Let's Talk Second Amendment

[Ringo84]

Since there's a thread on this topic, let's discuss the Second Amendment.

We should start by making one thing clear: your Constitutional rights are inalienable in that they can't be randomly taken away by the government.

Your constitutional rights apply equally to everyone, regardless of who they are or what they've done. I have the same amount of free speech that you have.

However, your rights are not absolute in that we voluntarily surrender a portion of our rights to live in a civilized society. We have free speech, but that doesn't enable someone to take to print dragging my good name through the mud with lies. We have the freedom of religion, but we must temper that right with respect and deference to the many other faith traditions in this country.

If we all had the absolute right to free speech in this country, we'd have anarchy - the laws of the jungle, in which anyone could say anything without concerns over decorum or respect for others.

The Second Amendment works the same way. Setting reasonable limits or regulations on the ownership of guns - expanded background checks, limits on the situations and locations in which a gun can be carried - are not an abridgment of the Second Amendment.

It's a testament to how extreme a certain side of this issue (not all gun owners, but a portion of them) has gotten in this country that we practically cannot have a mature discussion on gun rights without someone immediately claiming that the other side is trying to "take mah guns!"

My thread, my rules:
If you think I'm unreasonable, tell me how I'm being unreasonable on this issue. Let's have a discussion; not a shouting match. No accusing others of "trying to take away guns" unless they specifically say, "I want to ban guns in this country". I can understand that this is an emotional issue for some, but try to keep emotions and knee-jerk reactions out of it.
Ringo

 

[Rubiks]

But how strict can the regulations on guns be and still be "constitutional?" On one extreme, as long as at least one person can get access to a gun, it would therefore be "constitutional" On the other extreme, it would unconstutional to deny anyone access to a gun--Even criminals

 

[Anovah]

The phrase "well regulated" has got to mean something doesn't it?

 

[Lollerskates]

.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

The second amendment is more than gun rights. It is about the honor of the people to make sure that government does not defile the integrity of the constitution.

Most people forget that part: an armed militia to ensure that if the government ever become tyrannical that the PEOPLE have the right to fight and obliterate the oppressive government.

Has anyone here read all 4000+ pages of the Patriot Act, NDAA, Affordable Healthcare Act, or the TARP? If not, then the the "militia" speak won't make sense. If you have, then you realize the integrity of the constitutional republic of the United States is in need of firm 2nd amendment attention. Demagoguery, however, pwnz individual rights.

That's ludicrous. Perhaps back in the Founders' day, that made some sense. Today, though, Grandpappy's squirrel rifle doesn't mean squat against a Cruise missile, any sort of armor division, airstrikes... oh hell, pretty much any part of the modern military.

What an armed populace can do, though, is hold off (or at least slow down) an invader long enough for the real military to arrive.

 

[Lollerskates]

.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

....

Blathering nonsense from word one.

 

[tulc]

The phrase "well regulated" has got to mean something doesn't it?

Apparently not, when most people talk about the second amendment it's not even mentioned (and usually gets ignored when brought up)
tulc(just something noticed over the years)

 

[Lollerskates]

.

 

[Lollerskates]

.

 

[Ringo84]

He didn't say the Second Amendment was "worthless" - only that he disagreed with your interpretation of said amendment.

I disagree also, as we settle electoral questions with ballots - not bullets.
Ringo

 

[Hentenza]

If we all had the absolute right to free speech in this country, we'd have anarchy - the laws of the jungle, in which anyone could say anything without concerns over decorum or respect for others.

Study anarchism. That is not what anarchist promote.

Here, this might help:

Anarchism by George Woodcock — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

 

[Ringo84]

Anarchism is the lack of government - chaos. That's what would happen if our rights were "absolute" and unable to be challenged.
Ringo

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Anarchism is the lack of government - chaos. That's what would happen if our rights were "absolute" and unable to be challenged.
Ringo

I wouldn't call it anarchy. We'd presumably still have a government and taxes and public works and whatall. Our society would be much more chaotic and dangerous, though, if there were no restrictions whatsoever on free speech.

 

[Hentenza]

Anarchism is the lack of government - chaos. That's what would happen if our rights were "absolute" and unable to be challenged.
Ringo

No, anarchism is government from the bottom up not from top down. anarchism does not promote no government. I gave you a resource that should help you understand anarchism. You can also study the works of Joseph Proudhorn and Noam Chomsky. These you can find online.

 

[Ringo84]

No, anarchism is government from the bottom up not from top down.

I don't want to derail, but anarchy is no government at all - not "bottom up government":

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

Anarchism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Our society would be much more chaotic and dangerous, though, if there were no restrictions whatsoever on free speech.

Or restriction on any of the rights defined in the Bill of Rights.
Ringo

 

[GondwanaLand]

The phrase "well regulated" has got to mean something doesn't it?

It refers to the militia in the prefatory clause. Oh, and the term in the time it was written meant something being in proper working order (not "pass regulations on it" sort of "regulated" that we think of today)

 

[Hentenza]

I don't want to derail, but anarchy is no government at all - not "bottom up government":



Anarchism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I can't help it if you get your knowledge from the dictionary. I gave you several resources but you refuse to look at them. If you are going to compare to anarchism at least you should understand what it means.

 

[Anovah]

It refers to the militia in the prefatory clause.

The peoples right to bear arms is in regards to a well regulated militia? Sounds right to me.

Oh, and the term in the time it was written meant something being in proper working order (not "pass regulations on it" sort of "regulated" that we think of today)

And if something is not in proper working order, how would the government go about restoring that order (i.e. regulate)?

 

[GondwanaLand]

The peoples right to bear arms is in regards to a well regulated militia? Sounds right to me.

No, I suggest you learn what a prefatory clause is.

And if something is not in proper working order, how would the government go about restoring that order (i.e. regulate)?

It is up to the militia, not the government.