2nd amendment

[smccarter]

The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms.

Having said that... and making an official statement that I support the 2nd amendment - as it is written. Americans do have the right to own firearms, but the "well regulated" statement in the amendment should come to bear at some point. You have the right to own a firearm, but the government (us) has the right to regulate that ownership. Whether it be the type(s) of weapon, the number of weapons, the type of ammunition, whatever... or the determination as to whether you are responsible enough to own a weapon - which is a HUGE responsibility. We need to get some sense about this issue. It IS a constitutional right.. no doubt about it. But... and it's a very big but... it NEEDS to be regulated.

As an example... the neighbor to my right is a weapons expert in the Navy. He is well trained and at one point was a trainer. Anyone with that background should be allowed to own an assault rifle, or any other weapon he's been checked out on. The neighbor to my left is a radical, angry, ill-tempered redneck with very little sense about him. I'm not sure if I'd agree that he needs to be allowed to own an assault rifle or any other type of gun.

The point is... The constitution may guarantee our right to own a gun, but it also states that WE THE PEOPLE have the right to protect ourselves against idiots by demanding regulations be imposed to prohibit stupidity.

[Recursion]

1. Even Scalia agrees with you

Heller and McDonald make it very clear that Congress and the states have significant leeway in regulating the sale and bearing of firearms; the only thing that is at this point Constitutionally forbidden is an outright ban like DC and Chicago tried.

[Jarhead1775]

2. Agree to a point.....

As a Marine and at one point a PMI (primary marksman instructor), and expert in pistol, rifle etc I would agree.

The point I would disagree is I was also a machine gunner and a SAW gunner... Would I love to have one if I could afford one? Dang shooting!

There is a limit. I agree with a limit. I think with many we disagree because of the 'look' or past use of the weapon. No, I shouldn't have a SAW or MG.....

Just me. I get flamed as a troll for this one area I am passionate about in this forum that isn't conforming to the ideals of a democrat. I am really thinking of abandoning the forum since there isn't allowance of discussion or disagreement without an educated conversation. The name calling and paranoia is getting old.

[Recursion]

6. I don't miss carrying the M240G

Semper fi! I never made it to PMI but I was a line coach on the Island for a bit.

[nick of time]

9. I sure as hell don't miss carrying this.

This is what I carried in VN.
M-79 Grenade Launcher, we called it a "Bloop Gun".

[Jarhead1775]

17. Wow

I didn't realize the m203 didn't come out until later in the years of VN. I had to look that one up.

Did you have to carry the LAW or TOW? We fired them in SOI, but really never saw them again.

Thank you for your service.

[nick of time]

19. No.

I carried the Bloop in 67.

[Jarhead1775]

16. Semper Fi brother

Thank you for your service.

[JDPriestly]

3. The problem is that while the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms

and clearly did not use language about "a well=regulated militia" without reason, whether a person has a background that qualifies him or her to own an assault rifle or whether he is "a radical, angry, ill-tempered redneck with very little sense" would have to be decided by some objective measure and not just an impression or personal judgment of the person.

So, while your ideas are good, smccarter, there is a problem. What is the objective means for deciding who will handle a gun well.

And do we really need guns in our society outside of organized militia and military and police organizations? What would our society be like if we did not have the 2nd Amendment?

And if we keep the 2nd Amendment, how do we protect ourselves against Americans who want to kill us and our children and parents with guns?

How do we balance our right to live safely in our communities with others' rights to keep and bear arms?

[smccarter]

5. Responsible is a nice word...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/responsible
answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management

To own a gun is a HUGE responsibility. I read a post a few days ago about a man in Georgia shooting and killing anther man. Evidently, man 2 was turning his car around in man 1's drive way. This is an example of the exact opposite of responsible.

I also read a post about a man, while exercising his right to "keep and bear arms", took a holstered handgun into a privately owned establishment and shot himself in the leg. Another perfect example of the exact opposite of responsible. Not to mention the implication of what else might have gone wrong in that situation - who else might have been injured or killed by "accident". Is it really an accident when the event was caused by the actions of an irresponsible person in the first place?

This list of examples could go on and on for days. We can argue this issue, or we can all agree that to do nothing about the current state of this issue would be nothing short of criminal.

The question really shouldn't be "who determines whether a person is responsible?". By the very definition of the word responsible, each individual needs to be held accountable to the fact that they feel responsible enough to own a firearm.

