Your Second Amendment Rights

[MrsCat 6]

I don't follow though how it is reasonable to interpret that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own automatic weapons, simply because you can carry one on your person? How about rocket launchers then? How about a dirty bomb that's small enough to fit in a briefcase? If you are interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the context of history, how can you reasonably determine that the authors would approve of the type of arsenal someone can carry on their person today vs. what an individual could carry over 200years ago?

I guess what I am saying is that the 2nd Amendment right should be interpreted historically in the sense of what does the right mean and who does it apply to and what was their understanding of an armament then. In my opinion (not that of anyone else's) the right was meant to allow an individual to protect itself from harm by an individual or more importantly the State. It was a means to ensure that the countrymen could rise-up against its government and have the means to do so. Meaning the State cannot take away munitions from the individual.

Now where I think the constitutional interpretation should move from a historical understanding to a contextual approach is what constitutes an armament. It wouldn't make sense to have a constitution which allows one to bear arms, if those arms are only what existed in 1787. What point would there be in allowing protection from tyranny of the state if people can only carry muskets and cannons (honestly, I don't even know what existed back them)? Now obviously this is a contested issue, but I cannot imagine anyone actually believing that the Constitution should employ a strict and literal interpretation. If that is the case, it too easily becomes outdated.

The right to bear arms, in my understanding, is an individual right now according to Heller. Meaning owning guns doesn't have to be in the context of asserting your rights as part of militia. Individuals may own various types of armaments to protect their life and liberty. So for me, I guess it comes down to what is reasonable. While at first blush an automatic weapon seems heinous, it is something that is used by an individual for self-protection. It seems as far as a weapon goes, this would be an armament that the founding fathers would have contemplated being used by individuals if it existed at the time of drafting. I know plenty of people disagree. That's just my thoughts.

Now, I don't know much about bombs and rocket launchers, so I will presume these are relatively difficult to get a hold of. And I also do not know much about collateral damage associated with them. But here is the distinction for me. An automatic weapon is meant to attack a single target, with the possibility of hitting many. Its purpose is still to shoot at A target. While with a bomb and rocket launcher, its target is not singular, rather its a singular area, which has the potential to hit many people. I would think that these types of munitions are not consistent with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Their purpose isn't to assist oneself in self-preservation, rather are geared towards preemptive attack.

As a final note, being Canadian, I used to hate all things gun related. They never made sense to me. Having spent several years now with a gun owner and ferverent 2nd Amendment supporter, I think I get it. I've never been in a society with so much distrust of one another and even its state, but its unfortunately rampant here. I can understand why people feel the need to protect themselves. If the underlying issues of society are not dealt with, it comes to the need of self-preservation. Its scary and unfortunate, but necessary. The 2nd Amendment was based on a deep-seeded distrust of Government. Any movement which takes away the right to bear arms, seems to further assert that the government will one day be all encompassing.

Just my thoughts. Flame away.

I'm sure I've heard it before.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't follow though how it is reasonable to interpret that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own automatic weapons, simply because you can carry one on your person? How about rocket launchers then? How about a dirty bomb that's small enough to fit in a briefcase? If you are interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the context of history, how can you reasonably determine that the authors would approve of the type of arsenal someone can carry on their person today vs. what an individual could carry over 200years ago?

I guess what I am saying is that the 2nd Amendment right should be interpreted historically in the sense of what does the right mean and who does it apply to and what was their understanding of an armament then. In my opinion (not that of anyone else's) the right was meant to allow an individual to protect itself from harm by an individual or more importantly the State. It was a means to ensure that the countrymen could rise-up against its government and have the means to do so. Meaning the State cannot take away munitions from the individual.

Now where I think the constitutional interpretation should move from a historical understanding to a contextual approach is what constitutes an armament. It wouldn't make sense to have a constitution which allows one to bear arms, if those arms are only what existed in 1787. What point would there be in allowing protection from tyranny of the state if people can only carry muskets and cannons (honestly, I don't even know what existed back them)? Now obviously this is a contested issue, but I cannot imagine anyone actually believing that the Constitution should employ a strict and literal interpretation. If that is the case, it too easily becomes outdated.

