Discussion: The Second Amendment

[jaguarr]

Are you referring to a safety course required to simply own a gun, or for a permit to carry? I know here in GA, a course is required for neither, whereas in VA, you can own a gun, but a safety course is required for a concealed-carry permit.

I'm all for a waiting period on guns as well as a safety course as a requirement for a concealed-carry permit. Not sure about a safety course simply to possess a gun in your home.

Certain states require first time gun purchasers to take a safety course. Period. Connecticut does, I think Maryland does, Washington state has been thinking it over. It's different from a concealed-carry permit where all states do require that the licensee complete a course to have that license (to my knowledge). Most states have hunter education courses that are required for someone to get a hunting license, too. I know I did several hunter/gun safety courses when I was a kid and first starting to go hunting with my dad.

jag

 

[Tron5000]

Certain states require first time gun purchasers to take a safety course. Period. Connecticut does, I think Maryland does, Washington state has been thinking it over. It's different from a concealed-carry permit where all states do require that the licensee complete a course to have that license (to my knowledge). Most states have hunter education courses that are required for someone to get a hunting license, too. I know I did several hunter/gun safety courses when I was a kid and first starting to go hunting with my dad.

jag

No course required in GA to carry a concealed weapon. My roommate received his in the mail about 2 weeks ago. Just had to go down to the courthouse, fill out the appropriate paperwork, and get fingerprinted. Couple months later, the license shows up in the mail.

 

[jaguarr]

No course required in GA to carry a concealed weapon. My roommate received his in the mail about 2 weeks ago. Just had to go down to the courthouse, fill out the appropriate paperwork, and get fingerprinted. Couple months later, the license shows up in the mail.

Hmmm.....interesting. Most states require some sort of course-work to get a concealed weapons permit. That's pretty frightening, actually.

jag

 

[Tron5000]

Hmmm.....interesting. Most states require some sort of course-work to get a concealed weapons permit. That's pretty frightening, actually.

jag

I think GA is of the mindset that you must show that you should not be trusted to carry a concealed weapon, rather than the other way around. Obviously, people with violent crimes in their past will certainly be denied their permit. But, barring that, if you're a GA citizen with no history of violent crime, the GA state government doesn't feel the need to impede your ability to carry a firearm.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I don't believe the constitution gives us a right to own guns.

How could it possibly be any more clear than it is?

Amendment II : "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Matt]

How could it possibly be any more clear than it is?

Amendment II : "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I believe the debate comes from the sentence before that which you (accidently I'm sure) left out.

The full text reads:

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.

The basic argument is, that the amendment is giving the right to a state run militia. Not the individual. I personally find that logic faulty as no other right in the Bill of Rights grants rights to the state or a government body, but never-the-less, that is the argument.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I believe the debate comes from the sentence before that which you (accidently I'm sure) left out.

The full text reads:



The basic argument is, that the amendment is giving the right to a state run militia. Not the individual. I personally find that logic faulty as no other right in the Bill of Rights grants rights to the state or a government body, but never-the-less, that is the argument.

1) It's not a "sentence" as you say it is. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"...

That's not a sentence.
It's like saying "Since Orange is the grooviest color of all, All citizens must wear orange sweaters every day."

It's explaining the rule.
The rule would not be "Orange is the grooviest color of all."
The rules there^ are...

"All citizens have to wear orange sweaters every day."

or, in the case of the real Constitution,

"The right of people (not members of a militia, no technical, legal definition of "militia", just PEOPLE) to own them shall not be infringed."

The militia argument would be valid if it said ANYTHING about who qualifies as a member of a government-sanctioned "militia".
"Militia" is just thrown in to EXPLAIN why,...PEOPLE get to have firearms.

The real statement is: "People get to own firearms."

 

[jaguarr]

The basic argument is, that the amendment is giving the right to a state run militia. Not the individual. I personally find that logic faulty as no other right in the Bill of Rights grants rights to the state or a government body, but never-the-less, that is the argument.

Actually, it's not talking about a state run militia, either. It's talking about the security of a FREE state. As in, the militia is necessary, and should be armed, in order to ensure a free state. That doesn't necessarily mean that the state government is involved in that. Don't forget that the founding fathers were very concerned about governmental bodies encroaching on the rights of the individual and that individuals should be readily armed to defend their freedom, even if that meant deposing the government through force.

jag

 

[Matt]

1) It's not a "sentence" as you say it is. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"...

That's not a sentence.
It's like saying "Since Orange is the grooviest color of all, All citizens must wear orange sweaters every day."

It's explaining the rule.
The rule would not be "Orange is the grooviest color of all."
The rules there^ are...

"All citizens have to wear orange sweaters every day."

or, in the case of the real Constitution,

"The right of people (not members of a militia, no technical, legal definition of "militia", just PEOPLE) to own them shall not be infringed."

The militia argument would be valid if it said ANYTHING about who qualifies as a member of a government-sanctioned "militia".
"Militia" is just thrown in to EXPLAIN why,...PEOPLE get to have firearms.

