Is the price we pay for 2nd amendment freedom too high?

[canadyjd]

Comparing guns to worship is just silly.
Guns are a tool, like a car. We regulate the use of tools. Nothing is infringed in the 2nd Amendment when we setup checks to require a proper training for anyone who wants to own a gun.

I’m comparing the 2nd amendment to the 1st amendment. I thought that would be obvious.

It is infringement when the government is the arbiter of whether you qualify to own a gun or not.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

I’m comparing the 2nd amendment to the 1st amendment. I thought that would be obvious.

It is infringement when the government is the arbiter of whether you qualify to own a gun or not.

peace to you

By your assertion, criminals can keep all the guns they want, without a care. Mentally ill and disturbed people can have guns. 5 year olds can walk into school with loaded guns and be fine.

The founding father's never meant such a thing. What they meant was that, im case of being attacked by a foreign nation, our fighting force should have weapons at the ready.
Personally, I think the SCOTUS misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment to be individuals, when the intent was that a State militia and armory would be available as a check on a federal army. It was never intended as a carte blanc capacity for anyone to become their own warlord.

 

[Salty]

... What they meant was that, im case of being attacked by a foreign nation, our fighting force should have weapons at the ready. ....

not just a foreign Army - but even our own Army.

 

[JesusFan]

Given the events in Texas, do you think the price for 2nd amendment rights is too high?

If you believe the price is too high, what can be done to lower the societal costs of this freedom?

If you don’t live in the US, please refrain from voting or commenting.

peace to you

No, as it is a problem NOT with any guns used as weapons, but with the persons using them!

 

[canadyjd]

By your assertion, criminals can keep all the guns they want, without a care. Mentally ill and disturbed people can have guns. 5 year olds can walk into school with loaded guns and be fine.

The founding father's never meant such a thing. What they meant was that, im case of being attacked by a foreign nation, our fighting force should have weapons at the ready.
Personally, I think the SCOTUS misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment to be individuals, when the intent was that a State militia and armory would be available as a check on a federal army. It was never intended as a carte blanc capacity for anyone to become their own warlord.

You are simply ignorant, as usual, if what the founding fathers would do.

The founding fathers understood the most pressing danger to citizens wasn’t from foreign governments, but from our own government officials abusing their positions of power, attempting to control their lives.

That is why the amendments, including the 2nd, are specifically designed to limit the authority and power of government, plain and simple, cut and dry.

Back to the OP, there are some things that might gain enough support to pass congress and not violate the 2nd, which should be the goal.

I think limiting the types of firearms 18-20 year olds can own to bolt action rifles, shotguns, and revolvers (i.e. no semi auto rifles with high capacity mags) as well as any records of minors concerning mental illness or violence should be available to the FBI background investigations when they become adults would be reasonable, could pass congress, and withstand legal challenges.

peace to you

 

[just-want-peace]

Recommend reading “ON FREEDOM’S FRONTLINES” in NRA pub. AMERICAS 1st FREEDOM - pg 24.
Excellent reporting on Ukraine & armed citizens; proves forward thinking of founding fathers.

 

[777]

well, don't know about that, Can, seems to me you'd need a constitutional amendment for that idea - "shall not be infringed". Not like limiting alcohol and tobacco, they aren't enumerated rights. It's more like letting 18 year olds vote, to do so federally required a drawn-out amendment process.

And then there's the fact that our military has and always has had a bunch of people in this age group, and nobody thinks twice about that. I do wonder could states or local governments could put such a requirement, but Heller indicates otherwise.

Speaking of which, everyone talks about that RvW case but there is a YUGE 2A case that'll be ruled on imminently, this thing:

In major Second Amendment case, court will review limits on carrying a concealed gun in public - SCOTUSblog

 

[AustinC]

With our society being post Christian, we now have guns in the hands of utterly godless people. Do not be surprised that this tool (gun) gets used for more and more wickedness. Also, as Christians, don't fool yourself into thinking that guns will be your protector. You will either be killed or thrown in jail. Place your trust in the Commander of the Lord's Army.

 

[percho]

Not it is not that silly! - the point being they both are constitutional rights


Technically there is a case to be made.
The 2nd A states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".” -- PERIOD - and training could be considered an infringement.
Lets say for example - the govt require a six moth training period (you must attend 26 weekly training sessions...)

Granted - back in the 18th century - just about every boy at age 5 or 6 was taught how to fire a weapon and to do it safely. I realizes that here in the 21 century - not so much - but does that change the original intent. -- Now that would be an interesting court case!

Lots of ways to look at these things

Made me think of the movie

The Patriot

Those kids did a good job early in the movie.