The right to bear arms, in my understanding, is an individual right now according to Heller. Meaning owning guns doesn't have to be in the context of asserting your rights as part of militia. Individuals may own various types of armaments to protect their life and liberty. So for me, I guess it comes down to what is reasonable. While at first blush an automatic weapon seems heinous, it is something that is used by an individual for self-protection. It seems as far as a weapon goes, this would be an armament that the founding fathers would have contemplated being used by individuals if it existed at the time of drafting. I know plenty of people disagree. That's just my thoughts.

Now, I don't know much about bombs and rocket launchers, so I will presume these are relatively difficult to get a hold of. And I also do not know much about collateral damage associated with them. But here is the distinction for me. An automatic weapon is meant to attack a single target, with the possibility of hitting many. Its purpose is still to shoot at A target. While with a bomb and rocket launcher, its target is not singular, rather its a singular area, which has the potential to hit many people. I would think that these types of munitions are not consistent with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Their purpose isn't to assist oneself in self-preservation, rather are geared towards preemptive attack.

As a final note, being Canadian, I used to hate all things gun related. They never made sense to me. Having spent several years now with a gun owner and ferverent 2nd Amendment supporter, I think I get it. I've never been in a society with so much distrust of one another and even its state, but its unfortunately rampant here. I can understand why people feel the need to protect themselves. If the underlying issues of society are not dealt with, it comes to the need of self-preservation. Its scary and unfortunate, but necessary. The 2nd Amendment was based on a deep-seeded distrust of Government. Any movement which takes away the right to bear arms, seems to further assert that the government will one day be all encompassing.

Just my thoughts. Flame away.

I'm sure I've heard it before.

Damn, Cat....you make all of us regular VJ'ers who argue look like Second Graders. I don't care whether agree or disagree, you've got some damn good debating skills. I'll come up with a real response later...my brain hurts already.

[natty bumppo 297]

I don't follow though how it is reasonable to interpret that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own automatic weapons, simply because you can carry one on your person? How about rocket launchers then? How about a dirty bomb that's small enough to fit in a briefcase? If you are interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the context of history, how can you reasonably determine that the authors would approve of the type of arsenal someone can carry on their person today vs. what an individual could carry over 200years ago?

I guess what I am saying is that the 2nd Amendment right should be interpreted historically in the sense of what does the right mean and who does it apply to and what was their understanding of an armament then. In my opinion (not that of anyone else's) the right was meant to allow an individual to protect itself from harm by an individual or more importantly the State. It was a means to ensure that the countrymen could rise-up against its government and have the means to do so. Meaning the State cannot take away munitions from the individual.

Now where I think the constitutional interpretation should move from a historical understanding to a contextual approach is what constitutes an armament. It wouldn't make sense to have a constitution which allows one to bear arms, if those arms are only what existed in 1787. What point would there be in allowing protection from tyranny of the state if people can only carry muskets and cannons (honestly, I don't even know what existed back them)? Now obviously this is a contested issue, but I cannot imagine anyone actually believing that the Constitution should employ a strict and literal interpretation. If that is the case, it too easily becomes outdated.

The right to bear arms, in my understanding, is an individual right now according to Heller. Meaning owning guns doesn't have to be in the context of asserting your rights as part of militia. Individuals may own various types of armaments to protect their life and liberty. So for me, I guess it comes down to what is reasonable. While at first blush an automatic weapon seems heinous, it is something that is used by an individual for self-protection. It seems as far as a weapon goes, this would be an armament that the founding fathers would have contemplated being used by individuals if it existed at the time of drafting. I know plenty of people disagree. That's just my thoughts.

Now, I don't know much about bombs and rocket launchers, so I will presume these are relatively difficult to get a hold of. And I also do not know much about collateral damage associated with them. But here is the distinction for me. An automatic weapon is meant to attack a single target, with the possibility of hitting many. Its purpose is still to shoot at A target. While with a bomb and rocket launcher, its target is not singular, rather its a singular area, which has the potential to hit many people. I would think that these types of munitions are not consistent with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Their purpose isn't to assist oneself in self-preservation, rather are geared towards preemptive attack.

As a final note, being Canadian, I used to hate all things gun related. They never made sense to me. Having spent several years now with a gun owner and ferverent 2nd Amendment supporter, I think I get it. I've never been in a society with so much distrust of one another and even its state, but its unfortunately rampant here. I can understand why people feel the need to protect themselves. If the underlying issues of society are not dealt with, it comes to the need of self-preservation. Its scary and unfortunate, but necessary. The 2nd Amendment was based on a deep-seeded distrust of Government. Any movement which takes away the right to bear arms, seems to further assert that the government will one day be all encompassing.