The real statement is: "People get to own firearms."

I'm sorry Wilhelm, I was unaware that you were there when the Constitution was drafted and therefore must know exactly what the Framers thought process was. The fact is, whether you will admit it or not (and you undoubtedly will not) there is wiggle room in there and the argument can be made. I'm not saying I agree with it...but being as no one who is alive was present, there is no way to know the intent of that statement. Therefore it can be debated.

 

[SuBe]

Actually, it's not talking about a state run militia, either. It's talking about the security of a FREE state. As in, the militia is necessary, and should be armed, in order to ensure a free state. That doesn't necessarily mean that the state government is involved in that. Don't forget that the founding fathers were very concerned about governmental bodies encroaching on the rights of the individual and that individuals should be readily armed to defend their freedom, even if that meant deposing the government through force.

jag

Makes you wonder why there are groups in the Goverment trying to make you think you don't have that right to begin with, huh? Did you know that in Elementary School Text Books, it teaches that the 2nd Amendment is the Goverment Allowing people to have Guns so they can hunt? Ludicrious

 

[Matt]

Actually, it's not talking about a state run militia, either. It's talking about the security of a FREE state. As in, the militia is necessary, and should be armed, in order to ensure a free state. That doesn't necessarily mean that the state government is involved in that. Don't forget that the founding fathers were very concerned about governmental bodies encroaching on the rights of the individual and that individuals should be readily armed to defend their freedom, even if that meant deposing the government through force.

jag

I tend to agree. I am simply clarifiying how the argument CAN be made. I would be very suprised, in fact, if the Framers gave the government decided to add in one right of the state in a document whose sole purpose is to restrict the power of government and give it to the people.

 

[Matt]

Makes you wonder why there are groups in the Goverment trying to make you think you don't have that right to begin with, huh? Did you know that in Elementary School Text Books, it teaches that the 2nd Amendment is the Goverment Allowing people to have Guns so they can hunt? Ludicrious

And we wonder why America's education system is in such dire condition.

 

[Excel]

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, Excel. My condolences to their friends and family (for those that are left behind are the ones that truly suffer). But if they didn't shoot themselves, they'd have drank poison. If they didn't do that, they'd cut their wrists lengthwise and lay in a tub of hot water. If they didn't do that, they'd jump off a tall building. If they didn't do that, they'd throw themselves in front of a fast moving bus or train. People who really want to kill themselves (or someone else) are going to find a way to do it. Period.

jag

Yup. He was a former nieghbor of mine and was good friend with my younger brother. He was a month away from graduating high school. Popular kid, partier...depression just sucks.

However, I am not not toally sure he fits that bill. He had got arrested a month ago for drugs but had just gotten into the college he wanted to go to appearently but got caught having a party. It is thought that he was very drunk when he did it. I cant help but think it wouldnt have happened had he not had a weapon.

 

[StorminNorman]

I believe the debate comes from the sentence before that which you (accidently I'm sure) left out.

The full text reads:



The basic argument is, that the amendment is giving the right to a state run militia. Not the individual. I personally find that logic faulty as no other right in the Bill of Rights grants rights to the state or a government body, but never-the-less, that is the argument.

Thomas Jefferson believed: ""Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

It is not a stretch to believe this was the intent of the Second Amendment as well.

 

[jaguarr]

Yup. He was a former nieghbor of mine and was good friend with my younger brother. He was a month away from graduating high school. Popular kid, partier...depression just sucks.

However, I am not not toally sure he fits that bill. He had got arrested a month ago for drugs but had just gotten into the college he wanted to go to appearently but got caught having a party. It is thought that he was very drunk when he did it. I cant help but think it wouldnt have happened had he not had a weapon.

Depression, mixed with drugs and alcohol particularly, is a very bad combination. But drunk people walk off tall buildings or slit their wrists and die all the time. The gun wasn't the problem for your friend. Again, sorry for your loss, man.

jag

 

[Matt]

Thomas Jefferson believed: ""Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

It is not a stretch to believe this was the intent of the Second Amendment as well.

I love Jefferson quotes. :heart:

Still, if we really wanted to debate gun control, Jefferson is not really that good of a source of argument as he lived in a time when guns took a minute and a half to load a single shot into.

The Framers could've never anticipated the creation of automatic weapons or even semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, I'm not really sure if their opinions on the matter is that relevant.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'm sorry Wilhelm, I was unaware that you were there when the Constitution was drafted and therefore must know exactly what the Framers thought process was. The fact is, whether you will admit it or not (and you undoubtedly will not) there is wiggle room in there and the argument can be made. I'm not saying I agree with it...but being as no one who is alive was present, there is no way to know the intent of that statement. Therefore it can be debated.

Dude, it's like diagramming a sentence.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," - is not a statement by itself.
It could easily go on to say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State is a thilly notion."

Th^t's a little clause, included to justify/explain, the real statement, the real, core sentence, that does make a statment on it's own:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is why I didn't include the begining, because whoever it was said that he didn't believe the Constitution gave people the right to keep and bear arms, and...you can not get more plain:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The beginning is not a rule. It's an explanation of the thought process that led to the rule. It's perfectly obvious.
It literally LEADS IN, to the rule.


