2nd Amendment Poll

[WebSlave]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/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?

 

[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.

 

[Lucille]

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.

 

[The BoidSmith]

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

 

[Jim O]

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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............

 

[tarantulakeeper]

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

 

[Roy Munson]

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"

 

[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

 

[The BoidSmith]

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,

 

[Lucille]

I think that some interpretation might be needed to define what we are talking about when we are talking about arms; back in those days there were no nuclear weapons, tasers, I'm not sure if there were machine guns. When I think of my right to bear arms, I'm thinking of my handguns. I'm not thinking of mass destruction or dirty biological weapons or white phosphorus or machine guns.
What, exactly, is an 'arm' ?

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

I feel I have a right to bear arms... just not the right to shoot anyone with it.

 

[WebSlave]

If the second amendment is taken in context of the time period, it means that "people" were allowed to have ANY arms available at the time. Up to and including the most potent weaponry available to the government. This is logically consistent with the premise that the purpose of the second amendment was to allow the populace the ability to simply say NO to a government gone rogue.

Certainly I would not feel comfortable with one of my neighbors having a nuclear weapon to play with, but the truth of the matter is that the cost of my having MY freedom is that I allow him to have his. Once I start splitting hairs over what I want him to have, he can then split the hairs over what I can have. Which could be darn inconvenient at times. Especially if he doesn't like some things that I really do.

Naturally a rogue government would most certainly try it's best to eliminate that pesky second amendment any way it could, with truth not really being a requirement as long as the end justifies (in their eyes) the means. Certainly the current "death by 1,000 cuts" types of laws seem to be working pretty well. But there is a glimmer of hope that the populace is finally beginning to awaken to the fact that a basic freedom and right, although sometimes costly to have and hold, should be protected and defended, warts and all.

 

[The BoidSmith]

2 dead, 2 hurt in Colo. Christian dorm shooting
Police still searching for gunman when second attack occurs 70 miles away

When we are still trying to figure out the last week's Omaha shooting, now this. This guy probably though he had "the right" to bear arms; the only difference is that he used them to kill. Then we have to hear the comment "guns or bullets don't kill people"..."it's people who kill people"...Well, if that's a fact then we have to find a way to know in which hands those guns fall. Psychiatric evaluation before you are allowed to purchase a gun? Maybe. Even though, if a man looses his cool for a split second he can enter in a fist fight over nothing, or maybe he can shoot you dead if he is bearing a gun.

Regards.

 

[ravensgait]

I always love the comments about how things have changed since then !! it's not so different now just a lot more of us and a means to get the Word of what happened out to millions. People killed people for no real reason 200 years ago and 2000 years ago.

Dan I'm assuming that your close to my age IE 40ish, do you remember the after school fights?? you know I'll meet you across the road after school. These days that doesn't happen we don't want our kids settling their differences in such a barbaric manner so they steal a gun and pop the guy in the hall instead. Myself I'd rather see fist fly and for those that say well they should just talk it out!! that doesn't always work so I'd rather see my kid come home with a black eye instead of going to see them in morgue.

Your example of the Mall shooting , hey if someone really wants to do it they find a way and just think if he had used a bomb instead. Not hard to build a usable bomb you can find the details on many a web site and best of all you don't have to point it at someone to kill them.. It's a lot harder to point a gun at a person, to single out that one person and kill them than it is to strap a bomb to yourself and take whom ever was unlucky with you.

As for finding out WHO before letting them have a gun well they do try to weed out the obvious ones but there is no way to weed them all out. No test of any kind can do that ... I'm sure that some of these nut bags like the two you mentioned legally owned guns but there are just as many if not more that didn't legally own the gun or guns they used.

I'm sure you've heard the comment , when guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns. There are a number of these little Quotes and there is a surprising amount of good Common sense behind them if you really give them much thought..

