The 2-nd Amendment.

[Simon Feltser]

I want to discuss this topic again. But this time I don`t mean the prohibition of the right to bear arms. No, it is our right, prescribed in the Constitution. We are willing and able to defend ourselves. And that's good. But there is another side to the coin.
I believe that for self-defense at home is enough for me to have a hunting rifle or a simple pistol. I do not need to buy an automatic and a large and strong gun to scare away a thief or show someone that I can protect my home. Yes, it is enough to have simple rifle at home. And that's what I am talking about. Only crazies buying automatic guns and powerful guns on the pretext of self-defense

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm pretty sure automatic guns are banned even in the US.

[Simon Feltser]

I'm pretty sure automatic guns are banned even in the US.

However, machine guns and etc...issued before 1986, may remain in the possession of people and sold privately.
I am referring to the semi-automatic gun and automatic pistols

[dead0man]

Well, I think you're actually referring to semi-automatic everything.  They do make fully auto pistols, but they fall under the same hard to get umbrella that all fully auto guns do.  As in they are legal, just very very very difficult to get for most people.  Now knowing we are all talking about SEMI-automatic guns (including handguns) lets go back to the OP.

I believe that for self-defense at home is enough for me to have a hunting rifle or a simple pistol.

A rifle kind of sucks for home defense and I'm not sure what you mean by "simple" pistol.  A semi-automatic hand gun and/or a shotgun are the best home defense weapons.  Neither penetrates through walls very well and the one that's hard to aim as extra rounds and the one that's even harder to aim well, but easy to aim "good enough" does the spread thing so it's ok to miss a little.  Revolvers (what I suspect you mean by "simple" pistol) are ok, but nowhere near as good as a modern handgun.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody is buying automatic guns for self defense and "powerful" guns are almost toys or hunting equipment, neither is good for in home self defense.  Also "powerful" guns are almost never used by bad guys, so there is no need to make them illegal.....

....unless of course you're a moron that doesn't really understand gun culture you just want there to be less guns, never mind that the guns you're going after are rarely used in crime.  You're not after a drop in crime or violence, you just want guns to go away.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah, I don't really think that most petty criminals are going to use expensive semi-automatics for much, especially those who discard potential evidence after use (i.e. non-morons) Why waste a huge investment on a one-off rifle?

Gun-control activists would be better off focusing on relatively cheap pistols and handguns, than  bans on largely symbolic guns that inevitably trigger whining from gun enthusiasts.

[Simon Feltser]

Yeah, I don't really think that most petty criminals are going to use expensive semi-automatics for much, especially those discard potential evidence after use (i.e. non-morons) Why waste a huge investment on a one-off rifle?

Gun-control activists would be better off focusing on relatively cheap pistols and handguns, than those largely symbolic guns that inevitably trigger whining from gun enthusiasts.

Well, you`re right. Availability of weapons - is another big problem. The fact is that there is no single interpretation and legislation governing to public access to weapons. Acquiring weapons not require a license or registration in many of states. And there are no restrictions on the purchase of the number of trunks in the 46 states.

[politicallefty]

I'm one to believe that the Second Amendment is nonsensical in today's society. It says nothing about gun ownership. It establishes a right to bear arms that is subject to some (although not absolute) regulation. If you ignore the prefatory clause, as the Supreme Court has effectively done in Heller, there is no textual basis in the Constitution for any arms control laws whatsoever (let alone simple gun control measures). If the prefatory clause is ignored, I'd like to know what sort of measures would survive constitutional scrutiny (because it seems like the remainder is quite absolute in its guarantee).

[Franzl]

I think I've made my opinions on gun policy sufficiently well known, but irrespective of the actual gun regulations, it's absolutely nonsensical to protect it as a basic and absolute right equivalent to freedom of speech.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm one to believe that the Second Amendment is nonsensical in today's society. It says nothing about gun ownership. It establishes a right to bear arms that is subject to some (although not absolute) regulation. If you ignore the prefatory clause, as the Supreme Court has effectively done in Heller, there is no textual basis in the Constitution for any arms control laws whatsoever (let alone simple gun control measures). If the prefatory clause is ignored, I'd like to know what sort of measures would survive constitutional scrutiny (because it seems like the remainder is quite absolute in its guarantee).

