As always you have to take words in context, but I think the phrase "the people" in those amendments and the preamble is meant to distinguish between the owners of this country (the people) and our agents -- the federal government and (later extended to) the state governments. The bill of rights says (among other things) that those agents cannot strip the owners from their right to assemble (1st), keep weapons (2nd), and be secure from certain processes (4rd). That any rights we express there (9th) or fail to express (10th) should not be interpreted as limitation or forfeiture of the owners rights. How we manage those retained rights is not limited by the bill of rights. For example, we the people retain the right of free speech and assembly -- the government cannot prohibit these things. But we the people, can and have restricted assembly and even speech of groups and individuals. We have laws that limit crowd sizes, gathering times, locations, and there are laws prohibiting libel or shouting 'fire' in a theater. Similarly, we the people, retain the right to own arms and gather forces to protect the people, while restricting or prohibiting individuals from keeping certain weapons. Such as nuclear arms.
You're allowed to own a nuclear weapon (In Utah I believe?). You're not allowed to set it off though.
"Common sense" is one of the Democrats' favorite buzzwords where firearm restrictions are concerned. Actually, I think gun laws are already pretty damned sensible. They're mostly abused by gang bangers in urban settings, and I think if you want to tackle that problem in a sensible way, you'd better go after what's causing these gangs to be formed in the first place rather than railing against gun laws that work quite well for the rest of us.
What's insane is equating a human life with that of a rabbit. I can only assume your a vegetarian suicide bomber.
I say amend it to clarify that the only weapons allowed to be in possession of civilians would be Shotguns, manual bolt action rifles, musketry and bb/pellet guns. All other weapons should be banned except for law enforcement/military. The banning of all other weapons will ultimately over time reduce violent crimes; the use of the above mentioned weapons will still allow people to protect their property and life.
While I agree a clear wording would be nice in a perfect world. I feel any changes on controversial issues is impossible now. The 2nd is truly unique to the US. While our constitution has been used by many countries as a model for their own. No other that I am aware of, protect the right of it's people to be armed. If we start doing that the other amendments could also stand for additional clarity. Don't even get me started on the "commerce clause". Not to mention all the BS laws they write nowadays. Some 10,000 + pages of crap even our leaders can't understand or read before they pass them. Call me sentimental but I like the old timey version. Our elected leaders these days could screw up a wet dream. I would hate to see what they would replace it with.
To each their own. While not really sure what ISIS training consist of. I would imagine "spray and pray", and/or blowing themselves up for a reward of either really young or very homely women. My training is about safety and precsion. My hand is on the weapon at this point. As she shows she is ready I will allow more freedom. After the age of 12 she will take her state required hunters education. If completely trust her she can hunt alone without a adult. Which is very common most states not only allow but encourage youth hunting by allowing them to do it for free till age 16. Likely because both state and federal game agencies depending on revenue from hunting and fishing licenses to pay to protect game. That combined with taxes(Robertson act I believe) from the sale of hunting and fishing equipment provide the bulk of wildlife conservation funding in the US. Over 13 million Americans, hunt every year over the age 16. The # of hunters under that age is not known but very likely in the millions. Have seen estimates of 28 million Americans identify as hunters. With 45 million having hunted at some time in their lives. Even though only 1 in 5 gunowners are hunters. We take the field every year as the largest armed force in the world. Luckily we are not insane or ISIS. We are very nice people for the most part, who love the outdoors and have a taste for fresh meat. My little girl is a very good girl who like many of the same things other little girls her age enjoy. She wants to learn to shoot and hunt. I feel I need to start now to slowly get her to be effective at both. While many may feel it is to young. Very average age around here and many other rural areas. Politics, religion, and sex that stuff can wait till closer to puberty or when she shows a interest in it. Those lessons are far less enjoyable for me to teach.
Same reason a person can't threaten to kill somebody. I believe strict scrutiny should be applied to the 2nd amendment, meaning that if the government wants to restrict 2nd amendment rights, there should be a compelling government interest (which is pretty easy to establish when it comes to weapons), it should be narrowly tailored (this is where government often falls short when it comes to the 2nd amendment...creating laws that often harm law abiding citizens), and it should be done in the least restrictive possible ways. The narrowly tailored aspect is often overlooked, but my point is, much like every other amendment, the government has a very compelling interest to put some reasonable restrictions on the second amendment.
What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis that making guns illegal will reduce violent crime? Also, are you familiar with the "public duty doctrine" which says that police officers have absolutely no duty to people as individuals, but only to The People as an abstract group? The public duty doctrine is most often quoted from the case Warren v. Distict of Columbia, where 3 women were brutally sexually assaulted, and the police basically didn't do there job (even though they were called multiple times), and the courts found that the police had no duty to protect the 3 women who were assaulted under the public duty doctrine. Finally, are you familiar with military men like Timothy McVeigh or police officers like Darren Brown? Why should military or police officers be trusted with guns when law abiding American citizens shouldn't be?
why are you fishing in America about our Rights when they have zero impact on Scotland? Particularly the 2nd Amendment? Are you one of those devout anti gunners? Looks like you poll favors NO What is it about someone from a a country that just voted to stay married to an old crone gets around to telling us what the Bill of Rights is all about?
