2nd Amendment Poll

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickqu.../popup5895.htm

Pretty interesting. Out of over 76,000 votes, 98 percent are agreeing YES! to the poll question: Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

And probably very few can disagree with the results of the poll. A more poignant question would probably be what was the intent behind the written word back in the late 700's. Should we interpret it similarly in 2008?

Regards.

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith

And probably very few can disagree with the results of the poll. A more poignant question would probably be what was the intent behind the written word back in the late 700's. Should we interpret it similarly in 2008?

Regards.

Good question. There are those, even on the Supreme Court who are strict constructionists and think that the amendments should be viewed as they were written; and others who believe that they are living documents to be seen through modern eyes.
In any case, it says something of note, that such a high percentage of people voted in the manner they did.

There are those, even on the Supreme Court who are strict constructionists and think that the amendments should be viewed as they were written; and others who believe that they are living documents to be seen through modern eyes.

From my perspective I'm more aligned with the second group thought process. Today's context is completely different. Who would have dreamt in the 1700's of the craziness we are living almost daily today. The key would be how to respect the original intent and regulate without infringing individual liberties.

Regards

Originally Posted by lucille

Good question. There are those, even on the Supreme Court who are strict constructionists and think that the amendments should be viewed as they were written; and others who believe that they are living documents to be seen through modern eyes.
In any case, it says something of note, that such a high percentage of people voted in the manner they did.

But have most of those people actually read the amendment, as passed by the states.

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.

Most people remember the last part, that is "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and forget the first part about "A well regulated militia". It's easy to debate either side of the question, even for a "strict constructionist". Myself, I am armed with a handgun virtually all of the time. However, I am not clear that the intent of Congress and the states when they passed that amendment meant that concealed weapons, assault weapons, and nuclear missiles were OK to possess and with which to arm oneself. As such, this ought to be a reserved, or state's rights issue, for each of the 50 sovereign states to decide for itself.

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith

And probably very few can disagree with the results of the poll. A more poignant question would probably be what was the intent behind the written word back in the late 700's. Should we interpret it similarly in 2008?

Regards.

What a slippery slope that would be! If the second amendment could be so treated, then so as well should all the others.

Allowing the government to get foot loose and fancy free with creative interpretations of the document that was created in order to keep the government in check is probably not a real smart idea............

Originally Posted by Jim O

However, I am not clear that the intent of Congress and the states when they passed that amendment meant that concealed weapons, assault weapons, and nuclear missiles were OK to possess and with which to arm oneself. As such, this ought to be a reserved, or state's rights issue, for each of the 50 sovereign states to decide for itself.

The problem I have encountered with each state deciding for itself is the reciprocal issue. I had a concealed carry permit for Arizona and the three nearest states (California, Utah and New Mexico) do not recognize my permit. I let my permit lapse, but have been thinking of renewing it. Fortunately Arizona allows for visual carry just about everywhere. (Schools, bars, some public buildings excluded) I'd like to see a consistent policy nationwide. John

It's sad that I'm so uniformed about the issue that a comic served as greatly education for me, but oh well. It made me see the issue in ways that I hadn't before. Some interesting points:

"The Right to Own a Bazooka"

Originally Posted by tarantulakeeper

The problem I have encountered with each state deciding for itself is the reciprocal issue. I had a concealed carry permit for Arizona and the three nearest states (California, Utah and New Mexico) do not recognize my permit. John

To be accurate, I found an updated listing of states that shows Utah and New Mexico "recognize Arizona without written reprocity." John

There's not a need to leave room for interpretation, as that is always a double edged sword. But one thing's for certain though, we need to find a solution to this increasing problem. Right now we are all just waiting to hear in the news where and who's next. Will I be the target while doing Christmas shopping in the mall? Or maybe one of my children while they walk in between classes at school? But as the saying goes our freedoms end where the rights of the other person begin. Don't we have the right to feel safe anymore?

Best regards,