When is it right to avail oneself of the 2nd amendment?

[james&olya 1,121]

They negated an election by committing murder. Committing muder is not "availing oneself of the second amendment". We have no "Right to murder". It was already a crime to do so and still is. It is not legal and is not a "remedy" To suggest, as MC did, that it is ever "acceptable" is silly. Coining a silly idiom "Second Amendment Remedy" and then asking someone to seriously defend it is ridiculous. I am not going there. Unless she wants to tell me when it is OK to "rain cats and dogs". Sheeesh, JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZum

Lee Harvey Oswald was never even indicted for the crime of killing Kennedy, but that is incidental, there is no dispute he was murdered by someone.

I find it absurd that you cannot connect the 2nd amendment right to own a gun with the sequence of events that took the lives of Lincoln, Kennedy, and countless others in this great country. This fact exists independent of whether you think widespread gun ownership is good or bad. The least you could do as a gun rights advocate would be to honestly acknowledge the FACT that gun violence takes thousands of lives every year in this country. Maybe you can make a rational argument for why it is still good that we have so many guns around but if you must first deny obvious facts it seems to me you have already ceded the argument to those that disagree with you!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I discovered long ago that that is an argument gun proponents don't want to have.

[james&olya 1,121]

Why do people have to get a license to drive but not to use a gun?

(now this is a 'can of worms!')

Edited January 11, 2011 by james&olya

[^_^ 5,021]

Why do people have to get a license to drive but not to use a gun?

(now this is a 'can of worms!')

The 2nd Amendment?

Don't look now, but your can of worms has no worms in it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I find it absurd that you cannot connect the 2nd amendment right to own a gun with the sequence of events that took the lives of Lincoln, Kennedy, and countless others in this great country. This fact exists independent of whether you think widespread gun ownership is good or bad. The least you could do as a gun rights advocate would be to honestly acknowledge the FACT that gun violence takes thousands of lives every year in this country. Maybe you can make a rational argument for why it is still good that we have so many guns around but if you must first deny obvious facts it seems to me you have already ceded the argument to those that disagree with you!

I will. Homicide rates are being reduced and are far below what they were a few decades ago despite most of the states now allowing any law abiding citizen that wishes to carry a gun the license to do so. Each state that has allowed this has had a reduction in crime. Vermont, the state with the lowest crime rate, allows any person to carry a gun, no license needed.

Violence takes thousands of lives in this country. Allowing law abiding people the choice to carry concealed handguns reduces that violence.

[Jenn! 918]

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.

Is the first comma correct? Because I don't understand how this is a sentence with it included. I also don't understand how this grants the right of people who are not part of a militia to keep and bear arms.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why do people have to get a license to drive but not to use a gun?

(now this is a 'can of worms!')

Not really. a#Aside from the obvious..driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. But lets take your statement and look at it.

Drive? You do not need a license to drive a car on private property, nor do you need a license to own a gun on private property. Advantage? Neither.

Drive your privately owned vehicle on a public road? License. Carry your privately owned gun in public places. License (in most states, Vermont, no)

Age to buy a car? None. Age to buy a gun? 18 or 21 for handguns. License to drive vehicle valid and recognized in ALL states? Yes. License to carry gun valid and recognized in ALL states? No. Background check required to buy car? No. Background check required to buy gun? Yes. People annually killed by cars? Approx 40,000. People killed annualy by guns? approx 10,000.

Despite being a "right" there are few, if any, things more difficult to own legally than a gun which you CAN legally own.

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.

Is the first comma correct? Because I don't understand how this is a sentence with it included. I also don't understand how this grants the right of people who are not part of a militia to keep and bear arms.

read the Supreme Court Heller decision. It explains it all. Google "Heller"

[^_^ 5,021]

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.

Is the first comma correct? Because I don't understand how this is a sentence with it included. I also don't understand how this grants the right of people who are not part of a militia to keep and bear arms.

This is my understanding of it. History buffs should feel free to chime in and correct where necessary.

In the past militia's were drawn from the general population and each member brought their own weapon with them.

