• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Where do we draw a line on 2A???

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
I have argued with people over the 2nd Amendment and what it means for a while. I believe that the people have the right to keep and bear arms openly, concealed, however they want. I also believe that the 2A means what it says when it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I think if you want to walk to your favorite sandwhich shop with an M16 on your back you have the right to.

But arguments have been brought up that are very valid when challenging my views. Where do we draw a line on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Hand guns and long guns are not mentioned in the constitution, just "arms," yet we feel this justifies our long gun and hand guns. Where do we draw the line? RPGs? AT4s? AIM-9 missiles? C4? Nuclear arms? Where is the line drawn on what arms we can keep and bear?

What about the age limits? Who are we to decide what age you can carry a gun. Surely a 15 year old can get held at gun point. Should they be able to carry a firearm for self defense? Some may say yes. But where is the line drawn? Surely you wouldn't give a 5 year old access to a handgun? Would you?

What do you guys believe the line is? And how do you all combat these arguments when used against your 2A?
 
Last edited:

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
The child stuff, is merely a parenting issue. Otherwise, 2A is more about adult citizens as I see it. A "child" or "teen" does not have the right to buy beer, cigs, etc, etc because they are not of adult age. (adult age is another discussion entirely, however for simplicity we'll stick with 18)

After becoming an adult, 2A fully applies to you, until you become a convicted criminal (gone through due process, stood in front of a judge, etc) and at that point have given up your freedom and therefore rights to 2A among others..

Shall not be infringed means exactly that. Other than the two examples of not yet being an adult with rights, or having them stripped by due process. Mental illnesses can fall under the due process as well. I know that comes up a lot, but really. When someone who is taking care of such a person or knows of a person that is mentally ill, say something or do something about it, so due process can happen and do its thing. Please for the love of whatever you believe in.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I have argued with people over the 2nd Amendment and what it means for a while. I believe that the people have the right to keep and bear arms openly, concealed, however they want. I also believe that the 2A means what it says when it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I think if you want to walk to your favorite sandwhich shop with an M16 on your back you have the right to.

But arguments have been brought up that are very valid when challenging my views. Where do we draw a line on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Hand guns and long guns are not mentioned in the constitution, just "arms," yet we feel this justifies our long gun and hand guns. Where do we draw the line? RPGs? AT4s? AIM-9 missiles? C4? Nuclear arms? Where is the line drawn on what arms we can keep and bear?

What about the age limits? Who are we to decide what age you can carry a gun. Surely a 15 year old can get held at gun point. Should they be able to carry a firearm for self defense? Some may say yes. But where is the line drawn? Surely you wouldn't give a 5 year old access to a handgun? Would you?

What do you guys believe the line is? And how do you all combat these arguments when used against your 2A?

I'd like an AIM-9, thank you. Sidewinders can come in handy.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Until the legal age of majority children are the responsibility of their parents (or should be anyway). What that age is, is determined by the state, by their laws. As to when to start a minor with firearms, that should be the decision of the parent.

As to the general adult population? Violent criminals that are serving time in prison should be restricted as they have shown no regard for the law or their fellow man. Other than that, there should be no restrictions to ownership or use of any weapon as long as that use does not endanger others.

If my neighbor wants a fully operational Abrams tank, and can afford it...I don't care, let him. If he were to destroy one of my buildings or damage my property with it...that I do care about.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If you read the history of the Right, which was not a new idea of the Framers, but was an old English idea, you find out that the kinds of arms to which the Right applied were the typical arms one needed for personal use (protection, hunting, and more) but could use in a pinch as his personal military weapon if called to defend his community or nation.

When the Right was first codified, that was swords and bows and arrows, not trebuchets. Today, the analog would include knives, handguns, rifles, shotguns, and similar personal weapons. It would not include nukes, artillery, crew-served weapons, bio or chem weapons, etc.

Furthermore, the Right is to own and to carry. While I think it is wise policy not to regulate concealment, concealment is not so linked to the right to carry as to be part and parcel of the Right. One can carry with or without concealing. One can conceal with or without carrying. Not being integral with ownership or carry, concealment is an independent act and a privilege (one that should be respected), but is not protected by the 2A.
 

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
I believe we should have anything we want as long as its used in a lawful manner.
Under Constitutional Law there has to be a damaged party for a crime to have been committed.
So as long as you don't Hurt anybody, Damage their property, or interfere with their rights your ok.
The law is supposed to punish law breakers not the law abiding.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561



--Moderator Comment w/edit--

To quote out of context so as to give an impression different from the original, is considered a violation of the rules.

Please be more careful in the future.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If you are going to quote me, please do so either in full or with the indication that you edited my words. I went to some trouble to explain the conclusion which you snipped without acknowledging that you did. Your action is dishonest.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
The line get's drawn only if they are allowed to draw it. Arms for personal protection ?

Machine guns ( Sub, Light, Medium or Heavy, including 20-25 mm cannons & Chain guns ) - Because you never know
Flame throwers - Because you never know
Light anti tank weapon - Because you never know
Anti Aircraft - You never know when one will appear out of the sky to strafe you on the ground
Mortars & Artillery - I am ok with people owning these :)

NBC ??????? I draw the line at NBC type weapons....
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...NBC ??????? I draw the line at NBC type weapons....

