imported post
What is the future of the 2nd Amendment[/b]?[/b] The 2nd Amendment is among the articles and amendments to the Constitution that were not immediately ‘incorporated’ into the Bill of Rights imposed on the States by the 14[suP]th[/suP] Amendment. This means that until now the 2nd Amendment has not protected people from State actions that interfere with their right to bear arms.
However, the Supreme Court now seems poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court is to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
[/b]
The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution:[/b] “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.”
Relevant Definitions:[/b]
Infringe:[/b] To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing (example): an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
Encroach:[/b] verb intrude, invade, trespass, infringe, usurp, impinge, trench, overstep, make inroads, impose yourself (example): He doesn't like people to encroach on his territory.
Arms:[/b] A weapon, especially a firearm (examples): troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
Regulated: - controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law (examples): "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature"
Unregulated:[/b] - not regulated; not subject to rule or discipline (example): "unregulated off-shore fishing"
[url]http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/[/url]
[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/[/url]
The question I wish to discuss here is what limits, if any, the Supreme Court should place on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and why? I was a principle in three different threads that were among the most popular ones on this site that have now been ‘closed’ (and rightly so – they’d run their course).
I believe that this site should permit real debate and discussion of these issues that are of paramount importance to every American. Y’all should not simply be ‘preaching to the converted’. One has the impression that most contributors to this site, including it’s leaders and founders are threatened by real discussion and debate.
A great many American’s are appalled by the idea that it might some day be commonplace for their fellow citizens to openly carry firearms on their person, on the streets, on the public transportation, in the schools, movie theaters, bars, restaurants, shopping malls, and etc. A great many Americans, including myself find this prospect simply appalling. The fact that Starbucks allows people into their café’s with loaded firearms openly displayed on their persons, not just the police and Sheriffs deputies, but ordinary citizens, is a laughingstock to the segment of the population to which I refer (and represent).
Herein I would hope to make the case against this new development in modern society. Herein I would also hope to hear a convincing case in favor of it. Thus far I have not heard said convincing casein the other threads that were closed down. If you can convince me, I can convince my friends and political cohorts, or try to.
Here’s why I oppose it: A gun is an instrument designed and intended to kill people. I’ve heard it said that automobiles are more dangerous, and statistically speaking they are, but automobiles are not specifically designed to kill people, guns are. Guns are dangerous. Cigarette lighters are also dangerous. They can explode or burn fingers. But guns are more dangerous than cigarette lighters, much more. If you make a mistake with a gun you can kill yourself or someone you love (or someone you hate, or don't even know, for that matter). A person walking around in public with a loaded gun is a potentially very dangerous person. If he or she is in police uniform one feels that the danger is mitigated somewhat, but the power and charisma of such a person quells the average person just the same. I was recently frog marched out of a movie theater for causing a disturbance (allegedly with a 2 inch Swiss Army knife), by armed police officers and I nearly wet my pants from the excitement and danger of it all. I was impressed to say the least. I don’t want to feel like that around my ordinary fellow citizens and I don’t think most other people do either.
The reason I included the various definitions above was to make the point that the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment, regardless of its history in the development of our nation and the intent of the founders and framers of the Constitution, is somewhat ambiguous in the context of the 21[suP]st[/suP] century. The first 14 words in the Amendment (the first half) seem to suggest that you need to be a member of an organized militia to keep and bear arms. If not that, then the keeping and bearing of arms, should at least be ‘well regulated’, i.e. limited by law. Otherwise, the entire first half of the 2d Amendment is extraneous language that means nothing at all, and should be eliminated in order to eliminate the resulting confusion in its meaning and intent. The second 14 words should constitute the entire Amendment. But most people would object if we tried to amend the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment to eliminate the first 14 words just to make it clearer, because it would also ‘harden’ it too much. As it stands it is just soft enough with just enough wiggle room (i.e. ‘well regulated’, justified by the need for a people’s militia’s, etc.) that the right to keep and bear arms is sustained in our society (unlike in England, for example, where keeping and bearing arms is less acceptable).
But it is also obvious that there must be some limitations. The definition of ‘Arms’ includes ICBM’s, bombs, rocket launchers, and nuclear arms. Individuals are not, and should not, be allowed to keep and bear those. So where do we draw the line? The founders and framers could not conceive of the advances in modern weaponry that have occurred since their day. What would they have put in the Constitution regarding keeping and bearing arms if they could have forseen what the technology has since produced?