If I left a note that said "As electrocution is dangerous, painful, costly and possibly deadly, no family members shall play with plugged in toasters while taking a bath."....you couldn't say, "Well, we're not supposed to play with toasters because electrocution is bad, so, as long as I don't get electrocuted, I'll play with a toaster in the bath, carefully!"

That is a violation of the rule..."no family members shall play with plugged in toasters while taking a bath.".
The reason behind the rule does not change the stated rule.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lol, a great illustration of how people can find a way to believe anything they want to believe, even when it's clearly wrong.

 

[jaguarr]

The Framers could've never anticipated the creation of automatic weapons or even semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, I'm not really sure if their opinions on the matter is that relevant.

They did live in a time when the government largely had more powerful forces than the general populace, though, and that hasn't changed at all. In fact, I'd say the divide between the military might of the general population and the government is much, much greater than it was back then. I'm willing to bet that guys like Jefferson would be aghast at that fact and how it's been abused in the past.

jag

 

[Excel]

The gun wasn't the problem for your friend.

jag

I know, this **** just dont make any sense

 

[Matt]

Dude, it's like diagramming a sentence.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," - is not a statement by itself.
It could easily go on to say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State is a thilly notion."

Th^t's a little clause, included to justify/explain, the real statement, the real, core sentence, that does make a statment on it's own:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is why I didn't include the begining, because whoever it was said that he didn't believe the Constitution gave people the right to keep and bear arms, and...you can not get more plain:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The beginning is not a rule. It's an explanation of the thought process that led to the rule. It's perfectly obvious.
It literally LEADS IN, to the rule.


If I left a note that said "As electrocution is dangerous, painful, costly and possibly deadly, no family members shall play with plugged in toasters while taking a bath."....you couldn't say, "Well, we're not supposed to play with toasters because electrocution is bad, so, as long as I don't get electrocuted, I'll play with a toaster in the bath, carefully!"

That is a violation of the rule..."no family members shall play with plugged in toasters while taking a bath.".
The reason behind the rule does not change the stated rule.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lol, a great illustration of how people can find a way to believe anything they want to believe, even when it's clearly wrong.

*yawn* Are you done yet? Again Wilhelm, the sentence is at best questionable. The argument can be made. I do not see why you have so much trouble accepting that someone might read something differently than you do (okay, actually I can see why YOU would have so much trouble with that notion...but I digress).

 

[jaguarr]

I know, this **** just dont make any sense

Suicide absolutely never makes sense to anyone but the person who finds a way to rationalize killing themselves and that's ALWAYS got Bizarro Logic as it's base.

jag

 

[StorminNorman]

I love Jefferson quotes. :heart:

Still, if we really wanted to debate gun control, Jefferson is not really that good of a source of argument as he lived in a time when guns took a minute and a half to load a single shot into.

The Framers could've never anticipated the creation of automatic weapons or even semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, I'm not really sure if their opinions on the matter is that relevant.

But if the argument is about the intent of the Founding Fathers, as anyone who brings up the point of Militia is - which is the only credible argument one could make really, then the thoughts of Founding Father Jefferson could not be a better source of argument.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I love Jefferson quotes. :heart:

Still, if we really wanted to debate gun control, Jefferson is not really that good of a source of argument as he lived in a time when guns took a minute and a half to load a single shot into.

The Framers could've never anticipated the creation of automatic weapons or even semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, I'm not really sure if their opinions on the matter is that relevant.

Yeah, I don't even have any huge allegiance to the idea of letting people own guns.
I'm just saying, the constitution clearly says that it's a right of the people to own them (Why? because an armed militia is necessary), so people shouldn't waste their time about arguing whether or not the Constitution grants us that right, but rather, should be arguing about whether that AMENDMENT should be updated or removed.

 

[Matt]

They did live in a time when the government largely had more powerful forces than the general populace, though, and that hasn't changed at all. In fact, I'd say the divide between the military might of the general population and the government is much, much greater than it was back then. I'm willing to bet that guys like Jefferson would be aghast at that fact and how it's been abused in the past.

jag

I'd agree with that entirely. It is sad that most Americans probably believe that the government gives them their rights, not the other way around. But that is what our country has become.

It doesn't change the fact that technologies and times have changed. When the Framers lived there was not a drug dealer armed with an uzi on every corner of a major city. There was not guns that could fire 18 bullets a second accessible to 15 year old children in gangs. Times have changed, the Constitution should be able to change with them. I'm not saying to ban guns. I am simply saying some level of control is not a bad thing.

 

[Matt]

But if the argument is about the intent of the Founding Fathers, as anyone who brings up the point of Militia is - which is the only credible argument one could make really, then the thoughts of Founding Father Jefferson could not be a better source of argument.

Well, that is definitely true enough. Never the less, I can see where the argument comes from, even if I do not agree with it.