2nd Ammendment Rights: Should Guns Be Banned?

[Johca_Gaorl]

When the clause in the constitution about guns was put in, it also meant that guns and there restriction then came under the control of not only the state but the federal government.

Um, I don't see that anywhere, it was meant to list a right that the people had, not a power of the govt.

Gun laws on who can own a gun try to keep guns out of the hands of those who have commited violent crimes before this point. You cant say that the government has a say on some parts of the constitution but not on others.

Those who have commited crimes before is a different argument all together, they have given up their rights by committing the crime. I didn't say the govt has a say on some parts but not on others, I'm saying that the 2nd amendment does not list a power of the federal gov't and no where in the Constitution does it even imply that the federal gov't has the right to regulate guns.

I'd love to talk more, but I gotta get ready for school.

[Bduggan04]

I think that there's an important fact no one has mentioned yet. Canada has roughly the same number of guns per capita as the US, but the number of gun related illnesses is in the range of 1/10th that of the US. Obviously, the mere possession of guns doesn't cause deaths. The main difference has to be in the people that own guns or in the environment they live in.

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by Bduggan04
I think that there's an important fact no one has mentioned yet. Canada has roughly the same number of guns per capita as the US, but the number of gun related illnesses is in the range of 1/10th that of the US. Obviously, the mere possession of guns doesn't cause deaths. The main difference has to be in the people that own guns or in the environment they live in.

Gun related illness? I think you were looking for crime. And I would agree, we are in a poor environment, the main problem with guns is that people do not train their kids (or maybe even themselves) in the proper use of guns. I for one have never even touched a gun I didn't know how to load, unload, fire, and use the safety on. It keeps everything safe. And the rule is: "never point a gun at something you do not intend to kill."

[A. Snodgrass]

The gun amendment is just that, an amendment to the constitution. This gives the right to the federal government to change amendments, an example of this in action being prohibition. I really dont believe that violent crime criminals should be considered a different issue because the laws and restrictions pertaining to them does not mean they have to have all their rights taken away because of their crime after they have served their sentence. Things like the mandatory wait period before buying a gun DO have reasons in them for why they exist. Its for the very basic reason to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, ie those who have committed a violent crime. They were created in order to allow this country to better enforce laws made which relate to criminals and their treatment.

"In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922
(1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ``Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States,
445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ``Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia''')."
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/s...ion/amdt2.html

This whole section and the case in question does not really give a full defining definition to what is impinging on rights and what isnt, but it provides a glimmer of illumination as to what possibly COULD be impinging on rights. The courts at this time have not really decided one way or another on what infringes the second amendment and what does not

Also in the original written constitution the amendment in question read as so:

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.

There is supposed to be no comma after Arms as well as none after militia. While this might seem to be a small point, it also changes the definition of the whole amendment in question. Also please note that the right to bear arms is also contingent with the fact that it has to be justifiable as for use in a militia.

As long as the ability to keep and bear arms is not infringed on, I dont believe that there is a conflict of interest in the regulation of getting guns. When arguing about whether guns should be regulated or not, please keep in mind the context of the clause provided.

Furthermore lets explore the definition of well regulated as it was defined at the time of the constitution.

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
-Brian T. Halonen http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

" "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)"
- Brian T. Halonen

Laws created that make guns which have been modified from their original use and therefore become dangerous for the user illegal are not against the constitution, as the gun would not be functioning as it would have originally been expected to.

You cant reasonably argue that all legislation on guns and the possession and ability to have them at the national level is against the second amendment. To do so is to take parts out of the amendment and not consider the whole as it would have been defined at the time it was written and ratified.

The amendment implies nothing about guns being justifiable for people who are not well trained and versed in their usage, as somebody who is untrained yet still owns a gun and is still able and LEGAL to use that gun, would not be able to well contribute to a well-regulated militia as it was originally meant.

Ive seen many many people who are against gun laws ignore the part of the second amendment which says that"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, " which implies that the whole amendment is about the topic of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA and everything thereafter pertains to that fact. If the weapon in question is not something that would fit that part of the constitution, there is nothing wrong with the banning of that weapon.

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by A. Snodgrass
Ive seen many many people who are against gun laws ignore the part of the second amendment which says that"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, " which implies that the whole amendment is about the topic of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA and everything thereafter pertains to that fact. If the weapon in question is not something that would fit that part of the constitution, there is nothing wrong with the banning of that weapon.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

This implies that it is to protect the states from tyranny of the federal gov't, b/c a militia would be state run. So in this day and age, could you fight against a tyrannical federal gov't which has assault rifles and rocket launchers with pistols and shotguns? I would think not. I'm sorry I didn't respond to all of your points, I really am not feeling too well right now, and don't have the patience to write out everything.