What is the future of the 2nd Amendment[/b]?[/b] The 2nd Amendment is among the articles and amendments to the Constitution that were not immediately ‘incorporated’ into the Bill of Rights imposed on the States by the 14[suP]th[/suP] Amendment. This means that until now the 2nd Amendment has not protected people from State actions that interfere with their right to bear arms.
However, the Supreme Court now seems poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court is to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
[/b]
The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution:[/b] “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.”
Relevant Definitions:[/b]
Infringe:[/b] To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing (example): an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
Encroach:[/b] verb intrude, invade, trespass, infringe, usurp, impinge, trench, overstep, make inroads, impose yourself (example): He doesn't like people to encroach on his territory.
Arms:[/b] A weapon, especially a firearm (examples): troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
Regulated: - controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law (examples): "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature"
Unregulated:[/b] - not regulated; not subject to rule or discipline (example): "unregulated off-shore fishing"
[url]http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/[/url]
[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/[/url]
The question I wish to discuss here is what limits, if any, the Supreme Court should place on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and why? I was a principle in three different threads that were among the most popular ones on this site that have now been ‘closed’ (and rightly so – they’d run their course).
I believe that this site should permit real debate and discussion of these issues that are of paramount importance to every American. Y’all should not simply be ‘preaching to the converted’. One has the impression that most contributors to this site, including it’s leaders and founders are threatened by real discussion and debate.
A great many American’s are appalled by the idea that it might some day be commonplace for their fellow citizens to openly carry firearms on their person, on the streets, on the public transportation, in the schools, movie theaters, bars, restaurants, shopping malls, and etc. A great many Americans, including myself find this prospect simply appalling. The fact that Starbucks allows people into their café’s with loaded firearms openly displayed on their persons, not just the police and Sheriffs deputies, but ordinary citizens, is a laughingstock to the segment of the population to which I refer (and represent).
Herein I would hope to make the case against this new development in modern society. Herein I would also hope to hear a convincing case in favor of it. Thus far I have not heard said convincing casein the other threads that were closed down. If you can convince me, I can convince my friends and political cohorts, or try to.
Here’s why I oppose it: A gun is an instrument designed and intended to kill people. I’ve heard it said that automobiles are more dangerous, and statistically speaking they are, but automobiles are not specifically designed to kill people, guns are. Guns are dangerous. Cigarette lighters are also dangerous. They can explode or burn fingers. But guns are more dangerous than cigarette lighters, much more. If you make a mistake with a gun you can kill yourself or someone you love (or someone you hate, or don't even know, for that matter). A person walking around in public with a loaded gun is a potentially very dangerous person. If he or she is in police uniform one feels that the danger is mitigated somewhat, but the power and charisma of such a person quells the average person just the same. I was recently frog marched out of a movie theater for causing a disturbance (allegedly with a 2 inch Swiss Army knife), by armed police officers and I nearly wet my pants from the excitement and danger of it all. I was impressed to say the least. I don’t want to feel like that around my ordinary fellow citizens and I don’t think most other people do either.
The reason I included the various definitions above was to make the point that the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment, regardless of its history in the development of our nation and the intent of the founders and framers of the Constitution, is somewhat ambiguous in the context of the 21[suP]st[/suP] century. The first 14 words in the Amendment (the first half) seem to suggest that you need to be a member of an organized militia to keep and bear arms. If not that, then the keeping and bearing of arms, should at least be ‘well regulated’, i.e. limited by law. Otherwise, the entire first half of the 2d Amendment is extraneous language that means nothing at all, and should be eliminated in order to eliminate the resulting confusion in its meaning and intent. The second 14 words should constitute the entire Amendment. But most people would object if we tried to amend the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment to eliminate the first 14 words just to make it clearer, because it would also ‘harden’ it too much. As it stands it is just soft enough with just enough wiggle room (i.e. ‘well regulated’, justified by the need for a people’s militia’s, etc.) that the right to keep and bear arms is sustained in our society (unlike in England, for example, where keeping and bearing arms is less acceptable).
But it is also obvious that there must be some limitations. The definition of ‘Arms’ includes ICBM’s, bombs, rocket launchers, and nuclear arms. Individuals are not, and should not, be allowed to keep and bear those. So where do we draw the line? The founders and framers could not conceive of the advances in modern weaponry that have occurred since their day. What would they have put in the Constitution regarding keeping and bearing arms if they could have forseen what the technology has since produced?
We do, however, get tired of rehashing the same arguments over and over only to be met with replies that are based in ignorance and emotion instead of law and logic.
