Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[dnno1]

People died, and you're complaining about it ruining your vacation? Wow.

One person died, and it still ruined my vacation. I have every right to complain. I missed a football game, and forfeited a night in a hotel room not to mention being sequestered in a holding pen with thousands of other passengers for 8 hours with only water and peanuts to eat. On top of that I had to walk from the Airport to the nearest train station just to get home. Almost $1000 spent and I got nothing all because some nut decided he wanted to use Second Amendment remedies on the TSA.

 

[Victarion]

Sometimes I like to say things aloud when I'm alone before I voice them. "Second Amendment remedies" isn't the phrase you're looking for.

 

[redhawk23]

Sometimes I like to say things aloud when I'm alone before I voice them. "Second Amendment remedies" isn't the phrase you're looking for.

What, is the term only the purview of GOP senate candidates and their news letters?

 

[redhawk23]

Whenever shooting like this happens there's a lot of people that throw out that most of these shootings happen in "gun free" zones but never at NRA conventions and gun shows. The thing is can anyone point to an example of a shooting at a ComiCon or any other trade show? Personally, despite the concentration of people, weekend long events that require a ticket to enter are hardly comparable to airports, schools and malls.

 

[wiegeabo]

The only incident I can think of during SDCC was a stabbing

 

[hippie_hunter]

Whenever shooting like this happens there's a lot of people that throw out that most of these shootings happen in "gun free" zones but never at NRA conventions and gun shows. The thing is can anyone point to an example of a shooting at a ComiCon or any other trade show? Personally, despite the concentration of people, weekend long events that require a ticket to enter are hardly comparable to airports, schools and malls.

While I see bringing a gun to most locations to be utterly inappropriate, gun free zones have the unfortunate side effect of being an open invitation for a crazed shooter looking to create some havoc.

And it is comparable, it doesn't have anything to do with the concentration of people. Notice how there isn't a lot of shootings at places like malls compared to say schools or other places that are declared gun free zones. That's because even though I'm 100% confident that if you were caught with a gun at a mall, you'd be in some serious trouble, places that don't advertise that they're gun free zones, still have that uncertainty that you might end up getting shot back at. Places that announce that they're gun free on the other hand, create a sense of security for the shooter until police forces arrive.

What I'm basically saying is, it's probably best for most public places to not allow guns. But at the same time, just don't openly advertize it. Shooters want guaranteed havoc and the possibility of facing early retaliation is a good way to keep them away.

 

[dnno1]

Sometimes I like to say things aloud when I'm alone before I voice them. "Second Amendment remedies" isn't the phrase you're looking for.

Oh, yes it is. That's what that kook Sharon Angle said, and there are several folks who share the same philosophy -- especially the guy who did the shooting at LAX this past Friday.

 

[hippie_hunter]

One person died, and it still ruined my vacation. I have every right to complain. I missed a football game, and forfeited a night in a hotel room not to mention being sequestered in a holding pen with thousands of other passengers for 8 hours with only water and peanuts to eat. On top of that I had to walk from the Airport to the nearest train station just to get home. Almost $1000 spent and I got nothing all because some nut decided he wanted to use Second Amendment remedies on the TSA.

Just wow.

 

[Victarion]

What, is the term only the purview of GOP senate candidates and their news letters?

It's the purview of hotheads. I'll leave it up to you to decide where it's appropriate.

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...intimidate-4-unarmed-women-moms-demand-action

40 Armed Members of 'Open Carry Texas' Try to Intimidate 4 Unarmed Women of 'Moms Demand Action'

Four members of the Dallas chapter of the pro-gun control group Moms Demand Action were meeting inside the Blue Mesa Grill on Saturday when 40 members of the anti-gun control group Open Carry Texas arrived outside the restaurant armed.

Moms Demand Action posted a picture (right) of the Open Carry Texas members on its Facebook page and wrote:

WHAT ARE THESE MEN DOING? No, they're not military defending our country or police responding to a mass shooting. They're members of Open Carry Texas and they showed up earlier today to protest a membership meeting being held by four members of Moms Demand Action inside a restaurant in Dallas. These men, armed with semi-automatic rifles, terrified customers and passersby.

A spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action told ThinkProgress.org that the Open Carry Texas folks pulled “up in the parking lot and start[ed] getting guns out of their trunks.”