If a person wants to own a gun, they should have no qualms about first gaining a little bit of insight about what it means to be a responsible gun owner. State colleges, tech schools, etc... could teach free classes to any potential gun owner on the subject. Topics would need to include how to safely handle, store, and clean a weapon (I took a hunters education course when I was in my teens - taught me quite a bit). A thorough background check is an absolute must. There is no argument worth discussing otherwise. As part of the agreement to be responsible, the potential owner should be required to be checked out on the particular weapon they are purchasing. Local gun ranges could be certified to train individuals how to use the weapon correctly and safely. In addition, any person believing that they are responsible should have no reason not to add a rider to their home owners insurance policy covering any incident involving the firearms that they've purchased.

The other side of all of this would be the penalty for improper use of a weapon. If a gun owner is convicted of a felony, that person already loses their 2nd amendment right. I'd take it quite a bit further than that... not only felons, but would include regulations with very stiff penalties for improper use or handling of firearms. 1st offence $5,000 fine, 2nd offence $100,000 fine and the forfeiture of all weapons, 3rd offence - since the party wasn't supposed to have a weapon after the 2nd offence - prison time.

It's not that guns are necessarily bad. Guns are bad in the hands of irresponsible people. We live in a country where we have the right to own these weapons. It's wonderful to live in such a free society, but freedom is an awesome responsibility in and of itself. We need to stop arguing, accept the fact that Americans have the right to own firearms, and start acting like we understand what freedom actually means.

I state again that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms. It also guarantees that all individuals have the right to protect themselves from irresponsible gun owners. It's a 2 way street.

I am a very responsible person. I discovered early in my adult life that I was an extremely responsive person. I am very quick to react to any situation. I sum things up very rapidly and respond to any situation with extreme efficiency. The problem with being that type of person, and being a gun owner, was that eventually I was going to make a mistake and shoot someone. I realized that as a responsible gun owner, the only solution to this was to sell all of my guns - which I did. I am not a gun owner, but I am an American. The constitution isn't just a piece of paper. The rights and freedoms that it guarantees each of us needs to be defended. And don't misinterpret that. I'm not saying that we need to arm ourselves to the teeth and start shooting people. The defence needs to be intelligent. It can be handled very democratically through discussion, debate, and legislation.

The American gun culture needs to change. By providing information/training and setting rules (regulations) that are easily enforceable, the decision making process will change. Educating people on the meaning of the word "responsible" will start the process. In a nut shell, Americans need to calm down, take a step back, and take a very good look at what we've become. Then start moving on this issue responsibly.

[Recursion]

7. I think it's also important to remember that these are two separate questions

And do we really need guns in our society outside of organized militia and military and police organizations?

is not the same question as

What would our society be like if we did not have the 2nd Amendment?

Repealing the 2nd Amendment, and even legislatively banning all firearms, is a far cry from actually making them disappear.

[smccarter]

12. Ah yes... the perfection argument.

In a perfect world, we could all do anything we want, have everything we desire, experience no harm or inconvenience, and cause no one else any harm or inconvenience.

We don't live in a perfect world. Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't the answer for more reasons than the one you stated.

We need to realize that the 2nd amendment will never be repealed. We also need to realize that there will always be criminals and idiot gun owners. That's the base.... There will always be guns, and there will always be bad and idiotic people.

It's not the gun, it's the people.... it's the culture we live in. Change the gun culture with education and regulation.

[Recursion]

13. No, the "drug bans have created more problems than they solve" argument

And you can't just snap your fingers and wish that away.

[Robert_PA]

4. Regulation is Needed

I think every "right" we have is subject to much regulation.

Freedom of the press--there wasn't TV or internet or radio when they wrote the Constitution. It only applied to print news.

Right to Vote---keeping equality in the equation--only property owners or people with sufficient wealth for taxation

Search and Seizure--Unreasonable is such a broad term. If the government believes someone to be breaking any law..I think it's reasonable.

Due process--what's so wrong with having dangerous people off the street while the courts figure out a case?

I could go on but I think you understand. Our government is here to protect us and regulation helps protect us.

[MineralMan]

8. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of the government to

regulate firearms. Many times. And there's your answer. Both local and national government can regulate firearms, and they should. Each state has different regulations, and some cities have their own regulations. In addition, the federal government has regulations.

It is through those regulations that we can control firearms. Lobby your legislators for what you want.

