2nd Amendment - does it need updating

It could be updated for clarification.

Banning all semi-automatic pistols and only allowing revolvers, for example, would not violate the 2nd Amendment (people could still bear arms).

BUT once we start updating that sets a dangerous path.

 

Actually changing it would.

That's what I mean by it being a dangerous idea.

That said, I suppose it does not actually need to be changed to ban semi auto weapons (the 2nd Amendment secures the right to bear arms....not the right to any type of arms).

The government could ban all semi auto handguns without actually violating the 2nd Amendment. Or all "assault" rifles. It just couldn't ban all guns.

 

I agree that assault rifles are poorly defined. Personally, I'd consider only rifles capable of firing automatically or burst as assault rifles, not semi auto rifles.

We do disagree. The 2nd Amendment:

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.

Now, what weapon types are specified? When written it certainly wasn't machine guns. The answer is that the 2nd Amendment does not specify a type of weapon as long as the government does not infringe on ones right to bear arms.

What are "arms'? It is means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense.

So it could be a shotgun, a rifle, a pistol, a tank, a nuclear weapon, a grenade, a knife, a machine gun, an RPG.....

What does infringe mean? It means to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

If all semi-handguns were made illegal could a person still have the right to bear arms?

Yes. The person could carry a rifle, a shotgun, a revolver, a black powder pistol, an RPG.....

Does limiting the types of weapons a person can own encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another? No.


BUT requiring a permit to own a machine gun may, if these weapons are otherwise legal, because of the associated cost. So would restricting handgun ownership by age rather than ability.

 

In that case, denying citizens the use of revolvers and semi-automatic pistols would not violate the 2nd amendment because they are not necessary for the security of a free state. The only weapons that should apply would be assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and such.

People shouldn't resist (in the grounds of the 2nd Amendment) giving up revolvers, low caliber weapons, pistols, and non-combat related arms.

Those could fall under the purpose of personal protection, but as you point out this is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

 

I disagree.

I do, BTW, support our right to own guns.

But saying individual self-defense falls under securing the free state is not sustainable. I get the reasoning, but it is pushing the limits too far to be respected

The reason I would place self-defense under the right to bear arms is that it is in the definition of bearing arms. We don't need to go into "self-defense is necessary to maintain a free-state" argument. This is what bearing arms means....literally (offensive and defensive weapons).

Our disagreement is whether all arms are covered under the 2nd Amendment.

Do you believe I should be allowed to possess a low yield nuclear weapon at my home?

What about a MK-19 grenade launcher?

 

I'd love to have a MK-19, BTW. But I don't think I could afford to shoot it.

 

The low yield nuclear weapon is absurd. But if I could get one, then why couldn't I have one? But yes, I meant it as absurd because one mand absurdly is another's common sense.

But to clarify, you wouldn't have an issue with any individuals maintaining MK-19 grenade launchers as a 2nd Amendment right?

 

And I'd assume you would not have an issue with BLM members owning grenade launchers. That is interesting. It would certainly have made the riots look mild.

I would argue that the $200 tax per MK-19 and $200 tax per grenade is effectively infringing on such a right.

I do disagree that citizens should be allowed to own any military grade weapon. I get that that is what would be required in order to achieve what you believe is the goal of the 2nd Amendment.

But you need to also consider that the regulations you are comfortable with also infringe on people's rights as you see them. Rights are not purchased. They do not (should not) belong only to the wealthiest of us.

If a citizen wants to own the MK19 he would have to purchase that weapon and ammo. That's a given.

But the tax on one MK19 with just one belt is $9,800 in addition to sales tax and license. But one belt isn't enough (at 60 rounds/ minute your belt would last 48 seconds).

Why should organizations like the DNC, BLM, the GOP, and only the extremely wealthy have the capability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment by securing a stated freedom through owning arms suitable to combat government military aggression?

 

BTW...we obviously disagree.

I do not believe citizens should have the right to possess military grade weapons. History has repeatedly shown that this would have been a mistake. The government has the responsibility of protecting rights from those who would take those rights away. This includes the right to life. Allowing the general public to own military grade weapons would be a bad idea. As it stands, that right is very limited and available to a small minority of citizens.

But I do believe citizens should be able to own weapons for their personal defense.