Just my thoughts. Flame away.

I'm sure I've heard it before.

Damn, Cat....you make all of us regular VJ'ers who argue look like Second Graders. I don't care whether agree or disagree, you've got some damn good debating skills. I'll come up with a real response later...my brain hurts already.

Let me hurt your brain a little more. Here is a little history ... an excerpt from the Militia Act of 1792 detailing what is expected of a citizen when they are called to arms.

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, ..."

This essentially states the citizen should arrive with military weapons/ accouterments provided at his own expense.

Notice that cannon and other ordinance which are not normally used by the common foot soldier are not required?

There is more historical info available. Suggest you also read the Federalist papers for more background.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Now where I think the constitutional interpretation should move from a historical understanding to a contextual approach is what constitutes an armament. It wouldn't make sense to have a constitution which allows one to bear arms, if those arms are only what existed in 1787. What point would there be in allowing protection from tyranny of the state if people can only carry muskets and cannons (honestly, I don't even know what existed back them)? Now obviously this is a contested issue, but I cannot imagine anyone actually believing that the Constitution should employ a strict and literal interpretation. If that is the case, it too easily becomes outdated.

The right to bear arms, in my understanding, is an individual right now according to Heller. Meaning owning guns doesn't have to be in the context of asserting your rights as part of militia. Individuals may own various types of armaments to protect their life and liberty. So for me, I guess it comes down to what is reasonable. While at first blush an automatic weapon seems heinous, it is something that is used by an individual for self-protection. It seems as far as a weapon goes, this would be an armament that the founding fathers would have contemplated being used by individuals if it existed at the time of drafting. I know plenty of people disagree. That's just my thoughts.

That is the crux of all arguments over any gun regulations (the bolded part). And just like the rest of our constitutional rights - those rights aren't absolute, nor should they trump the rights of others. Imagine, the impracticality if in fact people we were allowed to own and carry fully automatic weapons in public? One could reasonably argue that extending the Second Amendment to that level would be infringing on inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The framers of the Constitutional must have understood the complexity of affording individual rights in the context of a society, which in practical application of those rights would have limitations.

....

I found this interesting regarding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

(excerpt)

If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased. Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm.

Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes."

....

In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

...

These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

The Supreme Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns (a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegal), essentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated (United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939]). Though the outcome of Miller was never fully resolved (the Court asked that Miller prove the relevance of the sawed-off shotgun to the maintenance of the militia, but Jack Miller died before he could, and the case died with him), the rationale used in Miller has been the basis for all gun control laws since 1939. As the GPO page notes, "At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer."

Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way.

...

Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.

The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

[MrsCat 6]

Good article - an interesting read.

I agree with most of it. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. What is reasonable to some is certainly not reasonable to all. As this is why these matters go to the Supreme Court.

As was the case in Heller some people would say that expecting a gun owner to use a gun lock and disassemble guns at home is a reasonable expectation. Some would say that a gun at home should be left in any state the owner wishes since this is in the privacy of their own home. The Supreme Court found that gun locks and disassembly was an unreasonable infringement on a Constitutional right.

That then turns on what types of prohibitions on guns may exist and still constitute reasonableness. People far smarter than I will have to determine that. For me, automatic weapons are not unreasonable for an ordinary citizen to own. Now do I think that should have age restrictions, back ground checks, examinations into mental health? Absolutely I do. That's a reasonable infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

I think you and I actually believe in the same underlying thing and that is we expect our constitution to operate reasonably. Its the minor yet significant manifestations of those rights which we may disagree on.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What a fvcked poll ... you still don't get it do you?

It's a perfectly legitimate question given the amount of Second Amendment experts here on VJ who claim that any regulations or restrictions of guns is an infringement of their rights. Where in the Second Amendment does it specify arms as pertaining exclusively to guns?

It doesn't. For what purpose would you want to own a nuclear weapon? The stated purpose of the second amendment, and as settled by the supreme court decision, is the "security of the free state" Nuclear weapons have never been used by an oppressive government to subject the people of any country and would have no purpose in defending our other rights against an overzealous government or in defending ourselves. Firearms DO fit that role perfectly.