So - China invades. DC starts drawing militia's from the general populace and each militia member shows up with his or her own weapons. This doesn't work if they don't have their own weapons. This also doesn't work if arbitrary restrictions on what kind of weapons they may have mean they show up to serve but all they have are bows and arrows.

Of course, today we have a military so it's as if the 2nd Amendment was made obsolete but left in place anyway. So now we have the military and a well-armed population capable of shooting ChiComs should the need arise.

Edited January 11, 2011 by \

[Jenn! 918]

Of course, today we have a military so it's as if the 2nd Amendment was made obsolete but left in place anyway. So now we have the military and a well-armed population capable of shooting ChiComs should the need arise.

Seems that way to me.

[Jenn! 918]

read the Supreme Court Heller decision. It explains it all. Google "Heller"

There's a lot to read and I'd like to go to bed sometime this week, but it seems to boil down to, "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

I don't find that convincing myself (yet), and I see that there was significant dissent.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is my understanding of it. History buffs should feel free to chime in and correct where necessary.

In the past militia's were drawn from the general population and each member brought their own weapon with them.

So - China invades. DC starts drawing militia's from the general populace and each militia member shows up with his or her own weapons. This doesn't work if they don't have their own weapons. This also doesn't work if arbitrary restrictions on what kind of weapons they may have mean they show up to serve but all they have are bows and arrows.

Of course, today we have a military so it's as if the 2nd Amendment was made obsolete but left in place anyway. So now we have the military and a well-armed population capable of shooting ChiComs should the need arise.

There is a section of the Constitution that actually prevents the creation of a standing army except in the time of war. Notice there is no such provision limiting naval forces.

Section. 8. [Enumerated Powers of Congress]

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There is a section of the Constitution that actually prevents the creation of a standing army except in the time of war. Notice there is no such provision limiting naval forces.

this gets bastardized by them doing the appropriations bill bi-annually (sometimes more often if politics comes into play).....

Of course, that was not the intent of the article, but many of them get abused and no one seem to bat an eye.

[james&olya 1,121]

This is my understanding of it. History buffs should feel free to chime in and correct where necessary.

In the past militia's were drawn from the general population and each member brought their own weapon with them.

So - China invades. DC starts drawing militia's from the general populace and each militia member shows up with his or her own weapons. This doesn't work if they don't have their own weapons. This also doesn't work if arbitrary restrictions on what kind of weapons they may have mean they show up to serve but all they have are bows and arrows.

Of course, today we have a military so it's as if the 2nd Amendment was made obsolete but left in place anyway. So now we have the military and a well-armed population capable of shooting ChiComs should the need arise.

If we really want to be able to draw up an effective militia, it seems we ought to at least have rocket propelled grenades, mortars, heavy machine guns, artillery, tanks, maybe a few fighter jets with heat seeking missiles and 'smart' bombs, maybe even a few nukes! I mean, if you are really serious about maintaining this rationale for private ownership of guns! And before any of you show up at my door, no, I am not advocating trying to take your guns away from you! But I think the discussion is usually less than honest on both sides of the debate about what we want and why. For me, I would just like to see a way to make our society a bit safer and more peaceful. But I also value our liberties and so the whole issue is complicated.

[Peikko 1,575]

I never mentioned madmen or specific incidents.

[james&olya 1,121]

Not really. a#Aside from the obvious..driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. But lets take your statement and look at it.

Drive? You do not need a license to drive a car on private property, nor do you need a license to own a gun on private property. Advantage? Neither.

Drive your privately owned vehicle on a public road? License. Carry your privately owned gun in public places. License (in most states, Vermont, no)

Age to buy a car? None. Age to buy a gun? 18 or 21 for handguns. License to drive vehicle valid and recognized in ALL states? Yes. License to carry gun valid and recognized in ALL states? No. Background check required to buy car? No. Background check required to buy gun? Yes. People annually killed by cars? Approx 40,000. People killed annualy by guns? approx 10,000.

Despite being a "right" there are few, if any, things more difficult to own legally than a gun which you CAN legally own.

You make good points here Gary. I still would personally prefer there were fewer guns everywhere.