When it comes down to it, it's about people and in this day and age we want to find something anything to blame other than to blame ourselves for our actions.. Randy

 

[WebSlave]

When I was in high school, it was not at all uncommon for some of my school mates to have rifles in their cars and trucks because they were going hunting after school or else went hunting before coming to school. No one thought a thing about it. Up till 1968, you could buy guns mail order, at Sears, and just about any hardware store. I remember buying ammunition at the local 7-11 store. If the problem was easy availability of guns, we would be extinct by now since guns were SO easy to get back then. Obviously that is not the case.

People have changed, not the tools they use. Quite frankly, anyone with basic tool handling capabilities can build a zip gun. So anyone thinking outlawing the commercial sale of guns to the public will end the problem is just being terminally naive.

 

[Cat_72]

Another one of the excuses I've seen used for all of these gun control laws that really irks me is accidental shootings involving children.....a child climbs up into Dad's closet, finds a weapon, and ends up shooting his playmate, not knowing any better. Then folks go on a rampage about how homes with children shouldn't have weapons because things like this are happening.

Does this happen solely because that parent owns a gun? NO. It is because that parent doesn't teach the child respect for the gun, instead either hides it away completely (loaded, usually) or simply tells the kid to never touch it. Well...what is a young child gonna do when he sees something "cool" like that, that he's not allowed to touch? That same thing any kid is going to do with anything "cool" that he's not allowed to touch....wait til mom and dad are gone, and then go touch it. A parent should also know better than to keep a LOADED weapon in a house with a child.

My kids were both taught respect for guns, gun safety, and how to shoot a gun from the time they were old enough to understand any of it. My son is now an avid hunter and sportsman, and while my daughter has no interest in hunting, she knows how to handle a gun safely if she should ever need to use one. My son has refused to hunt with a friend of his that did not handle his gun safely. Our guns are all still kept in a locked case, but even so, there is no big "temptation" (or however you want to word it) for them to play with the guns, because they are not "forbidden fruit".

People keep saying that getting rid of the guns is the answer to the problem.....I think teaching the kids respect and safety is.

 

[The BoidSmith]

Your example of the Mall shooting , hey if someone really wants to do it they find a way and just think if he had used a bomb instead. Not hard to build a usable bomb you can find the details on many a web site and best of all you don't have to point it at someone to kill them..

Very good point and those made by Rich also. There's one contextual difference with the 700's and today, communications. People do what they see others doing. They are brought up in a culture of violence which they see as absolutely normal. Computer and TV, too elements that could be among the most powerful to build a model society are used to degrade it instead.

And I agree, I'm naive if I think that controlling guns would reduce the problem, but, would controlling drugs reduce the problem? Probably not, as people who want them still find a way to buy them. Would restricting selling alcohol to minors solve the problem? No I don't think so either; teenagers get drunk all the time. They also smoke so let's allow everyone to buy a pack. So why trying to do something about it?

The root of the problem is how we teach society what's acceptable and what's not, what's cool and what's not. Look at the movies, sex is rated "R" (of course it's abnormal..."sarcasm"), you will not see many sex scenes during normal TV hours. Nevertheless the most horrendous crimes can be watched freely on TV all day long, "chan, chan"...there goes another episode...

Randy, thanks for the compliment about my age!

Regards.

 

[Lucille]

a basic freedom and right, although sometimes costly to have and hold, should be protected and defended, warts and all.

I agree with this. I still have to say, though, that I am still uncomfortable with the possibility of allowing free availability of items such as nuclear weapons, and biological weapons such as various plagues and anthrax.

 

[Jim O]

I thought that this discussion was supposed to be about the meaning of the Second Amendment, not about our personal views on firearms regulations. My view on what should be is "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.".

Consider the following "coincidences":

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  
• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
  
• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  
• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  
• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  
• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."
  
• Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Swiss men of military age are ALL required to own a military rifle yet Switzerland has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, lower even than the UK which has strict gun control (see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita).

The problem, as H. Rap Brown put it so many years ago, may be that "violence is as American as cherry pie".

Still, none of this addresses what the Second Amendment means.