What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Juany]

The framers of the Consitution and Bill of Rights were highly intelligent and extremely well educated I believe they knew precisely what they wrote and meant it just as it reads.

I agree with your statement. I think our constitution is head and shoulders above most if not all other forms of government/laws. However, the framers were human and fallible like anyone else. Would they write it the same way if they were doing it today? Hard to say. We do have a system that allows for change. I think 2a still holds a critical place in our society/balance of power.

I'm sure it would be different than mine. Hence the issue, who is reasonable?

absolutley! Hard to get two people to agree on most things. I find the debate an interesting one.

 

[titsonritz]

One thing to keep in mind :
One man's reasonable is another man's extreme...
And one man's extreme is another man's starting point...
Andy

Again 100% agree.

 

[titsonritz]

I agree with your statement. I think our constitution is head and shoulders above most if not all other forms of government/laws. However, the framers were human and fallible like anyone else. Would they write it the same way if they were doing it today? Hard to say. We do have a system that allows for change. I think 2a still holds a critical place in our society/balance of power.

absolutley! Hard to get two people to agree on most things. I find the debate an interesting one.

Personally, I do not believe they would have allowed it to get this far and they are collectively doing summersaults in their graves, screaming you dumb SOB's we told you how to handle this.

 

[Member 5605]

The same restrictions to the 2nd should also apply to the 1st and the 15th. The 24th should be repealed to allow for taxation for voting and the 26th should be adjusted or repealed to the age of 21.

 

[olyroller]

I've read it, and I agree with you in principle, but in practice should private citizens be allowed to own and use Nukes?

I feel better while flying, without Stinger missiles in general circulation.

 

[Inquisitor]

my thoughts are that 2A should cover anything man portable that can be directed at a single point target. What do you all think?

From GunCite: In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

So, I think your definition is a little too narrow, delete the words" that can be directed at a single point target" and then you have it. "Any weapon that can be carried by a single person."

 

[Cavedweller]

I'm all for most felons having their rights restored after they have paid for their crime. The way I look at is if they are incapable of owning a gun they probably shouldn't be allowed in society to begin with.

Like the guy who shot up the art fair, for example?

 

[Vettewine]

Some on this site might disagree.

Count me among them as, like I said before, if the "bad guys" (and this can include some governments) have nukes then I want them, too...!

 

[Vettewine]

I think your dead wrong, point out where it says "firearms".

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.

Geez, did you not see my parentheses... to wit (fire)arms...!

 

[Cavedweller]

Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

So, I think your definition is a little too narrow, delete the words" that can be directed at a single point target" and then you have it. "Any weapon that can be carried by a single person."

Tanks, planes and submarines are not weapons, they are vehicles which may or may not carry weapons.

More to the point, as the world's military forces transition to directed energy weapons, guns are becoming obsolete. Should civilians be allowed to own DEWs? I think an originalist would have to say yes, if the purpose of the 2nd is to defend against a tyrannical government. When they're beaming microwaves at you, your favorite shooting iron will quickly become useless - it will be too hot to handle.

I can hear it now: "No one NEEDS a laser gun to go hunting!"

 

[No_Regerts]

I feel better while flying, without Stinger missiles in general circulation.

I see it this way, the mass majority of airline accidents are shortly after takeoff or during landing. Stingers are a short range shoulder fired IR missile with a maximum effective range of only 2 or 3 miles tops. So, that limits its use to the same times where a plane is most likely to crash anyway. You could feel totally comfortable and safe for 95% of your flight.

Besides, most airliners have wing mounted engines. A Stinger has a tiny warhead. You might still be able to land if the proximity fuse caused a detonation far enough out that the wing maintained some structural integrity.

 

[Jonnyuma]

I'm all for most felons having their rights restored after they have paid for their crime.

How many felons, particularly violent felons, have actually paid for their crimes?
Without statistics in front of me (probably easily obtainable), I'd say many, if not most, murderers have a long rap sheet of violent felonies that have been plead-down or just dismissed outright. The most recent newsworthy murder/mass shooting in NJ was comitted by a parolee... it's pretty common.
Murderers work their way up with assaults, aggravated assaults, robberies both armed and strong-arm, kidnapping, rape, and various other violent crimes against persons. Some have spent the better part of their lives in jail and/or prison... because they DESERVED it. Yet they're free and in "polite society", just waiting for the next opportunity to do something horrible to somebody.