How nice trying to use bully tactics to intimidate 4 moms

 

[dnno1]

George Zimmerman Charged With Assault After Fight With Girlfriend
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/george-zimmerman-assault_n_4299328.html

The charge was domestic aggravated assault. According to the Violence Against Women Act, he has to give up his firearms for 10 years because of that. Oh, well.

 

[dnno1]

Philadelphia Is The First U.S. City To Ban 3D-Printed Guns
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/3d-gun-philadelphia_n_4344733.html

 

[Joshua_B]

My basic stance on the Second Amendment is that we should make it harder for mentally unstable people and convicted criminals to own firearms, but that's it. The Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; you don't get much clearer than that.

 

[SV Fan]

My basic stance on the Second Amendment is that we should make it harder for mentally unstable people and convicted criminals to own firearms, but that's it. The Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; you don't get much clearer than that.

Not really. Does the Constitution say where you can handle guns? Now one city/state could make a law that nobody has the right to carry a gun within city limits unless it's in a sealed case, with the exception of your own home property. I am guessing the gun right people would cry foul, but nothing within that law goes against the second amendment.

Personally I think the main problem with a stricter laws side is they should be fighting at a city level not a federal level for tougher laws.

 

[hippie_hunter]

My basic stance on the Second Amendment is that we should make it harder for mentally unstable people and convicted criminals to own firearms, but that's it. The Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; you don't get much clearer than that.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say "This right is not subject to regulation." As much as I disapprove of most gun control proposals, you cannot act as if most gun regulations are violations of the Second Amendment. The government has every right to regulate what kinds of firearms a citizen may or may not own as long as the right to bear arms is still intact. You have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't guarantee you the right to own an assault rifle or a 3D printed gun or an RPG and so on.

This is no different than the government regulating the extent of free speech, religious freedom, Habeas corpus, property rights, etc.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Not really. Does the Constitution say where you can handle guns?

Actually, that's kind of the implication of the Second Amendment. You have the right to handle guns but as long as they're within acceptable boundaries. Just like how free speech has boundaries (like how a person just can't yell fire or leak national secrets) or property rights have boundaries (through eminent domain).

Now one city/state could make a law that nobody has the right to carry a gun within city limits unless it's in a sealed case, with the exception of your own home property. I am guessing the gun right people would cry foul, but nothing within that law goes against the second amendment.

Actually, I think that kind of law would be rather iffy in the courts.

Personally I think the main problem with a stricter laws side is they should be fighting at a city level not a federal level for tougher laws.

Cities have tried that and it's been nothing but a complete and miserable failure. Look at the areas with the highest level of gun-related crimes and it often is the cities with the strictest gun laws like Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.

Cities are hampered by uncooperative state and federal governments in order to pass meaningful gun legislation. New Orleans is the best example of this in which the city tried to confiscate guns in times of emergency, but the very pro-gun state government isn't going to let them get away with it.

 

[Anubis]

Chicago's biggest problem with illegal guns is Indiana giving guns away with little to no regulation. Guy crosses the border, buys a load of guns, come back, gives em out to their crew, instant dead people.....and you can't really stop it.

Starting next year we will have concealed carry, and quite frankly, that's just a shootout waiting to happen.

 

[enterthemadness]

Not very Libertarian of me, but all these guns violent acts making the news every day/week...I'm not gonna lie, I don't like guns...but people have a right to own a gun(s)....but I am getting to the point where I'm starting to not care if strict gun regulation gets passed. And I don't mean just strict, like England no ****ing guns strict. I'm just tired of always reading about ****.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Not very Libertarian of me, but all these guns violent acts making the news every day/week...I'm not gonna lie, I don't like guns...but people have a right to own a gun(s)....but I am getting to the point where I'm starting to not care if strict gun regulation gets passed. And I don't mean just strict, like England no ****ing guns strict. I'm just tired of always reading about ****.

Which major gun crime has you up in arms now? There hasn't been any I've read or saw in the news so I think you may be overreacting a bit. I don't see why you'd restrict the rights of so many law-abiding citizens over the acts of a few that'd never pass background checks to begin with.

 

[wiegeabo]

And the fact that most gun crime is committed by criminals who illegally obtain guns anyway.

I'm all for keeping guns away from those who are mentally unfit to have them. But if we put a concentrated effort against the illegal guns, we'd reduce the demand for legal guns by citizens who are afraid and want them for self-defense.