ISIS is all about total destruction and eliminating life. Teaching a young person responsibility is not even comparable, unless you think that ISIS is run by a bunch of kindergarteners
Do you honestly think that the police, when arriving at a scene, see someone being beaten, held up or shots fired inside a store or other place are going to just sit in their patrol cars, drink coffee and eat donuts? Every police officer that I know will get out of their car, draw their weapons and attempt to stop the perp before more damage can be done. Given your analogy, we should eliminate the military and police agencies based on the actions of a few. Perhaps we should allow unlimited ownership of weapons to anyone with no background checks; they many gun lovers could achieve their ultimate goal of living in a Tombstone era country. I think funeral directors and hospitals would make out nicely; might even help the economy.
I'm curious. Which of the Bill of Rights do liberals agree with and accept? Any? Sen. Harry Reid has announced the First Amendment has to go as it's currently written. The left wants the Second to go. The Fifth is largely gone already gone. Property rights? That's the Fourth Amendment, I think. Liberals don't want that, either. Sixth Amendment is the trial by jury and other rights of the accused. While the liberals care about the rights of the accused we already have the government sentencing people to death with no trial whatsoever and allowing secret testimony where the defense not only doesn't hear the testimony but doesn't know who is giving the testimony. It's safe the say the left wants the Sixth to go, too. The Ninth and Tenth have been effectively gone for years. But, they love the Seventh Amendment. The liberals make millions off the Seventh Amendment. The right to sue is sacred for the left. I'll admit I don't know what liberals think of the Third Amendment. I would guess they're okay with that but they might have plans to quarter federal forces in homes. For national security, you know.
Revise it to read as follows: The right to bear firearms and other weapons utilizing gunpowder that are functional for use and those of other advanced technologies is limited to government entities and their agents, save at the discretion of the Federal government. The right to other weapons for hunting or self-defense shall not be infringed. The government should control modern weapons but bows, crossbows, slingshots and those weapons the Federal government allows under statute this could include limited sorts of firearms will be fine.
I believe there are restrictions on fissionable material like pure Uranium or Polonium. I guess it makes sense that they can't restrict a nuclear weapon (which is basically just a strong metal box), but I'm pretty sure you can't have the stuff that makes it go bang. Even in Utah. In other words, you can have the gun, but not the bullets. (interesting to know about Utah though)
Well first of all, cops are almost NEVER at the scene of a crime when it happens, they usually come after the fact. Additionally, there are many areas where the response time for cops is up to 45 minutes for just about any call because the crime rate is so high that they can't keep up, or officers simply don't want to put themselves at that kind of risk by interfering with a crime in progress. You may live in a nice neighborhood and may not have to worry about this, but not all American's live in nice neighborhoods, and they have a right to protect themeselves and their property. I would also encourage you to read more about the Warren case. The officers were called TWICE and explained that there was a burglary in progress (which ended up becoming a rape and kidnapping of 3 woman), but the second time, the police weren't even dispatched. You also never answered my question about what evidence you have to support the hypothesis that less guns means less violence, and that is because there is none. There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that reducing the amount of guns that law abiding citizens have will reduce violent crime. It may reduce GUN crime and GUN violence, but it doesn't reduce violent crime because criminals are criminals. It only makes it EASIER for the strong to prey on the weak. No, I'm not saying that we should eliminate the military and police, I'm just saying that they are human beings too. They make mistakes, and they have the potential to be criminals just like any other human being. However, if we ONLY allow them to have the guns, then they have ALL the power. In case you are unfamiliar with history, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not for hunting or for recreational shooting, and it's main purpose really isn't even home defense (although the courts have decided that that IS part of the purpose). The main purpose of the second amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government. “The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” - Alexander Hamilton “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson These were some of the founding fathers, and they knew the importance of protection against tyrannical governments, because unlike you and me, they actually had to fight one in order to give you those other 9 amendments that you cherish so much. If we eliminate the 2nd amendment, there is nothing to stop the government from depriving us of any of the other ones. Also, if you look at the Bill of Rights (and the constitution in general), The People is often a very important part of the phrasing. In fact, the words "the people" appear in half of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. Do you think it would be ok to change the phrasing of the 1st or 4th amendment which describe the rights of the people?
A well-armed population will keep the government in check hope the day will never come but Americans have the means to protect from and over throw a totalitarian government if one ever happened here most European countries don't have a prayer if there government becomes one they are stuck with no means to do anything about it
Amending the second will be unnecessary and stupid. The courts have ruled that reasonable restrictions can be placed on weapons. Where to draw the line is where we are debating. Courts will find that line when needed. Currently the access to weapons by law abiding citizens is a need for a truly free society. However what I would argue is we need to become a mature society when it comes to how weapons are used and that is not going to happen through law. I don't have the answer. But even as a far left liberal who is seen by many as anti-gun because how I feel about some carry laws, I am more frightened of a society that restricts gun ownership to the point of destroying free access to weapons for sport, hunting, and self-defense than i am of the next Adam Lanza or Beltway sniper. Each has their problems......let's talk.
