2nd Amendment Poll

[Cat_72]

I thought that this discussion was supposed to be about the meaning of the Second Amendment, not about our personal views on firearms regulations.

I was simply trying to express why I agreed with the maintaining of the "right to bear arms" and what I believed was one of the bogus reasons that people were trying to change it....and I guess the difference in what guns were looked upon back when the second amendment first came about, and how they are looked upon today. It's something I feel very strongly about, I just don't state it very well.

Forgive me, I'll refrain from posting on these "intellectual" threads since apparently I've no idea how to do it correctly.

 

[Lucille]

Forgive me, I'll refrain from posting on these "intellectual" threads since apparently I've no idea how to do it correctly.

I had the same thoughts. Or maybe, the 1st Amendment was pushed aside, on the way to the 2nd.

Seriously, these discussions meander from time to time as we express thoughts and ideas.

 

[Jim O]

Forgive me, I'll refrain from posting on these "intellectual" threads since apparently I've no idea how to do it correctly.

Cathy,

Forgive me for any implication that you post was less than valid or intellectual. You did a fine job expressing your views, with which I agree 100%. My point is that gun safety and whether we should have the right to "bear arms" has nothing to do with the the meaning of the Second Amendment. The reason for the poll is the question being taken up before the Supreme Court, which is whether under the Second Amendment, as quoted above, do individuals do have the right to bear arms without restriction, or was it meant to refer to state militias and similar organizations?

Or maybe, the 1st Amendment was pushed aside, on the way to the 2nd.

Lucille, are you really studying law? Did you take and pass a Constitutional Law class? Where has the First Amendment been pushed aside? Do I need to explain to you, of all people that the First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws which prohibit free speech (among other things)? Is some government agency involved in this discussion that I don't know about? How does it apply to this discussion?


For the record, this is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Lucille]

Cathy,

Forgive me for any implication that you post was less than valid or intellectual. You did a fine job expressing your views, with which I agree 100%. My point is that gun safety and whether we should have the right to "bear arms" has nothing to do with the the meaning of the Second Amendment. The reason for the poll is the question being taken up before the Supreme Court, which is whether under the Second Amendment, as quoted above, do individuals do have the right to bear arms without restriction, or was it meant to refer to state militias and similar organizations?




Lucille, are you really studying law? Did you take and pass a Constitutional Law class? Where has the First Amendment been pushed aside? Do I need to explain to you, of all people that the First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws which prohibit free speech (among other things)? Is some government agency involved in this discussion that I don't know about? How does it apply to this discussion?


For the record, this is the First Amendment:

Jim,

What on earth is wrong with you? Did you not get my drift that you were acting like some sort of government paper pusher by trying to direct what we could talk about here?
What got into you, that you would try to direct us in that manner? We have always had some leeway here to expand our discussions, why would you try to restrict them?

 

[The BoidSmith]

The reason for the poll is the question being taken up before the Supreme Court, which is whether under the Second Amendment, as quoted above, do individuals do have the right to bear arms without restriction, or was it meant to refer to state militias and similar organizations?

In my opinion is the second one. But by the form it was written it can be interpreted either way; thus the problem with the current interpretation. The question is again, should we interpret the letter with the intent it was written 200+ years ago? Should we assume nothing has changed since then?

Regards.

 

[Jim O]

Jim,

What on earth is wrong with you? Did you not get my drift that you were acting like some sort of government paper pusher by trying to direct what we could talk about here?
What got into you, that you would try to direct us in that manner?

Nice try Lucille, but I don't buy your dodge. The question in the subject line of this thread was about what the Second Amendment means. Virtually no one has answered that question and I was simply reposting it. Opinions on what should be are interesting, but are generally emotional and have nothing to do with what the Amendment does mean.

 

[Lucille]

Nice try Lucille, but I don't buy your dodge. The question in the subject line of this thread was about what the Second Amendment means. Virtually no one has answered that question and I was simply reposting it. Opinions on what should be are interesting, but are generally emotional and have nothing to do with what the Amendment does mean.

While I agree with you that we haven't written much yet to the point here, I also think that there is value in opinion. More can come out of the thread, than the debate.

 

[Jim O]

...by the form it was written it can be interpreted either way;

More or less just what I said in my first post in the thread.

It's easy to debate either side of the question, even for a "strict constructionist".

Thanks for your honest opinion Dan. While I believe in an armed citizenry, I am by no means convinced that the Congress and the States had individuals' gun possession rights in mind when the Second Amendment passed. I have made a choice to live in a "shall issue" concealed carry permit state. Others choose to live in states where the government more tightly restricts handgun possession and carry. Interestingly enough though, despite the relative ease in obtaining a permit, in my city of roughly 450,000 only about 12,000 have concealed carry permits. Of course in my state no permit is required to have a handgun in your home or business, and open carry is legal.

In the 1980's New York and Boston had extremely high homicide rates despite extremely strict gun control laws. As a physician practicing in the Boston City Hospital in the middle part of that decade I can tell you that gun shot wounds, often fatal ones, were a huge problem. So the guns were getting there despite the laws. The bigger problems were gangs, crack cocaine, and teenage unemployment. When those started being addressed, gun violence went down without further gun laws.