So, do you think the Second Amendment is ridiculous or do you think it doesn't apply to personal gun ownership? It sounds like you're simultaneously claiming that it's nonsensical and trying to interpret it in a "sensical" way.

Anyway, the Second Amendment does explicitly reference ownership:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[politicallefty]

So, do you think the Second Amendment is ridiculous or do you think it doesn't apply to personal gun ownership? It sounds like you're simultaneously claiming that it's nonsensical and trying to interpret it in a "sensical" way.

Anyway, the Second Amendment does explicitly reference ownership:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe it is nonsensical to have such an amendment altogether in the context of a modern democratic society. However, that viewpoint is a minority. I accept that it is part of the Constitution and should be recognized as such.

Reading the entire text of the amendment, I do accept that there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. However, I also do not ignore the text that states that such a right be well-regulated. The Second Amendment says nothing about guns; it only mentions arms. If the right is absolute, there can be no governmental regulation. Acceptance of the prefatory clause allows for some regulation. I'd like to know the constitutional basis through which one ignores that clause, yet allows for regulations (or even banning) of certain types of arms.

[Rockefeller GOP]

My views of the Second Amendment stem from a sensible fear and useful paranoia: I'm ready for the zombie apocalypse.

[Modernity has failed us]

What's up with letting documents older than dirt dictate policy-making? Can't we govern in the century we live in?

[Rockefeller GOP]

What's up with letting documents older than dirt dictate policy-making? Can't we govern in the century we live in?

Slippery slope there.  The far left does, however, know what's best for everyone else, so we should just do everything they want.  Don't let a pesky Constitution spelling out our basic rights get in the way.

[Modernity has failed us]

What's up with letting documents older than dirt dictate policy-making? Can't we govern in the century we live in?

Slippery slope there.  The far left does, however, know what's best for everyone else, so we should just do everything they want.  Don't let a pesky Constitution spelling out our basic rights get in the way.

Or, you know, we could stop violating the Constitution by setting bail above $20. Because that just shows how appropriate it is to allow that document to dictate policy.

[Rockefeller GOP]

What's up with letting documents older than dirt dictate policy-making? Can't we govern in the century we live in?

Slippery slope there.  The far left does, however, know what's best for everyone else, so we should just do everything they want.  Don't let a pesky Constitution spelling out our basic rights get in the way.

Or, you know, we could stop violating the Constitution by setting bail above $20. Because that just shows how appropriate it is to allow that document to dictate policy.

The Bill of Rights is a bit different.  They were clearly designed to be relevant in any time period.

[Deus Naturae]

What's up with letting documents older than dirt dictate policy-making? Can't we govern in the century we live in?

Slippery slope there.  The far left does, however, know what's best for everyone else, so we should just do everything they want.  Don't let a pesky Constitution spelling out our basic rights get in the way.

Or, you know, we could stop violating the Constitution by setting bail above $20. Because that just shows how appropriate it is to allow that document to dictate policy.

So...you think there should or shouldn't be excessive bail? You can't simultaneously say they we should stop following the Constitution and then complain when you think it's being violated...

[Modernity has failed us]

So...you think there should or shouldn't be excessive bail? You can't simultaneously say they we should stop following the Constitution and then complain when you think it's being violated...

I was using an example as to why the document is outdated. It's fine and dandy to have things like free speech, freedom of press/assembly, etc but clearly the 2nd, 7th and the 10th amendment among others are so ambiguous as to what they actually mean that we've tasked our judiciary with interpreting what they mean. Shouldn't we have a document that we can just you know...ask the framers what they meant by something? Obviously Congress shouldn't be tasked with writing a new Constitution, they'd never finish it, but perhaps maybe a conference of world leaders could meet and create a new document, and if others countries choose to adopt the same one, then so be it. That way we could move away from "this country's level of freedom is clearly not on par with the rest of the world's, but there's nothing we could do about it" or at least have a standard for which perhaps just the first world should be operated. You know, for example, not seeing denial of health coverage to citizens based on pre-existing conditions like it was/is done in America.

Rambled a little on this one, so forgive me.

[Deus Naturae]

So...you think there should or shouldn't be excessive bail? You can't simultaneously say they we should stop following the Constitution and then complain when you think it's being violated...

