right again when you say, "But I believe anyone who is worried that President Obama is going to try and take away the second amendment is spending too much time listening to right wing fear mongering." I agree. It would take a lot of work and the Congress to agree and a load of other things making it very unlikely. But Obama voted several times on banning handguns, black powder revolvers, and various other guns, and has made speeches on this. I am not sure though how he really feels about gun laws, but I know the "Republicans" have exaggerated this. There is a lot of stuff I hear from Obama that makes me unsure on how he really feels about it.

 

Also, a very good question, to what meaning "Arms" has. I am not sure. At the time back when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was constructed, they did not have car bombs, tear gas, nerve gas, nuclear war heads, and such. So arms, was more or so general back then. Nowadays people have had to make restriction and limits to this right because of the advanced technology. I am not sure of the extents, but there are always websites on the internet discussing this topic and federal meetings discussing this topic. I am pretty sure hand grenades are banned for individual use, because you most likely won't need it in self defense. But when you talk about nuclear warheads, even if you had the right, you would need to be very rich and the government would wonder why you are using them; backyard barbecue, fireworks, shooting down US Bombers?:)

[Zythryn]

...Also, a very good question, to what meaning "Arms" has. I am not sure. At the time back when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was constructed, they did not have car bombs, tear gas, nerve gas, nuclear war heads, and such. So arms, was more or so general back then.

 

You aparently feel that assault rifles fit under that category though?

From your response that you aren't sure, I take it you agree that a line should be drawn somewhere?

 

Cannon's were around when when the 2nd amendment was drafted, is anyone aware of any distinction of the time?

 

The purpose, as I understand it, of the 2nd amendment was to insure that the people would be capable of armed resistance should the government become tyrannical. To enable that, the public really does need access to fighters, tanks, some artillery.

With that in mind, does the 2nd amendment still serve the original purpose?

[freeztar]

The purpose, as I understand it, of the 2nd amendment was to insure that the people would be capable of armed resistance should the government become tyrannical. To enable that, the public really does need access to fighters, tanks, some artillery.

With that in mind, does the 2nd amendment still serve the original purpose?

 

No. I see no way in which the citizens of the US could overthrow a tyrannical government without the help of the armed forces. It's a shame really as it was a pivotal safeguard that the founding fathers put into the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, we've never needed it. Hopefully we will never need to.

[Zythryn]

I agree freez.

We do have some safegaurds. Can we build in another to replace the 2nd (which no longer can do its job)?

Wait, this is a bit off topic, shall we start a new thread? Sound reasonable to the OP?

[Buffy]

Under the Unitary Executive theory so strongly promoted by Cheney and his martinet David Addington, if the President *personally* believes that there is a threat to the government of the US, he can without notice or approval simply abrogate any law or constitutional guarantee that he sees fit. This would include having the army forcibly enter people's terrorist's homes and confiscating any firearms weapons of mass destruction (where "mass" can be defined, without approval from anyone, by the President himself).

 

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use, :doh:

Buffy

[CraigD]

The purpose, as I understand it, of the 2nd amendment was to insure that the people would be capable of armed resistance should the government become tyrannical.

Though this opinion is widely held, it’s by no means the consensus of constitutional scholars, lawyer, or US government officers.

 

The Second Amendment, which most of us well know reads

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

is unique among articles and amendments of the US Constitution, in that it offers an explanation for its presence: that “a well regulated Militia” is necessary “for the security of a free State”.

 

What this means depends critically on what’s meant by “militia” and “arms”. Most historians and Constitution scholars are in agreement that, at the time the Constitution was written and ratified, “Militia” was understood to mean the collection of people eligible for enlistment or commission into an army. What’s less clear is whether “militia” also means private property of these people that could be of use to them in the army. Such property - cloths, footwear, knives, swords, spears, armor, firearms, ammunition, etc. - is archaically - but not so much in the 18th and 19th centuries as now – know as “arms”. In short, arms are the equipment needed by an army.

 

From these meanings, one can interpret the intention of the Second Amendment as to assure that, when the US Congress calls forth the Militia, as it is empowered to do by Article I Section 8, these militia people will have the stuff they need, not have to wait for arms to be manufactured before the army can be fielded.

 

There is nowhere in the Constitution any protection for the right of the People to overthrow the government. Essentially the only mentions of the subject are in Art I Sec 9, Art III Sec 3, both of which deprive people engaging in rebellion of otherwise guaranteed rights and immunities.

With that in mind, does the 2nd amendment still serve the original purpose?

