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. I was wondering if we could talk about this amendment without too much vitriol. I have heard drastically different interpretations of the amendment. Also, I have heard some discuss that this is a case of something being written in a time and age that could simply not understand of our current world, and that given our current world, this amendment would have never been written this way, if at all. Conversely, I have heard argued that it was the brilliance of the constitution for this amendment to have been written in such a way as to encompass any direction the future could lead, and that our forefathers would have considered this passage as prudent and salient today as it was in 1791. My personal beliefs are in between the two sides, one being no restrictions at all and the other being lets get guns banned. I personally think limiting certain types of guns, mostly ones that have already been banned like fully auto machine guns, and large mags is a reasonable place to start, and mostly I think registering guns is prudent, as we register our cars. But I would like to hear other peoples opinions, both about the 2nd amendment itself and about the issue of guns in America.
If the state has an undeniable interest in restricting certain kinds of arms, it can. It already dies. The state interest has to be proven to a very strong and strict standard. Disallowing nukes is a state interest. I don't see the state has any compelling interest to ban handguns, rifles, ammo, clips, etc.
So I'm not arguing yet, I need to think more on the subject, but, where are those lines? If nukes is a no brainer for disallowing, and a musket is a no brainer to be allowed, where is that line?
Something that would take out a city block. Something that would not be reasonable used for self defense. In the thread about the SUV running over the biker, I commented that you had the perfect example of when you need a 30 round clip.
But none of that has to do with the 2nd amendment. The second amendment has to do with a Militia, not self defense. It has to do with keeping your government in check, but to do that in todays day and age, the nukes is exactly what should be legal. The pistol and shotgun are going to be basically useless if that's what a militia is armed with. For the second amendment militia purposes, people should be able to get tanks and ammo for it, grenades, and other incendiary devices. I see nothing in the 2nd amendment about self defense.
It says in no uncertain terms, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The bit before it could say "elephants have polka dots" and it wouldn't change the meaning. The right to free speech shall not be infringed also, but the state gas a compelling interest in the case of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Or plotting to overthrow the government. Have a good look at Arab Spring. Guys with rifles and IEDs taking out governments with $billions in advanced weapons. We didn't do so hot in Vietnam or Afghanistan, I don't think we'd do so well in Ohio.
The A bomb is a weapon of mass destruction. Property and people. Indiscriminate of who or what you're really aiming for. Edit: we do allow people to have fireworks and even TNT.
It sounds, though, that you are ok with any weapon that kills everyone on a city block but leaves the buildings undamaged? Or are you saying the line is the indiscrimination? barfo
So you think the drafters of the 2nd amendment had verbal diarrhea and stuck those words about militias in there randomly? They intended for them to have the same meaning as 'elephants have polka dots'? barfo
It's both. The a bomb's sole purpose us military. I don't think anyone should kill another, but my wish isn't going to stop killing. Funny thing is, I don't know if it is against the law to own a nuke. Not many of us could afford one, and those who could run fabulous chili parlors and wouldn't think to own one. Rather, I think it's a pretty weak way to deflect the issue to one of, if you can't own a nuke, you shouldn't own a BB gun (you could put someone's eye out!).
Shall not be infringed doesn't require any particular reason. It doesn't say, "only those in the militia may own a gun."
Obviously you have no respect for those of us who recreationally set off bombs. Hard to see what that has to do with where to draw the line. My chili is da bomb. I strongly suspect it is against the law, not just to have a bomb but also to have some of the components, but I don't know the particulars either. If you want to have BB guns and not nukes, you have to draw the line somewhere in between the two. barfo
The process is pretty well defined. Govt. makes yet another egregious law. Govt. gets sued. The compelling interest standard is applied. The court rules against govt. Neat! Line drawn. I didn't draw it. Our republic did.
I love to ride the bike or at least I did. But after looking at the video of the New York incident, I think those guys were a brain short of a biker. A couple clips worth of them ought to have been left on the freeway as evidence.