I was using an example as to why the document is outdated. It's fine and dandy to have things like free speech, freedom of press/assembly, etc but clearly the 2nd, 7th and the 10th amendment among others are so ambiguous as to what they actually mean that we've tasked our judiciary with interpreting what they mean. Shouldn't we have a document that we can just you know...ask the framers what they meant by something? Obviously Congress shouldn't be tasked with writing a new Constitution, they'd never finish it, but perhaps maybe a conference of world leaders could meet and create a new document, and if others countries choose to adopt the same one, then so be it. That way we could move away from "this country's level of freedom is clearly not on par with the rest of the world's, but there's nothing we could do about it" or at least have a standard for which perhaps just the first world should be operated. You know, for example, not seeing denial of health coverage to citizens based on pre-existing conditions like it was/is done in America.

Rambled a little on this one, so forgive me.

How is the Tenth Amendment ambiguous? Regardless, if you want to alter the Constitution, there's an amendment process. It may not be the easiest process in the world, but if you want to prevent things you like (free speech, assembly, etc) from being easily amended out of existence, the trade-off is that it's also going to be hard to amend out stuff you don't like.

[Modernity has failed us]

How is it not ambiguous? It's just the "powers not delegated to the fed gov't" that could be anything that's not explicitly delegated. Or it could be certain things. Gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. were not issues in the 18th century. So maybe the founders wanted the federal government to regulate drugs, but we can't be sure. That's very ambiguous.

I don't want to amend it. If I were to amend it, it would be a skeleton. It's fine to have now, because as I said, there's not a legitimate alternative as it stands, but I oppose a governing document from 200+ years ago dictating public policy in the 21st century.

[Deus Naturae]

How is it not ambiguous? It's just the "powers not delegated to the fed gov't" that could be anything that's not explicitly delegated. Or it could be certain things. Gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. were not issues in the 18th century. So maybe the founders wanted the federal government to regulate drugs, but we can't be sure. That's very ambiguous.

The powers delegated to the Federal government are listed in Article I, Section 8, which is where the ambiguity lies. Your beef should be with Article I, Section 8, not Amendment X.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why though? Why does being old make it inherently bad? If you think there are parts that are outdated, your goal should be to amend, not simply replace. If you set the precedent that the Constitution can just be suspended and replaced with a new one because people don't like a few parts of it, be prepared for a time of future crisis when politicians can claim that your constitution is "outdated" because it can't deal with the current problem, ignore whatever amendment process your ideal constitution has, and just replace it with an authoritarian one with no protections for freedom of speech etc and cite your previous replacement to defend the legitimacy of their actions.

[AggregateDemand]

I want to discuss this topic again. But this time I don`t mean the prohibition of the right to bear arms. No, it is our right, prescribed in the Constitution. We are willing and able to defend ourselves. And that's good. But there is another side to the coin.
I believe that for self-defense at home is enough for me to have a hunting rifle or a simple pistol. I do not need to buy an automatic and a large and strong gun to scare away a thief or show someone that I can protect my home. Yes, it is enough to have simple rifle at home. And that's what I am talking about. Only crazies buying automatic guns and powerful guns on the pretext of self-defense

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about bearing arms for individual self-defense. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because collective security relies upon a well-regulated militia.

We have no more well-regulated militias, and gun-owners rarely give a damn about collective security. The 2nd Amendment is dead. We're just arguing about how it's spirit should be honored.

[Modernity has failed us]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about bearing arms for individual self-defense. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because collective security relies upon a well-regulated militia.

We have no more well-regulated militias, and gun-owners rarely give a damn about collective security. The 2nd Amendment is dead. We're just arguing about how it's spirit should be honored.

Wow, great post.

[Mechaman]

I think society is a very scary place if people need guns to feel free.

However, recent events in Ferguson, Missouri have reinforced my view that with a militarized jackboot police state with armored APCs, tanks, humvees, RPGs, tactical battle armor, and fInksing planes in the skies to check if people are going five miles over in the middle of Buttfuck, Nevada that before we can seriously entertain disarming the people we should talk about disarming the fascists who enforce the law first.  Through whatever means possible.

[TNF]

Automatic weapons should absolutely be legal for personal ownership. And the murder of unarmed young men in Ferguson by the scabs in blue proves it. Disarm the pigs, arm the people. That's the only way forward here.