Current Events > Do you agree with the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
---

there's an option missing between 1 and 3
---

I'm content with human arms. I'd never get used to claws.

I'm from Canada, where the guns outnumber the people and nearly every person and their grandma carries a hunting rifle when out in the wilderness. That being said, there are fewer shootings and less violent crime involving firearms. So it's a combination of things; weapons that have little/no use hunting or for survival should be restricted to people doing things other than hunting/surviving, but at the same time society needs more outreach programs for mental illness, poverty, and other social problems that lead to that sort of violence.

I don't agree with it, but I'll respect it as Constitutional law. There's no getting rid of it, so we best learn to work with it.
---

I don't mind it but what I hate is the NRA and gun manufacturers basically manipulating people into buying and stockpiling weapons as well as lobbying to enable every dumb, dick, and crazy to get to carry a gun. That, more than anything, has to be straightened out IMO.
---

I think you should have to take a couple of tests first so it's understood that you don't fear your weapon and have passable accuracy.

Not voting in this shit poll.
Missing rifles in option 2.
---

Why did you leave out everything in between automatic weapons and pistols and shotguns?

You know, rifles are a thing. Manual action or semi-automatic.


TC is probably one of those people who thinks there are a bunch of fully automatic AR-15s in the US.
---

The wonderful thing about the Constitution is that it's indifferent to how people feel. Someone can say they believe that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets (and they have every right to believe that) but their belief doesn't change anything.
---

It should only be applied to muskets. I think it'd be pretty funny to see gangsters running down the streets and shootin down homies with a sideway carried musket
---

No. This is one of the reasons why I'm not a conservative.
---

Mystere posted...

I think you should have to take a couple of tests first so it's understood that you don't fear your weapon and have passable accuracy.

I'm sure the rapist of the 19 year old girl who broke into her home and slapped her around mercilessly will thank you.
---

---

No, unless it is limited to muskets like it was intended.

Putting aside the litany of revolutionary era assault weapons I could list off... the larger problem is that this option represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. If you believe that 2A only applies to muskets then you may as well also argue that 1A doesn't protect speech on the internet.
---

Ban guns
---

I'd rather have kangaroo arms, those things are fucking ripped
---

I'd love to see people walk around with muskets again.
---

We shouldn't be forced to obey the will of men who lived hundreds of years ago. Laws should be fluid, changing with the times to always suit the needs of the moment.
---

Polycosm posted...

No, unless it is limited to muskets like it was intended.

Putting aside the litany of revolutionary era assault weapons I could list off... the larger problem is that this option represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. If you believe that 2A only applies to muskets then you may as well also argue that 1A doesn't protect speech on the internet.

let's actually go into what is in the constitution

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.

given the significance of the militia--to act as a final line of defense in the event of invasion, and to overthrow a government in the case it became tyrannical--the argument could well run that no armament restrictions should exist at all. to be effective today, a militia would need access to advanced body armor, high-RoF machine guns, anti-materiel weapons, etc.

it also says the militia should be 'well regulated', which is the basis of much gun control law.

i'm inclined to think that the 'militia' we have today is effectively useless to our security, and technology has outpaced this aspect of the constitution.

firearms can do some good in home defense. i generally support the idea that they should be owned by those who can pass tests of the same level of rigor as those needing to own and operate an automobile.

whether we should then allow unrestricted access to any kind of firepower, i am torn on. even with unrestricted access i question how useful such a militia could ever possibly be. and i honestly don't forsee the day coming when our homeland is invaded by a foreign power.
---

if only there were a supreme court case we could look at to help us decipher the meaning and intent of the second amendment

i guess i will just have to take the word of some random ceman that they know what they are talking about
---

No, unless it is limited to muskets like it was intended.

There is literally no reason to assume this. Muskets were around at the time. If it was intended for that they would have put that.
---

Full auto is kinda overkill but I could see civilians wanting one of those single-fire AR variants if, for example, they run a car dealership or even worse, a repo operation.
---

Darkman124 posted...

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.

i'm inclined to think that the 'militia' we have today is effectively useless to our security, and technology has outpaced this aspect of the constitution.

I agree with this. But I'll also note that a preambulatory clause is only given as a primary reason for the rights enumerated after it-- not a necessary condition. The primary justification may be outdated but the right is still inviolable, in essence.

Darkman124 posted...

it also says the militia should be 'well regulated', which is the basis of much gun control law.

A faulty basis which misses the meaning of "well regulated," never mind that the preambulatory clause is non-binding anyway.

Darkman124 posted...

firearms can do some good in home defense.

I agree with this too. The language in 2A is a sloppy product of compromise. The right to bear arms is derivative of the right to self defense, which is what 2A really ought to have honed in on.
---

lilORANG posted...

I don't agree with it, but I'll respect it as Constitutional law. There's no getting rid of it, so we best learn to work with it.

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

I can't walk into somebody's house because of freedom of transit. I cannot threaten people because there is a 1st ammendment, I cannot block a highway because of freedom of assembly. The right to bear arms should be no different.

People need a license to drive, for example. You'd think running a decent background check on gun owners would be common sense. Plus "arms" does not necessarily mean "fire arms". Where do you draw the line, rocket launchers? LOL

What is this musket nonsense that people keep bringing up? Are you going to start using an ink bottle and quill instead of a keyboard, mouse and computer because the forefathers had no idea technology would advance First Amendment tools to our current levels?
---

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.
---

XmasPikachu posted...