[Mike Rush]

When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.

George Washington

[Mike Rush]

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth.

George Washington

[Wetzel]

The gun amendment is just that, an amendment to the constitution. This gives the right to the federal government to change amendments, an example of this in action being prohibition.

Ashlee...This dosn't make sense to me.
The amendments to the Constitution carry the same weight as the rest of the constitution. To change an amendment requires another amendment. Article 5 of the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to change amendments, not the gun amendment.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It also doesn't matter how it was suppose to be written, what matters is how it was actually written and accepted.

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

Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~
I nitpick sometimes.
Accuracy is important.

[FotoPlasma]

Originally posted by A. Snodgrass
There is supposed to be no comma after Arms as well as none after militia. While this might seem to be a small point, it also changes the definition of the whole amendment in question. Also please note that the right to bear arms is also contingent with the fact that it has to be justifiable as for use in a militia.

This is an interesting point. In the past few minutes, I've looked at more than five different transcriptions of the Second Amendment, and only one of them had the wording (placement of the commas) the way you describe. This is the version I find most convincing, considering it's hosted by the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration. The wording you describe, Ashlee, does not make sense in proper English.

However, none of this changes the fact that the amendment in question implies the existence of a "well regulated Militia [sic]". I, for one, don't believe that there many "well regulated" militias, except for, perhaps, the National Guard.

I believe this amendment should be clarified and restated because of the fact that the time in which the concept of needing a "well regulated" militia for the protection of our homeland has passed.

[Joel Glidden]

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of firearms is the goal."
- Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, December 10th, 1993 [Associated Press]

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by FotoPlasma
I believe this amendment should be clarified and restated because of the fact that the time in which the concept of needing a "well regulated" militia for the protection of our homeland has passed.

So you trust people in Washington D.C. to protect you?

And anyways, the militia is not so much meant to protect the country but the states from the federal government. Read some more about your founding fathers and you'd see what they really thought.

[FotoPlasma]

Originally posted by Johca_Gaorl


So you trust people in Washington D.C. to protect you?

And anyways, the militia is not so much meant to protect the country but the states from the federal government. Read some more about your founding fathers and you'd see what they really thought.

I would much rather employ due process rather than a firearm. If the FBI (or another federal agency) were to raid your house, would you start shooting? Do you feel that any state in particular has been abused by the federal government?

[srawls]

I would much rather employ due process rather than a firearm.

True, as would most gun-owners. But, someone threatening your life sure doesn't want to employ due process, and then, a gun can be helpful for self-defense. Afterall, if a crimnal merely knows you have a gun, some confrontations can be avoided. I believe it was FDR who said "speak softly and carry a big stick."

Also, I believe you are missing the point. The second amendment gives us all a right to bear arms, and it gives us one reason (the well regulated militia) that we have that right. I for one don't believe that a well regulated militia is the ONLY reason we should have the right to bear arms, and I'm sure the framers didn't either. That being the case, just because you are of opinion that the justification clause (the well regulated millitia part) no longer holds, that is not a reason in and of itself to ban guns. I have yet to hear a logical reason why guns should not be allowed.

For now, I'll skip over the debate about wheater or not the second ammendment is an individual right or not, and even ignore the argument that the nullification of the justification clause should cause the nullification of the operative clause (the one that gives us the right to bear arms). Instead, I'll pose a question: Why do you believe guns should be banned? What reason can you give that would impel one to give up his liberty to bear arms?

Stephen

[Joe Matt]

Here's some info to chew on while you debate this topic: Bowling for Colombine. Michael Moore created this whilstle blower movie that won numerous awards about America's obsession with, well, guns.

NOTE: This movie is not indorsed by Chiefdephi.com, Chief Delphi, Team 384, or Joseph M, nor does all the topics discussed are believed by them. Thank you.

http://www.mgm.com/ua/bowlingforcolumbine/

Just something to chew on.

[srawls]

...
Just something to chew on

Well, I just looked at the flash intro, and it looked like a bunch of liberal propoganda. I don't see how ANY of the info in it relates to the topic at hand. Yes, it gives you a few statistics on the amount of gun homocides in America. So what? Have we reached the point where a few dubiosly presented statistics are reason enough to abondon our liberties?

I know you gave your disclaimer, but I'm having trouble finding how any of that information is relevant to the banning of guns.

Stephen