Which means there will be fewer guns on the streets and fewer guns being bought by people who will not get training, maintain them properly, or store them away safely. Therefore there will be fewer accidental shootings, and few shootings with stolen guns, as well as the drop in general gun crime.

 

[enterthemadness]

Which major gun crime has you up in arms now? There hasn't been any I've read or saw in the news so I think you may be overreacting a bit. I don't see why you'd restrict the rights of so many law-abiding citizens over the acts of a few that'd never pass background checks to begin with.

Just seems once or twice a week Yahoo and or MSN report on school shootings and what not it seems.

I'm not a Congressmen, I'm not in Gov't, so I wouldn't really have a say about banning guns. But personally, I dunno if I would care much if guns got restricted or banned.

 

[dnno1]

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say "This right is not subject to regulation." As much as I disapprove of most gun control proposals, you cannot act as if most gun regulations are violations of the Second Amendment. The government has every right to regulate what kinds of firearms a citizen may or may not own as long as the right to bear arms is still intact. You have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't guarantee you the right to own an assault rifle or a 3D printed gun or an RPG and so on.

This is no different than the government regulating the extent of free speech, religious freedom, Habeas corpus, property rights, etc.

Actually, in support of your argument, the Second Amendment starts off saying "A well regulated militia being necessary...", so it is implied that there is regulation on arms.

A simple way to look at rights is that they are inalienable as long as it doesn't violate another person's rights. Sure people can keep a firearm in his home to protect themselves and their property, but outside of that it has to be regulated. You certainly can't take that same weapon and use it on innocent people, nor can you use it to rob a place of business, or even still to brandish as to threaten another person. There has to be rules that have the force of law behind them in order to control those acts and that is why there is regulations.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Actually, in support of your argument, the Second Amendment starts off saying "A well regulated militia being necessary...", so it is implied that there is regulation on arms.

Actually, there is a different meaning behind that line. It's not that there is an implication that the Constitution allows a regulation of arms, but more along the lines of the defense policy of the United States at that time.

Back when the Constitution was ratified, the United States really didn't have the money to maintain a large army at all times, nor was there the desire to do so. So in times of national emergency like the War of 1812, the Civil War, etc. The federal government would call up the militias, which consisted of regular people, not professional soldiers. And instead of supplying them with arms, which would cost a lot money, the regular people would just bring their own guns. It's also the reason why Congress passed a law requiring every able bodied man to purchase a firearm.

Frankly, people who use the whole "well regulated militia" phrase in the Second Amendment as a reason to implement gun regulations, whether it be about the outdated concept of militias or what you just brought up, are people who drink the Kool-Aid and don't know what they're talking about. The basis for gun regulations comes from the very simple fact that every freedom that is guaranteed to us, comes with reasonable legal restrictions.

A simple way to look at rights is that they are inalienable as long as it doesn't violate another person's rights. Sure people can keep a firearm in his home to protect themselves and their property, but outside of that it has to be regulated. You certainly can't take that same weapon and use it on innocent people, nor can you use it to rob a place of business, or even still to brandish as to threaten another person. There has to be rules that have the force of law behind them in order to control those acts and that is why there is regulations.

See, right there is perfect. You should just leave it at that one. Not the reason you just provided above.

 

[Joshua_B]

A simple way to look at rights is that they are inalienable as long as it doesn't violate another person's rights.

It depends on what issues you're addressing at a specific time. The Constitution says rights are inherently granted by humanity's Creator, not any form of government. The job of legal officials is solely to support and defend those rights, not arbitrarily granting or restricting.

 

[Feenix]

It depends on what issues you're addressing at a specific time. The Constitution says rights are inherently granted by humanity's Creator, not any form of government. The job of legal officials is solely to support and defend those rights, not arbitrarily granting or restricting.

As already said, as long as your rights don't infringe upon anyone else's, then it works. But, there's so much grey area. Your right to own a gun should never infringe upon my right to live. There are clearly problems when that does happen. You just simplified an overly complicated situation. It doesn't work that way.

PS. Legal officials then shouldn't restrict anyone from marrying the person of their choosing (as long as they are of legal age). So restricting gay marriage would be unconstitutional according to your statement. However, given your posting history, I would say you are entirely for restricting certain people's rights because their beliefs don't match up with yours. Funny how that works