Really, I would hope you could engage in a coversation without resorting to the ridiculous. I have never heard a supporter of the second amendment, or the "gun lobby" suggest the private ownership of nuclear weapons. You create your own interpretation, say it "must be" what someone believes and then expect us to defend a position you give to us. This is not debate class, I do not accept your premise and will not waste any more time on nonsense. If you would be intersted in debating the topic, really, I would be glad to entertain the prospect.

Since neither of us support the private ownership of nuclear weapons and since neither of us is really here for that argument, can we please discuss the real reason you are here?

No, I didn't answer your poll. It is silly.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Now where I think the constitutional interpretation should move from a historical understanding to a contextual approach is what constitutes an armament. It wouldn't make sense to have a constitution which allows one to bear arms, if those arms are only what existed in 1787. What point would there be in allowing protection from tyranny of the state if people can only carry muskets and cannons (honestly, I don't even know what existed back them)? Now obviously this is a contested issue, but I cannot imagine anyone actually believing that the Constitution should employ a strict and literal interpretation. If that is the case, it too easily becomes outdated.

The right to bear arms, in my understanding, is an individual right now according to Heller. Meaning owning guns doesn't have to be in the context of asserting your rights as part of militia. Individuals may own various types of armaments to protect their life and liberty. So for me, I guess it comes down to what is reasonable. While at first blush an automatic weapon seems heinous, it is something that is used by an individual for self-protection. It seems as far as a weapon goes, this would be an armament that the founding fathers would have contemplated being used by individuals if it existed at the time of drafting. I know plenty of people disagree. That's just my thoughts.

That is the crux of all arguments over any gun regulations (the bolded part). And just like the rest of our constitutional rights - those rights aren't absolute, nor should they trump the rights of others. Imagine, the impracticality if in fact people we were allowed to own and carry fully automatic weapons in public? One could reasonably argue that extending the Second Amendment to that level would be infringing on inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The framers of the Constitutional must have understood the complexity of affording individual rights in the context of a society, which in practical application of those rights would have limitations.

....

I found this interesting regarding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

(excerpt)

If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased. Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm.

Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes."

....

In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

...

These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

The Supreme Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns (a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegal), essentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated (United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939]). Though the outcome of Miller was never fully resolved (the Court asked that Miller prove the relevance of the sawed-off shotgun to the maintenance of the militia, but Jack Miller died before he could, and the case died with him), the rationale used in Miller has been the basis for all gun control laws since 1939. As the GPO page notes, "At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer."

Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way.

...

Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.

The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Well I will address those things you say when you are by yourself.

In most states it is perfectly legal to own and carry fully automatic weapons. Vermont is one, Kentucky, Texas, thos are just three I lived in. And the problem is what? We haven't had a shooting by lawfully owned fully automatic weapons here in Vermont since...well...NEVER. Yet it is perfectly legal. Same in Kentucky and Texas and any other state that allows ownership of automatic weapons and does not restrict the carrying of "long guns", that's a whole bunch of states. Most of the sattes west of the Mississippi and South of the Missouri with very few exceptions. But you weren't aware of that and so make such statements as "imagine the impracticality of..." when it in fact is the case.

Firearms ownership is a responsibility, no doubt. Not harming our fellow man is a responsibility. More reason to ease the restrictions on concealed carry, make it all like Vermont...anyone can carry a gun anywhere without a permit, without training, without a license. The result is a microscopic crime rate. And no one is getting shot, even with fully auto weapons

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The way it is written now, yes - you can own nuclear weapons. I voted as such.

However, you would have to overcome other laws that would prevent you from owning one. Yes, that "infringes" on your rights, but it's the law. If you don't like the law, you will have to change it.

Since the US Constitution is a living document, and you can make changes (well the government can), they can change it to limit this amendment.

I would suggest you take it up with your Congress/Senate members and have them introduce a new amendment to change the existing one instead of comparing nukes to guns.

Article Five of the Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law

Actually, the constitution IS a living thing, but the bill of rights are not. There is no provision for the government to change the bill of rights. The bill of rights are specifically those things that CANNOT be changed by government and it was the lack of this "bill of rights" that preveted the constitution from being ratified for 8 years. They are not articles of the constituion, they are not subject to change by amendment because they are the very things the government does not give and cannot take away.