That is a recognition that there is indeed a line to draw. So why not look at the history of the Right to learn the context from which they drew the words, to learn where they thought the line was to be drawn?
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
That is a recognition that there is indeed a line to draw. So why not look at the history of the Right to learn the context from which they drew the words, to learn where they thought the line was to be drawn?

Nukes I can understand........ Bio & Chem weapons are a perverted abomination.
 

jayspapa

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
313
Location
South end of the state, Illinois, USA
The question was asked about the age when a young person could or should be allowed to carry. As most on this forum ( at least those 40 + ) , I was allowed to drive a 3,000 to 4,000 LB. vehicle , on roads in close proximity to other vehicles ( passing within 5 ft. of each other ) , at speeds up to 65 MPH.

How can anyone say carrying a gun is any more dangerous than that?

I was trekking out through the woods and fields by myself at 13 yrs. of age with a .22 rifle . I agree that the parents should do the deciding as to the young persons maturity.
 

Wolfgang1952

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
169
Location
Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
At the age of four I learned to drive a Ford 8n tractor and bail hay. Learned how to drive the old 57 Chevy at the age of five. At the age of five my dad gave me his 22 rifle that he got for his fifth birthday, and I still have it. Been tramping through the woods alone since the age of six with my 22 rifle and other guns.
When we would go to the field or where else on the farm I usually had a pistol strapped on my hip. Snakes or whatever.
My Dad started taking me hunting with him when I was only about 6 months old. Mon worked, Dad would be home from a job and wanted to go Duck hunting and didn’t want to get a babysitter so I went hem. I believe if we taught I children how to handle and use firearms at an earlier age the better we would be. Back in the old days when most of us lived in the country everyone knew how to use a gun.

007a1.jpg
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The fact that we are discussing at what age it would become reasonable to allow carry means that that line is a reasonable one to draw, making the question grist for the State legislative mill. The people, through their legislators, will set this standard. As long as an age is not picked that unreasonably restricts adults from carrying, then such a regulation would not be an infringement of the 2A.

Any law that does not restrict folks 21 or older from carrying would, IMO, pass muster under McDonald. Some States will choose a lower age. Even if the age chosen is so low as to be stupid, that would not be subject to Supreme Court review. Only ages set too high would be an infringement.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
There should be no line.

A tool using human has a natural right to be exactly that. We should not handicap ourselves because some of our race are too lazy or stupid to be tool using.

Should we all be stuck in wheelchairs just because some people are stuck with them? Oh wait, a wheelchair is a tool. It is used to give an ability to a person who would not otherwise have that ability. So the more accurate analogy is to say that we should all pretend to be paralyzed from the waist down and simultaneously refuse to ever use a wheelchair, just dragging our lower bodies around everywhere.

Guns give us an ability would would not otherwise have. Some humans will abuse that ability. Some will use it responsibly. If your society's most precious attributes are ignorance, fear, hate, and power over others.... Well, your society is going to be rife with those who abuse that tool. They're going to abuse every tool there is. Acting like a bunch of animals naturally involves lots and lots of violence. The tools misused are irrelevant if you don't solve the underlying issue of glorifying negative behaviors. But that would remove the path to power......

The dis-logic of 'drawing a line' on the 2A is flawed from every perspective. My son was a better shot at 8 years old than most cops. And he had (has) the sense to understand the responsibility of such a very simple concept.

You cannot teach common-sense. Those who lack it cannot use their void of knowledge as a position to argue from. The anti-gun argument is essentially "I do not understand and that is my reason for continuing to not understand. All arguments against my position are invalid because I do not understand." You will find this pattern in a great many things that are considered 'normal;' Ignorance as a foundation for a worldview.

Ignorance -> Fear -> Hate -> Political Power. Anything that leads to power is protected by those who want that power.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
What is an adult? Are you an adult at the magical age of 16? Is that magical age 17? 18? 19? 20? 21? 25? 30?
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
The fact that we are discussing at what age it would become reasonable to allow carry means that that line is a reasonable one to draw, making the question grist for the State legislative mill. The people, through their legislators, will set this standard. As long as an age is not picked that unreasonably restricts adults from carrying, then such a regulation would not be an infringement of the 2A.

Any law that does not restrict folks 21 or older from carrying would, IMO, pass muster under McDonald. Some States will choose a lower age. Even if the age chosen is so low as to be stupid, that would not be subject to Supreme Court review. Only ages set too high would be an infringement.
When I was young, the legal age to drive a conveyance on the highways of South Dakota was 12. They are more dangerous than firearms when you compare deaths per capita.

Until the 40's many states had a 12 year age limit or no limit at all. It was the same with firearms.

I started hunting at 12. Nearly everyone I grew up with has managed to not only stay on the right side of the Penitentiary walls but also didnot even get busted for drunk and disorderly or some such charge which in actuality only means you told the Police to do something that is anatomically impossible.

:cool:
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
My personal line is one long gun, one open sidearm, two concealed back-up guns, an OC knife, and at least one pocket knife. I would consider an RPG to be rudely excessive and any sort of NBC weapon to be right out. I'm not saying this is what I carry every day, but it is the absolute most I would ever go out in public wearing.

But that's my line. The thing is, the only one who should be allowed to decide my line is me. That's what the 2nd amendment is all about to me. Placing in my hands the authority do decide what I may own and carry.
 
Top