I don't have an answer, but I know the answer is not going come from another restriction on ME. Or YOU.

I think a "reasonable" restriction threshold has been met and surpassed, passing into infringement territory.

The tired 1A "restrictions" of "FIRE!" and libel are the equivalent of calling murder and assault with a deadly weapon 2A "restrictions"... those aren't restrictions on civil rights. Even giving laws regarding libel, slander, and inciting a riot the same credence as a ban on semiautomatic firearms is foolish. In fact, it's the dumbest bubbleguming argument in play.

 

[Argonaut]

This conversation is getting a bit crazy. I have many friends that collect armored vehicles, tanks and even a buddy that used to own a surplus military submarine (he actually owned several of the last Diesel boats on the west coast).............I owned a research sub for a while and have owned several surplus warships. Fighter aircraft (even Jets) are owned and operated by anyone that can afford one and can get a pilots licence. We used to have target competitions with howitzers. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or recreation. It is strictly directed at defense of your person and society. The references to "hand held" as a definition of an arm is specious..... there are even special exclusions for "industrial weapons" in law. (Browning M2 and M1919 semi autos are even legal in California outside of the 10 round magazine and 50 BMG caliber restrictions) because they are not shoulder fired. I actually owned 2 M60 tanks for a short time that were fully opperable and Lazer sights are illegal for hunting here in Idaho. There are way too many myths being promulgated here.

 

[Boboclown]

To be honest, its the burglars with the highest rate of recidivism.

 

[Cavedweller]

This conversation is getting a bit crazy. I have many friends that collect armored vehicles, tanks and even a buddy that used to own a surplus military submarine (he actually owned several of the last Diesel boats on the west coast).............I owned a research sub for a while and have owned several surplus warships. Fighter aircraft (even Jets) are owned and operated by anyone that can afford one and can get a pilots licence. We used to have target competitions with howitzers. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or recreation. It is strictly directed at defense of your person and society. The references to "hand held" as a definition of an arm is specious..... there are even special exclusions for "industrial weapons" in law. (Browning M2 and M1919 semi autos are even legal in California outside of the 10 round magazine and 50 BMG caliber restrictions) because they are not shoulder fired. I actually owned 2 M60 tanks for a short time that were fully opperable and Lazer sights are illegal for hunting here in Idaho. There are way too many myths being promulgated here.

My point exactly. There are many such vehicles in private hands. The only thing preventing most of us from owing one is cost. Nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. The rest was tongue in cheek.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

This seems like a strange idea. If the purpose of a militia is the final "balance" why connect it to the government?

It isn't at all.

If anyone reads the 2a with a cold eye, it clearly states , and begins with, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

As part of the NG we would be immune from the courts restrictive interpretations, additionally, training facilities and equipment would be available. Anybody that thinks they don't need training and practice needs to reconsider or be escorted elsewhere, IMO.

The purpose of the militia was not to be the "final balance" it was to be the ONLY balance. There was not supposed to be a permanent standing army. Please research George Washington's warnings about the dangers of a standing army.

Also I would suggest all readers Google the Pennsylvania constitution, that wording was the original wording the Constitution was supposed to have.

 

[titsonritz]

Like the guy who shot up the art fair, for example?

Do you have a link? Seriously, I am ignorant to your reference.

 

[slimmer13]

Maybe so. But back to my original point. 1A, 2A, etc..have limits. What are reasonable limits for the 2a? Some on here say none. Citizens should have access to any and all military weapons. I think that's too broad.

Not if you do some research as to the intent and purpose of the existence of the 2A.

You can have the opinion that the 2A needs updated, and like mentioned, there is a way to do that, but as written, "infringements" on "arms" are unconstitutional for "the people".

 

[titsonritz]

Geez, did you not see my parentheses... to wit (fire)arms...!

Sorry for the clarification, nothing personal. Yeah, I did note the parentheses.

 

[Cavedweller]

Do you have a link? Seriously, I am ignorant to your reference.

Other State - NJ Governor...just, wow.