Assuming the interpretation above, in the US, no, because nobody enlisted or commissioned into any branch of our military provides his or her own arms.

 

Note the importance of the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, which can be construed to mean that while keeping and bearing arms should not be thwarted by the government, the circumstance in which one may lawfully do so may be regulated, so long as the regulation doesn’t interfere with ones effectiveness when called forth by the Congress “to suppress insurrection and repel invasions”.

 

Present day example of the a Militia being called forth in the way intended by the US Constitution aren’t, I think, found in the US, but are in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, where “insurgent forces” use their privately owned arms, rather than being equipped by state-run militaries. Were the US to lose its present ability to train and equip a very high-quality army, the Second Amendment would, in principle, assure the ability of Congress – or whatever leaders the People will obey – to field armies about as effective as the insurgents that have fought against the US and its allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Turtle]

Though this opinion is widely held, it’s by no means the consensus of constitutional scholars, lawyer, or US government officers.

...

From these meanings, one can interpret the intention of the Second Amendment as to assure that, when the US Congress calls forth the Militia, as it is empowered to do by Article I Section 8, these militia people will have the stuff they need, not have to wait for arms to be manufactured before the army can be fielded. ...

 

How did you miss the recent, and only, Supreme Court ruling on this issue of the 2^nd amendment?

 

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right - Los Angeles Times

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

 

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

 

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. ...

 

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands. :bouquet: :smilingsun:

[CraigD]

:) How did you miss the recent, and only, Supreme Court ruling on this issue of the 2^nd amendment?

I didn’t miss the decision!

 

Living only a few miles from the Maryland-DC border, and having spent a cumulative several years within the District over the past few of decades, I’ve been aware of this and many other issues concerning the rights of DC residents for a long time.

 

That said, I grant that the DC circuit and SCOTUS decisions have language opining both that the Second Amendment is intended to promote rebellion against tyranny, and that “Militia” refers not to a collection of people, but only to people “enrolled” in organizations such as the state National Guards and Army Reserve. I think these opinions show that judges, even justices of the SOCTUS, have little better understandings of history than do most Americans, and much worse understanding than most professional historians.

 

My greatest surprise upon learning of the DC v. Heller decision was not it’s overturn of the 1975 DC handgun ban, but that the decision was 5-4, rather than unanimous or nearly unanimous. The only credible explanation for how 4 of 9 justices could conclude that the Second Amendment did not guarantee DC residents the right to keep and bear arms is the argument, hinted at only circumspectly in the SCOTUS decision, but more directly in the DCCir’s, that DC residents are in some basic way not entitled to the protections and immunities granted by the US constitution by virtue of being in some odd way not people of any state, and thus not citizens of the US.

 

 

Returning from my opinionated romp through the subject of the Second Amendment to the thread’s original questions

Since our new president has openly said he opposes concealed carry laws and assault gun look alike weapons. Will his opinions on this subject change our gun laws …

No.

 

I don’t believe the President’s or anyone else’s opinion will have much impact on US and state gun laws. The only thing that has much effect on them, I think, are lawsuits such as the above mentioned DC v. Heller.

… and should they be changed?

Yes.

 

In my opinion, many laws concerning firearms should be changed. I believe that many of them are unconstitutional, remaining in force simply because of the inability of people opposed to them to bring effective lawsuits to overturn them.

 

If private ownership of firearms (or knives or big sticks, for that matter) were acclaimed by the People to be detrimental, I believe Congress should repeal the Second Amendment, clearing the way for whatever regulations of bans the People desire. However, I don’t think any such acclaim exists. Only a minority of people, I think, favor banning weapons. In my experience, many of these people form their opinions from inaccurate and emotionally hyped information and arguments. From a scientific perspective, violence, both involving guns and not, is not a major cause of injury and death in the US.

 

The perception that it is, and more generally, that our society is dangerous and terrible, is IMHO more damaging to the physical and mental wellbeing of people than the violence itself

 

Does the prospect of someone being licensed to carry a concealed weapon worry you when you are out in public?

No.

 

As Turtle notes upthread, and these statistics

, from the reference section of the wikipedia article “Concealed carry in the United States”, supports, people licensed to carry concealed weapons are statistically less likely to commit crimes, with or without a weapon, than the general population.

Does the idea of someone owning a gun that closely resembles an assault weapon worry you and or cause concerns for your own safety?

No.

