Stop Treating the Second Amendment as a Second-Class Right | Opinion

[Lennie]

MSN

www.msn.com

Read More

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It should be simple :

If you want to own firearms....then do so.
If you don't want to own firearms...then don't.
Just don't make that choice for others.

It has been said that one should not judge a whole group , by the actions of a few individuals within that group.
When this judging is done to a race* it is considered wrong...Yet when done to firearm owners , in many cases it is not only accepted , but also encouraged.

You can't have it both ways folks....
You can either judge a whole group by the actions of a few ...or ya can't.
Andy
* Gender , religion , political party etc...etc....

 

[orygun]

If not for the Second, there's no guarantee of the 1st.

It's that simple.

 

[ma96782]

It should be simple :

If you want to own firearms....then do so.
If you don't want to own firearms...then don't.
Just don't make that choice for others.

Yup....


Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

Q: Why do the Politicians punish the law-abiding citizen when clearly........it's not their fault?

Oh yeah.....



Aloha, Mark

PS....Nah, they think that you'll never notice what's actually happening.

 

[Stomper]

You can't have it both ways folks....

I know of several females of the species (including my ex-wife) that would argue that point!

 

[3MTA3]

The Second references ARMS, of which firearms are a subset. It means clubs, knives, swords,guns, etc.. Whatever the citizen feels is needed to protect themselves, their loved ones, their fellow citizens and their country, The Second DOES NOT guarantee your right to a hunting rifle. If it did not qualify as a defensive WEAPON the Second would not protect it whatsoever.

 

[GWS]

The Second references ARMS, of which firearms are a subset. It means clubs, knives, swords,guns, etc.. Whatever the citizen feels is needed to protect themselves, their loved ones, their fellow citizens and their country, The Second DOES NOT guarantee your right to a hunting rifle. If it did not qualify as a defensive WEAPON the Second would not protect it whatsoever.

How on earth did you reach that conclusion? By that reasoning guns or spears or clubs etc. go in and out of Second Amendment protection based on how its being used at a given time. How do you get that from "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

There is no clause excepting hunting or gun-juggling or any other activity from the Second Amendment. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. It says nothing about hunting OR personal defense.

 

[3MTA3]

How on earth did you reach that conclusion? By that reasoning guns or spears or clubs etc. go in and out of Second Amendment protection based on how its being used at a given time. How do you get that from "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no clause excepting hunting or gun-juggling or any other activity from the Second Amendment. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. It says nothing about hunting OR personal defense.

What does the term "arms" mean?

What is the reason for the Second? Hint: It's not hunting. It's the defense of yourself, your loved ones, your countrymen, and your country,

The act of hunting is a separate concern and not an expressly enumerated right.

 

[GWS]

What does the term "arms" mean?

What is the reason for the Second? Hint: It's not hunting. It's the defense of yourself, your loved ones, your countrymen, and your country,

The act of hunting is a separate concern and not an expressly enumerated right.

Just show me where hunting is excepted in the wording of the Second Amendment.
HINT: The Second makes NO statement about it one way or the other. It is simply the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing, nada, zero or zippo about why you are bearing those arms.
It says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Reading anything else into those words is always an attempt to diminish that right.

 

[3MTA3]

Just show me where hunting is excepted in the wording of the Second Amendment.
HINT: The Second makes NO statement about it one way or the other. It is simply the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing, nada, zero or zippo about why you are bearing those arms.
It says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Reading anything else into those words is always an attempt to diminish that right.

Read the federalist papers.

Self defense is an unalienable right. It's a necessity to stay alive.

Hunting is a privilege. If it were a aright your would not have to get a license, purchase a tag, observe bow vs rifle season, etc..

If the Governor told you tomorrow no more hunting you are done. Nothing in the Constitution would change that.

If the Governor told you tomorrow you had a duty to let armed criminals kill you without defending yourself it would be unconstitutional and you woud not have to obey.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

What is interesting , to me at least is what the 2nd Amendment does not say.
Such as :
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms , but only arms of certain types and only for specific purposes..."