Fortunately, we made the very wise decision NOT to subject our rights to Congressman, Senators, Presidents and popular opinion polls. They are YOUR rights. You are free not to excerise them.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The way it is written now, yes - you can own nuclear weapons. I voted as such.

However, you would have to overcome other laws that would prevent you from owning one. Yes, that "infringes" on your rights, but it's the law. If you don't like the law, you will have to change it.

Since the US Constitution is a living document, and you can make changes (well the government can), they can change it to limit this amendment.

I would suggest you take it up with your Congress/Senate members and have them introduce a new amendment to change the existing one instead of comparing nukes to guns.

Article Five of the Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law

Actually, the constitution IS a living thing, but the bill of rights are not. There is no provision for the government to change the bill of rights. The bill of rights are specifically those things that CANNOT be changed by government and it was the lack of this "bill of rights" that preveted the constitution from being ratified for 8 years. They are not articles of the constituion, they are not subject to change by amendment because they are the very things the government does not give and cannot take away.

Fortunately, we made the very wise decision NOT to subject our rights to Congressman, Senators, Presidents and popular opinion polls. They are YOUR rights. You are free not to excerise them.

The Bill of Rights is just the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and can be repealed, or modified by amendment, as can any other part of the Constitution.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

i still wanna see steven haul his own fat man or little boy around.

So Charles, you are then in favor of interpreting the contextual meaning of the Second Amendment, rather than a literal interpretation that Bobby expressed in post #5, yes?

maybe you should check into how much those two weighed

as long as we are on the subject of individual ownership of nukes, can i have my own space dreadnaught?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Good article - an interesting read.

I agree with most of it. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. What is reasonable to some is certainly not reasonable to all. As this is why these matters go to the Supreme Court.

As was the case in Heller some people would say that expecting a gun owner to use a gun lock and disassemble guns at home is a reasonable expectation. Some would say that a gun at home should be left in any state the owner wishes since this is in the privacy of their own home. The Supreme Court found that gun locks and disassembly was an unreasonable infringement on a Constitutional right.

That then turns on what types of prohibitions on guns may exist and still constitute reasonableness. People far smarter than I will have to determine that. For me, automatic weapons are not unreasonable for an ordinary citizen to own. Now do I think that should have age restrictions, back ground checks, examinations into mental health? Absolutely I do. That's a reasonable infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

I think you and I actually believe in the same underlying thing and that is we expect our constitution to operate reasonably. Its the minor yet significant manifestations of those rights which we may disagree on.

Thanks, Cat - for making this an informative and insightful discussion.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

Makes sense

Probably an amendment would be needed due to the advances in weapons to keep the "spirit" of the law

Saludos,

Caro

[elkfarmer 4]

God, are you ever my type of woman! I hope I can win my wife over like you. She is from Colombia, and lost her father to Insurgent groups there. Her mother died at childbirth. She has never been around guns. Did not sense a need for one. I tell her what big cities are like in America. She is from Bogota with a population of 8 million. FEW GUNS THANK GOD. Different world. I told my wife I just passed a class in firearms training so I could protect her and the step-kids. She seemed to understand, since they hear so much about the massacres that happen here. I am a Viet Nam vet, a gun dealer a number of years ago, and just passed my Concealed Carry. I hope I never have to use it. Should it ever come in to play, I will be ready to protect my family, and who ever is nearby. On the other hand, if I knew anyone around me that did not believe in the second amendment, I would just let them shoot the SOB.

[Caladan 19]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

Ok, so are we going to look into the intent of the Second Amendment or a literal interpretation of it? And if we are going to look at the intent in its historical context - how can one make the argument that the authors of Second Amendment intended to protect citizens the right to own any and all hand held weapons beyond the firepower and capacity of the existing weapons at that time?

I think looking literally gets you an Amendment with an extra comma that is grammatically-speaking, nonsense.

But if we look at it in its historical context, I think it's not a huge leap of logic to assume that the Founders intended that their Bill of Rights would be flexible enough to incorporate new technology. We don't generally assume that the first Amendment doesn't apply to Internet magazines because "press" means a system of ink and paper and not electrons, or that the right to privacy only refers to one's personal papers, not telephones. So I don't think it's a big leap to assume that they would have been on board with more advanced weapons.

I do think, however, that the 2nd Amendment is consistent with a certain amount of sensible regulation (perhaps akin to a driver's license.)