People need a license to drive, for example. You'd think running a decent background check on gun owners would be common sense. Plus "arms" does not necessarily mean "fire arms". Where do you draw the line, rocket launchers? LOL

Driving is not a good example, though. Driving is not a Constitutional right.

Rocket launchers sound interesting. How much do those cost?
---

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.

Except for the fact it says it shall not be infringed. Can't forget that's the literal language.
---

I think the laws set forth by the ATF are good enough for 99% of things (I'd like to be able to have a 14" barrel instead of 16+), but areas like California take gun control too far.
---

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.

Oh yeah, if by regulation you mean "show up at a gun show and pay money". Even people with mental issues can buy guns now legally

XmasPikachu posted...

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.

Oh yeah, if by regulation you mean "show up at a gun show and pay money". Even people with mental issues can buy guns now legally

Have you filled out a background check or even seen the form you have to fill out?
---

XmasPikachu posted...

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.

Oh yeah, if by regulation you mean "show up at a gun show and pay money". Even people with mental issues can buy guns now legally

People who have been adjudicated as mentally ill in a court or by a mental health professional, or who have been involuntarily committed, are prohibited from buying or owning firearms and have been so since 1968.
---

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.

Oh yeah, if by regulation you mean "show up at a gun show and pay money". Even people with mental issues can buy guns now legally

People who have been adjudicated as mentally ill in a court or by a mental health professional, or who have been involuntarily committed, are prohibited from buying or owning firearms and have been so since 1968.

that changed recently

I don't think fully automatic weapons are necessary, but I don't necessarily think they should be completely illegal. I think the vetting process for them should be very stringent. I think our current laws on guns are fine for the most part, but they need to be enforced better. There is nothing wrong with responsible citizens with clean records owning firearms for self defense.

I personally know a guy who killed himself with a gun. He was able to purchase it, legally, even though he had a myriad of mental health issues. That is a problem.
---

XmasPikachu posted...

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.

Oh yeah, if by regulation you mean "show up at a gun show and pay money". Even people with mental issues can buy guns now legally

People who have been adjudicated as mentally ill in a court or by a mental health professional, or who have been involuntarily committed, are prohibited from buying or owning firearms and have been so since 1968.

that changed recently

No, it quite simply didn't. If you can find a recent amendment to that portion of the Gun Control Act of 1968 I would love to see it.
---

The only restriction on private citizens should be that they need some kind of training and permit if they want to keep explosives above a certain destructive capability or any nuclear weapons/materials.
---

It's very possible for an individual who doesn't have mental illness to purchase a gun, but someone in their household does have a mental illness to get the gun and use it... I mean Sandy Hook anyone? While I believe that the second amendment is outdated, gun control does little to no effect to reduce gun violence, unless someone can show me evidence suggesting otherwise. I mean not to mention the fact that there's so many unregistered guns out there. So yes, I do believe every citizen should have the right to own a gun.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.

Except for the fact it says it shall not be infringed. Can't forget that's the literal language.

what about the plethora of case law that says some regulation is appropriate?
---

Lightsasori posted...

It's very possible for an individual who doesn't have mental illness to purchase a gun, but someone in their household does have a mental illness to get the gun and use it... I mean Sandy Hook anyone? While I believe that the second amendment is outdated, gun control does little to no effect to reduce gun violence, unless someone can show me evidence suggesting otherwise. I mean not to mention the fact that there's so many unregistered guns out there. So yes, I do believe every citizen should have the right to own a gun.

Gun's generally are not to be registered unless it's a NFA item. That's the only legal registry allowed.

Canada Tried Gun Registration and gave up because it was too expensive
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#588d7f805a1b

And registration is a slippery slope, next thing you'll be like England / Australia which they'll try to push for confiscation.

Any type of Registry has a good chance to be abused.

At the end of the day, the only thing we need are two major changes.

1) National ID / National Drivers Licenses like every other first world country
2) Fire Arms Validated Access ID

What you need is to check the PEOPLE.

PEOPLE will always be the problem, an inanimate object like any arms won't do anything by itself.

So the thing we need to do is to register people and have them checked out and constantly updated in a database.

Registering guns like (SBR's / SBS's) is a meaningless and waste of resources.

The fact that so many pistols exist and pistols do most of the harm when you look at FBI stats shows that such dumb legislation made during the prohibition era was meaningless, dumb, and a waste of resource.

You need to keep track and validate people, that's the only thing that ever matters.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

AlephZero posted...

XmasPikachu posted...

The fact that it's a right doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

Then it's a good thing there are quite a few regulations regarding the sale and ownership of firearms.

Except for the fact it says it shall not be infringed. Can't forget that's the literal language.

what about the plethora of case law that says some regulation is appropriate?

They are a perversion of the constitution. There is really no debate what "shall not be infringed" means in terms of language.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

There is really no debate what "shall not be infringed" means in terms of language.

i think there very much is and it is at the crux of why private citizens already can't own modern high-powered military technologies.

Polycosm posted...

The language in 2A is a sloppy product of compromise. The right to bear arms is derivative of the right to self defense, which is what 2A really ought to have honed in on.

I think this is a very succinct explanation of why. The founding fathers meant for citizens to have access to firearms, not grapeshot cannon, most likely.
---

From my cold dead hands, commie libs.
---

Darkman124 posted...

I think this is a very succinct explanation of why. The founding fathers meant for citizens to have access to firearms, not grapeshot cannon, most likely.

You mean cannons that you were in fact allowed to have on your ships.
---

Yes I'm all for it
---

2A isn't going anywhere.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&q=District+of+Columbia+v+hellar+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43
---