 

I know from personal, tragic experience, that the appearance and power of a firearm has little to do with its likelihood of injuring or killing a person. Small, low-power guns, such as .22LR pistols, are practically as dangerous 9 mm pistols or 5.56x45 mm “assault” rifles. A person shot with any of these common firearms has a strong likelihood of dieing. The closest friend of mine killed with a firearm was killed with a .22LR pistol.

[wufwugy]

Pretty sure Democrats have finally realized that they cannot beat the gun lobby, and they have bigger fish to fry. So I suspect we will see very little anti-gun activity now and over the next several years.

 

Also, didn't you hear that Biden gonna shoot Obama if he tries to take his guns?

[GAHD]

As I've said many times before I fully support changing gun laws(well, actually acts given the force of law but that's a different issue).

 

I fully support changing the 'law' to require everyone to own and know how to use a firearm.

 

My logic is that if at any time there are 3-12 people with sidearms, then the relatively few crazies will be less inclined to commit a crime.

 

My logic goes further to say that Darwin's law will see violent criminals eliminated from the gene pool.

 

Think about it.

[CraigD]

Pretty sure Democrats have finally realized that they cannot beat the gun lobby, and they have bigger fish to fry.

By most objective measures I can see, the 2008 Presidential election was a prominent example of a Democrat – Barack Obama - beating a gun lobby – the NRA. The NRA, which does not always endorse a presidential candidate, endorses Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain, but this endorsement was insufficient to cause him to win the election (source: NRA puts its muscle behind McCain - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com).

 

It’s also worth noting that the affiliation with groups seeking more liberal gun ownership and groups seeking more restricted doesn’t divide cleanly along Republican and Democratic party lines. For example, James Brady, who’s political career was dedicated almost exclusively to assisting conservative Republican candidates and office holders, but after his serious wounding from a gunshot, became arguably the most recognized proponent of increased restrictions on gun purchasing, trading, and ownership. Further examples can be had by following the links from the following link concerning Joe Biden.

Also, didn't you hear that Biden gonna shoot Obama if he tries to take his guns?

Where did you here that?!

 

According to articles such as Joe Biden on Gun Control, which states that US Vice President Joe Biden was “rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record”, Biden does not have a liberal position on gun ownership.

 

The popular perception that Republicans are liberal toward gun ownership, Democrats restrictive, is not, I think, an accurate one. It’s a complicated issues that appears to me to defy conventional political classification.

[wufwugy]

By most objective measures I can see, the 2008 Presidential election was a prominent example of a Democrat – Barack Obama - beating a gun lobby – the NRA.

It's fallacious to equate winning a Presidential campaign on a host of issues, most of which had nothing to do with firearms, and some which were huge deals, to winning a campaign against one of the supporters of the winner's opponent.

 

Where did you here that?!

I was being somewhat facetious. Back when this clip was out somebody joked to me that Biden said he was gonna shoot Obama if he tried to take his guns. Biden didn't say that, but given who Biden is and what he said, it was funny.

 

Here's the clip YouTube - Biden and his Beretta http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcyLeOm6yGc&feature=related

 

 

 

My overall point is that Obama is too smart to wage war against firearms when there are soooooooooo many more important things on the table. He knows what mistakes Clinton made, and he doesn't want to repeat them. IMO, this is why we have seen next to nothing since the election about Obama going after guns. Even Hillary looks to be straying from them because they know it's a super tough issue, and they got bigger fish to fry.

[wufwugy]

I fully support changing the 'law' to require everyone to own and know how to use a firearm.

 

Mandatory ownership or carry would have devastating impacts.

 

Loads and loads of people are of low IQ and irresponsible, and you want to make sure they are armed and dangerous? You are probably right that crime would go down a ton, but that wouldn't make up for all the wariness and negligence most of us would have because we simply don't wanna carry or be around firearms.

 

I mean, I love guns, LOVE them, but I definitely don't want to carry one on my person that often. I would be uncomfortable, and likelyhood of accidents would skyrocket, yet I'm a smart person with tremendous understanding of gun safety. I cannot fathom how bad it would be if every dumbass had a gun or if every person who didn't want to carry were still forced.

 

This is also mega unconstitutional. I would debate (and be right) that forcing people to own/carry guns is more unconstitutional than banning guns.

[freeztar]

This is also mega unconstitutional. I would debate (and be right) that forcing people to own/carry guns is more unconstitutional than banning guns.

 

Perhaps you could persuade my neighboring city (which is famous for the Civil War) that obligatory gun ownership is silly.

 

Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia