2nd Amendment rights?

[Zebo]

I'm pro second amendment. Everyone should have right to protect themselves. To me it's a fundamental right - moreso than free speech since your whole life may depend on it, literally.

As far as concealed and unconcealed. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

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.

You need to learn how to read.

Also the word "militia" in the original context in which that amendment clause was written during that time specific time period meant the average guy/citizen.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I'm pro second amendment. Everyone should have right to protect themselves. To me it's a fundamental right - moreso than free speech since your whole life may depend on it, literally.

As far as concealed and unconcealed. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

That's not exactly textbook 'infringing'. I mean perhaps you should be allowed to carry in your hand, loaded, and pointing at everything you encounter until you determine that it is not a threat.

In fact the 'keep' part probably includes reasonable maintenance, so you really ought to let off a round or two every few minutes to make sure the thing still works.

I really don't think your right to a little bit of wood and plastic is more fundamental than your rights to free speech, habeus corpus, etc.

 

[spidey07]

That's not exactly textbook 'infringing'. I mean perhaps you should be allowed to carry in your hand, loaded, and pointing at everything you encounter until you determine that it is not a threat.

In fact the 'keep' part probably includes reasonable maintenance, so you really ought to let off a round or two every few minutes to make sure the thing still works.

I really don't think your right to a little bit of wood and plastic is more fundamental than your rights to free speech, habeus corpus, etc.

The 2nd protects all the others and The Constitution itself. It is arguably the most important one after the 1st of course.

Also pointing a weapon at somebody is a deadly threat and you're free to fire away on them.

 

[3chordcharlie]

The 2nd protects all the others and The Constitution itself. It is arguably the most important one after the 1st of course.

Also pointing a weapon at somebody is a deadly threat and you're free to fire away on them.

It's only a deadly threat because another law, which is not part of the constitution, says it is. If it conflicts with a constitutional right, the law is invalid.

I was merely suggesting that Zebo had perhaps claimed more than was reasonable from the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

 

[Matthiasa]

You completely missed my point. The point wasn't that AK-47=early muzzle-loading rifle. The point was that it was easy to see that weapon technology was advancing, especially at that time (the first submarines were used in the revolutionary war, for example). Rifles were hard to make at the time, they had to be cleaned often, and they sucked to reload. But it was obvious that the technology would advance in the future to be more potent. The founding fathers did not write the amendment on the basis that every American should own a fully automatic rifle. They made it on the basis that a population that cannot defend itself from oppression is not free at all. There was no way to know what weapons would be used today; as I said before, the distinction of who has the right to bear which specific arms was left to later leaders to decide.

If you want to be as literal as possible with drawing your conclusions (as it seems to be), then you should replace that AK-47 picture earlier in the thread with one of an F-22 or a minigun.

The fact you took the initial post in more then just jest is slightly humorous...
We all know they weren't idiots, was just saying "little" had changed changed with guns from the time they were created up to that point, they were all single shot, then reload. Sometimes had multiple barrels, or were rifled, but that was really it. And yeah most here also know the first subs date back to a really long time ago and for the most part were failures.

 

[Zebo]

That's not exactly textbook 'infringing'. I mean perhaps you should be allowed to carry in your hand, loaded, and pointing at everything you encounter until you determine that it is not a threat.

In fact the 'keep' part probably includes reasonable maintenance, so you really ought to let off a round or two every few minutes to make sure the thing still works.

I really don't think your right to a little bit of wood and plastic is more fundamental than your rights to free speech, habeus corpus, etc.

No that's fenoly assault when you believe your life is in danger and pointing at someone would certainly make them reasonably believe that. The rest is just childish so I won't comment.

 

[3chordcharlie]

No that's fenoly assault when you believe your life is in danger and pointing at someone would certainly make them reasonably believe that. The rest is just childish so I won't comment.

No, the rest is just an extension of what you said, which was alread childish.

There is no meaningful difference between concealed and open carry from a 'right to bear' perspective. In either case you are permitted to have your gun, in public.

Furthermore, felony assault is defined in statute (criminal code), and not in the constitution; you can't use the criminal law as proof of the limits of the constitutional one, unless that interpretation has already been challenged and upheld against the second amendment.

 

[highland145]

I know I'm a bit late to post but I take the weekend off from the computer.

My understanding of why the founders thought the 2ND was important was because the Brits(Gen. Gage) tried to confiscate arms in Boston (under the guise of aiding the populace and then reneged). That would have made for a difficult revolution.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=9&issue=010

 

[brandonb]

I'd rather be in control of my security than leave that up to the government... I can't expect to snap a finger and have a police man at my side, it's just not possible.

I'm also more scared of the government and their weapons than I am scared of the common man and their weapons. Look at al the taser incidents and other crap that goes on against people doing literally nothing.

We all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Most oppressors and mass killers in history had a full array of weapons while the common man had nothing.

I fear that more than anything, and so did our founding fathers. Which is why they put that into the 2nd ammendment. The day we have our guns taken away is the day we're going to need them. I hope that day never comes.

 

[highland145]

The day we have our guns taken away is the day we're going to need them. I hope that day never comes.

I live in the south. Good luck with that.

()What guns? I don't have any guns.()

 

[Elias824]

We need the 2nd amendment to keep power in the hands of the people, and give them the ability to start another revolution if need be. The problem is that even if we get these fully auto AK's, how well can you stage an revolution against a military force using Abrams, f-22's and guided missiles with an AK-47?

 

[spidey07]

We need the 2nd amendment to keep power in the hands of the people, and give them the ability to start another revolution if need be. The problem is that even if we get these fully auto AK's, how well can you stage an revolution against a military force using Abrams, f-22's and guided missiles with an AK-47?

The armed forces will NOT obey an unconstitutional order.

 

[Matthiasa]

We need the 2nd amendment to keep power in the hands of the people, and give them the ability to start another revolution if need be. The problem is that even if we get these fully auto AK's, how well can you stage an revolution against a military force using Abrams, f-22's and guided missiles with an AK-47?

By taking out the leadership... but as they would know that they would generally keep their locations secrete if such an event were to occur.

 

[wiretap]

Reading the writings of the founding fathers, and in detail in the federalist papers, they made clear that citizens need the right to own firearms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. They followed through in their beliefs by declaring it one of the most basic rights in the US Constitution.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

We need the 2nd amendment to keep power in the hands of the people, and give them the ability to start another revolution if need be. The problem is that even if we get these fully auto AK's, how well can you stage an revolution against a military force using Abrams, f-22's and guided missiles with an AK-47?

Not hard. See Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Elias824]

Not hard. See Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Vietcong were being equipped by the russians and had access to military equipment. It can be argued that the Iraqi insurgents are being equiped by iran, or at the very least had very few gun laws compared to what we have, RPG's were relatively available. Afghanistan had all the leftover russian weapons as well as what we gave them to fight the russians with. We would have non of that, unless canada decided to take pity on us and smuggle in some guns. I suppose the best thing we could do is hang out with some farmers and maybe get alot of fertilizer. Now im not saying we should legalize RPG's or let everyone drive around in a tank, but its somthing to think about.

 

[wiretap]

And then you realize if you actually talk to a US soldier, you'll know they won't fire on their family and friends.. they don't side with the government, they side with the people.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

The Vietcong were being equipped by the russians and had access to military equipment. It can be argued that the Iraqi insurgents are being equiped by iran, or at the very least had very few gun laws compared to what we have, RPG's were relatively available. Afghanistan had all the leftover russian weapons as well as what we gave them to fight the russians with. We would have non of that, unless canada decided to take pity on us and smuggle in some guns. I suppose the best thing we could do is hang out with some farmers and maybe get alot of fertilizer. Now im not saying we should legalize RPG's or let everyone drive around in a tank, but its somthing to think about.

True, the Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union ended because the Fins ran out of ammo.

With that said, given shortage of ammo in the US due to all the ammo hoarders, we could last a long while.

Or people like myself that reloads my own ammo.

 

[highland145]

With that said, given shortage of ammo in the US due to all the ammo hoarders, we could last a long while.

.

Beat me to it. My fire proof cabinets are full.

()What guns? I do not have any guns.()