-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
2nd Amendment - does it need updating
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
No, it seems to be working pretty well, imo.
The first amendment, though, may need a little work. Since libs want to limit magazines to 5-10 rounds, I think it’s only fair to limit the number of words they can speak in any given debate to 5-10.
And since they want to confiscate high powered rifles, it seems only fair to take away any device that amplifies their voice when they speak those 5-10 words.
Additionally, it seems only fair to have an FBI background check to see if they have a criminal history and especially if they have been spouting non-scientific nonsense like men can be women and verses vice.
Yeah, let’s be fair.
peace to you
The first amendment, though, may need a little work. Since libs want to limit magazines to 5-10 rounds, I think it’s only fair to limit the number of words they can speak in any given debate to 5-10.
And since they want to confiscate high powered rifles, it seems only fair to take away any device that amplifies their voice when they speak those 5-10 words.
Additionally, it seems only fair to have an FBI background check to see if they have a criminal history and especially if they have been spouting non-scientific nonsense like men can be women and verses vice.
Yeah, let’s be fair.
peace to you
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
The proponents of gun confiscation are going to prevail. Remember this?
Violence Prevention Home Page
"Firearm violence has tremendous impact on American’s overall safety and wellbeing. Using a public health approach is essential to addressing firearm violence and keeping people safe and healthy."
We are going to hear more about this in the future.
Violence Prevention Home Page
"Firearm violence has tremendous impact on American’s overall safety and wellbeing. Using a public health approach is essential to addressing firearm violence and keeping people safe and healthy."
We are going to hear more about this in the future.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Changing it to ban semi auto weapons would take a constitutional amendment, imo.
peace to you
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.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
And so we disagree.
First, the term “assault rifle” has no clear definition.
Second, the government limiting your right to keep and bare arms to revolvers is a clear violation of 2A.
It is simply untrue the government forbids ownership of military type weapons. They are usually licensed, but not forbidden.
Francis O'Rouke once threatened to forcibly confiscate all “assault style rifles”, He then told a reporter the gun owners in Texas agreed with him because wherever he went, gun owners were telling him, “sure, please, come to my house to seize my guns”
I really don’t think he understood what they were saying.
peace to you
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.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
It seems very well defined in the language of the 2A…..
Whatever is “necessary for the security of a free state.”
Please notice the genius of the founders. At time when single shot muskets and canons were the only arms, they didn’t mention them specifically.
Knowing there would come a time when government would attempt to limit the people’s right to keep and bare arms they defined it as whatever is necessary for the security of s free state.
Limiting the people to revolvers is a violation of the 2A because of the necessity of the security of a free state requires more.
peace to you
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.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Again, you are in error because you do not recognize personal protection as necessary to the security of a free state.
Witness the genius of the founders who understood citizens would face internal and external threats to their security, the protection thereof is necessary for the security of a free state.
peace to you
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?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
So you go directly to the absurd. If guns can’t be limited to revolvers, then people should be able to own nuclear weapons. Silly arguments weaken your position.
I think their are people (private citizens) who do own military grade weapons (not nukes just in case it actually needs to be said), but as you pointed out, they are extremely expensive to maintain and, as I said, are appropriately registered.
We are not going to agree, but I do appreciate the civil conversation.
peace to you
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?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
As I already said, I believe military grade weapons are already legal to own, but come with strict regulations.
Personally, I would be uncomfortable with such weapons being widely available without strict controls, as small arms (including rifles) currently are.
Like I said at the beginning of this thread, I think we are working the implementation of 2A rights pretty well in the U.S.
I am opposed to further restrictions on gun categories or equipment/accessories.
peace to you
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.
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.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The government does not have the right, under our constitution, to violate our right to keep and bare arms unless they have probable cause to do so.
Just saying, “oh gee whizz golly gee that rifle looks awfully dangerous for a private citizen to own…, they might do something mean, let’s take it away and let them buy a revolver” just doesn’t pass muster.
Ah, no. If you don’t like rifles, keep them out of your home.
peace to you