 

[percho]

By your assertion, criminals can keep all the guns they want, without a care. Mentally ill and disturbed people can have guns. 5 year olds can walk into school with loaded guns and be fine.

The founding father's never meant such a thing. What they meant was that, im case of being attacked by a foreign nation, our fighting force should have weapons at the ready.
Personally, I think the SCOTUS misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment to be individuals, when the intent was that a State militia and armory would be available as a check on a federal army. It was never intended as a carte blanc capacity for anyone to become their own warlord.

I wonder what the FF's were thinking when they used the words foreign and domestic relative to the constitution in 1791?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

If someone wants to do a mass killing - they will find a way - even if they have no firearms.

Interestingly enough we get a large amount of "felon in possession of firearm" arrests. These men do not go to the gun store and buy them, they steal them or buy them from unscrupulous individuals, putting the law-abiding at the mercy of men like these is a stupid idea, and a great way to ensure even more gun crime. The second amendment is to protect the law abiding. And it is interesting how a man with a gun stopped a criminal with a gun that was killing people whom he knew had no guns...

 

[5 point Gillinist]

We can still have 2nd Amendment rights while tightening our gun laws.
We require people who drive cars to be licensed and to register their cars and insure their cars. There is no reason why we cannot require registration and background checks on every gun owner. We can require hours of gun safety practice before issuing a gun. We can work to assure that there is a limit the guns someone under 18 can use. We can restrict and ban guns that are not legalized for legitimate hunting purposes. This still keeps the 2nd Amendment in tact, yet it protects us from the corruption of our Cain-like hearts.

You posted this in a prior thread, and it is not exactly a good argument

You'd be amazed how many DWS, no DL, DUI, etc. (all driving violations) we get in. The point being no matter how restrictive you make something for law-abiding citizens, those who ignore the law (criminals) will disregard it any way.
In addition to the fact that the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

One problem with your solution is it drives up the price of entry the low-income folks who need the 2A on a daily basis.

An irresponsible government deciding if I am responsible enough to protect my family - that sounds like a great solution!

 

[JesusFan]

With our society being post Christian, we now have guns in the hands of utterly godless people. Do not be surprised that this tool (gun) gets used for more and more wickedness. Also, as Christians, don't fool yourself into thinking that guns will be your protector. You will either be killed or thrown in jail. Place your trust in the Commander of the Lord's Army.

Again, far more are killed by drunk drivers in their vehicles annually, so outlaw all cars and trucks?

 

[AustinC]

Again, far more are killed by drunk drivers in their vehicles annually, so outlaw all cars and trucks?

Apples and Oranges.
How many of the deaths by cars are intentional attempts to kill other human beings? Are cars sole function to kill a living being? A guns only function is to kill something. With that fact in mind, do we not care about who has access to the capacity to kill by using a gun?

 

[AustinC]

I wonder what the FF's were thinking when they used the words foreign and domestic relative to the constitution in 1791?

European nations and Indigenous tribes

 

[JesusFan]

Apples and Oranges.
How many of the deaths by cars are intentional attempts to kill other human beings? Are cars sole function to kill a living being? A guns only function is to kill something. With that fact in mind, do we not care about who has access to the capacity to kill by using a gun?

Gun function is to do whatever the user of it is, so used for hunting and target shooting not same as shooting at people, eh?

 

[canadyjd]

No, as it is a problem NOT with any guns used as weapons, but with the persons using them!

Correct, which is why suggestion focuses on the person, not the gun.

Juvenile records are often sealed. If there was violence or mental illness, it wouldn’t show up in the background check.

Give the guy or gal 3 years as an adult to establish a record before allowing them to purchase this one type of weapon; high powered semi auto rifle with high capacity mags

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

European nations and Indigenous tribes

And their own political systems; politicians and other government leaders.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Given the events in Texas, do you think the price for 2nd amendment rights is too high?

If you believe the price is too high, what can be done to lower the societal costs of this freedom?

If you don’t live in the US, please refrain from voting or commenting.

peace to you

There are issues more complex than either side of the gun issue allows.

We are not, as a nation, in the same as we were a couple centuries ago.

Then an 18 year old was an adult, often raising and providing for a family. Now a 20 year old is most often a child.

Then armed citizens were a reasonable assurance of the government never evolving into....well...what it is today. Now one would be a fool to think an AR-15 a suitable weapon against government aggression.

Then guns were designed primarily for necessity. People owned guns because people needed guns. Now most own guns for pleasure, and because "they can".

I am not at all opposed to the 2nd Amendment, even after these shootings. BUT I would not object to restrictions on the types of weapons sold (and a ban on AR-15 style weapons, high capacity magazines, kits to make guns automatic, etc ).