Speaking only for myself here in regards to original wording...

"arms" means anything weapon related ...
All without needing to provide a reason or purpose to keep or bear said arms.

Arms :

Dr. Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language ( 1755 ) has this to say about arms :
"Weapons of offence or armour of defence ".
( Spelling original )

Arms current definition :
"Weapons and ammunition , armaments".

Not so different....
Andy

 

[3MTA3]

What is interesting , to me at least is what the 2nd Amendment does not say.
Such as :
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms , but only arms of certain types and only for specific purposes..."

Speaking only for myself here in regards to original wording...

"arms" means anything weapon related ...
All without needing to provide a reason or purpose to keep or bear said arms.

Arms :

Dr. Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language ( 1755 ) has this to say about arms :
"Weapons of offence or armour of defence ".
( Spelling original )

Arms current definition :
"Weapons and ammunition , armaments".

Not so different....
Andy

Consider the entire wording of the Second and the intent of the people as the militia. Then consider the discussion in the Federalist papers. It's pretty clear, at least to me.

No, it does not say that arms, firearms or otherwise, may only be used for defense, just that defense is the reason that we have the right to keep and bear them.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Consider the entire wording of the Second and the intent of the people as the militia. Then consider the discussion in the Federalist papers. It's pretty clear, at least to me.

No, it does not say that arms, firearms or otherwise, may only be used for defense, just that defense is the reason that we have the right to keep and bear them.

Not so sure that I agree....

With that said....
I do not think that one needs to provide a reason to keep and bear arms...or that "arms" should be restricted to certain types or uses.
Andy

 

[bbbass]

Consider the entire wording of the Second and the intent of the people as the militia. Then consider the discussion in the Federalist papers. It's pretty clear, at least to me.

No, it does not say that arms, firearms or otherwise, may only be used for defense, just that defense is the reason that we have the right to keep and bear them.

The preface clause... this right here:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Although I agree (with Andy) that I don't need to provide a reason to own/bear arms, as I simply have that natural or God-given right, (whichever one prefers)(and which we tend to forget the BOR is an affirmation, and not a granting of) the preface clause was indeed the founders reason for the 2A. However, quoting that or any other part of the 2A to an anti is almost always a useless exercise.

 

[revjen45]

1) The People ARE the militia.
2) 2A is not solely for resistance to tyranny, but also ensures that We The People are capable of acting individually and in concert for the preservation Constitutional principles and the social order when .gov has refused or failed to do so. Ref. the recent takeover of parts of Seattle by DNC/BLM terrorists. The People should have had the right to "request" the restoration of law and order @ 3200 fps.
3) Per Miller military and paramilitary arms specifically fall under the purview of 2A. This would mean that the AR has the highest level of Constitutional protection. "Sporting use" confers the same level of protection as a tennis racket.

 

[3MTA3]

Not so sure that I agree....

With that said....
I do not think that one needs to provide a reason to keep and bear arms...or that "arms" should be restricted to certain types or uses.
Andy

We are a lot more in agreement than otherwise. As an analogy, the reason for owning a blade style screwdriver is a slot headed screw. Everybody who has only used a screwdriver for screws and not for prying, scraping, etc., please raise your hand.

I thought not...

 

[Andy54Hawken]

We are in a lot more agreement than otherwise. As an analogy, the reason for owning a blade style screwdriver is a slot headed screw. Everybody who has only used a screwdriver for screws and not for prying, scraping, etc., please raise your hand.

I thought not...

Yep.
Although....
My Grace Gunsmith Screwdrivers are only to be used on firearms....as I pointed out to a couple members of my household in the past.....
Andy

 

[bbbass]

I'd just like to say that knives are screwdrivers and prybars too!!

 

[fstdraw]

Very interesting discussion. Bear arms doesn't just mean owning arms but also the right to hold, display, use and procure others. The wording by the founding fathers makes me proud and sometimes gives me goosebumps.