[hack89]

10. So states can relax gun regulation if the voters want to?

the normal way civil liberties are addressed in America is that the Supreme Court establishes a minimum standard that states cannot violate but states are perfectly free to use a more expansive definition ie they can grant greater freedoms. That is why individual states cannot ban abortion. It the future it is how they will not be able to ban gay marriage.

[MineralMan]

11. The states are bound to federal laws.

However, each state has, for example, different rules about concealed carry and things like that. Often, their restrictions are also more extensive than the federal laws, too. In California, for example, there are no private sales at gun shows, since the state requires background checks for all firearms transfers. There are still private sales that go on between individuals, illegally, without the involvement of an FFL holder, but they are illegal.

Each state sets its own laws, but cannot set laws looser than federal requirements when there are such requirements. For example, the old federal assault weapons ban applied to all states. States could set stricter laws than the federal one, but not looser laws. In some states, assault weapons bans still are in force.

That's the nature of our government, where states still have broad powers.

[hack89]

15. Fortunately the federal government is limited in their ability

to regulate weapons so there are actually very few Federal regulations that states have to content with.

Look, for example, at the AWB. It takes advantage of the Federal government's ability to regulate commerce - hence the "ban" is actually a limit on manufacturing and sale. It does not actually make ownership of an "assault weapon" illegal nor is it retroactive.

The biggest limitation on Federal power is licensing and registration. Those powers are definitely state powers. One issue is that even if the federal government mandated registration state LEOs are not required to enforce federal law. That is one of the interesting things that came out of ligating the Brady Bill - states could not be forced to conduct federally mandated background checks (Printz v. United States).

[rustydog]

14. Damn, I really dislike the "cafeteria constitutional interpretations" of the Constitution

Arguina a position on a reader's digest version of a document that is the basis of our system of government and laws. To leave out a word that defines that sentence means you are at the cafeteria picking and choosing what words favors one's position, completely leaving out a word placed in the constitution by our “Founding Fathers”, that defines that one sentence. A word in the document you are referring to, just casually left out for convenience: A well regulated MILITIA!

Now, to be fair, the Supreme Court has rendered a decision that says I can have firearms, all the goddamn weapons I can afford or need to purchase until I feel "safe”. I totally disagree with the decision, but it is their decision and it stands until they reverse it.
They have to reverse it, not congress, not Obama. The Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional or not. So we have to live (and continue to die) at the hands of their corporate-sponsored decision.

The decision was, by the very standards set by Republican legislators, Fox News Commentators and ex-Fox News commentators the work of ACTIVIST JUDGES.
Until the Courts can return to decisions based on legal precedent instead of personal beliefs, bad decisions such as this will continue to divide the nation.

[bossy22]

18. I think you need to re-check a few things

First off, The heller and mcdonald decisions did not give anyone the right to "have any and as many type of weapons as they please". There decision was limited to allowing a handgun in the home for self defense. In fact, the court went out of its way to say the right can be regulated to some degree

Also, this case is far from divisive....in fact it is supported by 3/4 of americans (which is far higher than another controversial case called Roe V Wade. Roe v Wade has maintained about a 50% favorability)

Return based on what precedent? the Miller decision?- a decision that was 10 pages long (extremely short by normal standards), poorly drafted, and based on only one side (Miller never submitted any briefs nor did his legal team show up to the oral arguments- the governments side was the only one that was heard).

It seems by your interpretation here is a list of other "bad" decisions
Roe V Wade
Griswald V Conneticut
Lawrence V Texas

[smccarter]

24. A well regulated militia...

The militia that the 2nd amendment was referring to was the American population.

Consider that at the time, a military force was only needed if the country came under attack from a foreign, or domestic, threat. So... no standing army. The amendment was added to the constitution to provide a quick and ready made militia in the form of any American who owned a weapon and felt compelled to participate in our countries defence.

[Lurks Often]

20. Might want to look up what "well-regulated" meant in THAT

time and not use the modern definition:

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

[jmg257]

21. And don't forget to see who was doing all that regulating. That is right in the constitution...

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power...

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

[Lurks Often]

22. You'll have to take that up with the President

and the Supreme Court, both of whom have stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

[jmg257]

23. Regulating has little to do with them...Congress has the power, Pres is only CinC when called forth.

Of course Congress has also stated it is an individual right, so don't forget them.



SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protection of Lawful Commerce
in Arms Act’’...
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
protects the rights of individuals, including those who
are not members of a militia or engaged in military service
or training, to keep and bear arms.
...