Ted Nugent discusses the 2nd Amendment

[natty bumppo 297]

and ... to plug you theory into another amendment ... freedom of speach protection ... there goes the internet, radio, TV, etc.

you can't have it both ways ...

Assuming of course that those rights are absolute and unconditional. I don't believe that they are.

Bear ... Carry ... Can you carry a "nuclear weapon or very large bomb"?

Darn ... you must be a very strong person ..

I can "bear" a belt of C4, connected to a dead man's trigger. Of course, I don't imagine it will make me too popular on the subway.

You're the one that wants to mindlessly nitpick over how guns are the same as kitchen knives and plastic bags - how's about some of your own medicine in return? What I wrote is ridiculous - so are the pages of $hit you posted about mass murderers and drink drivers.

"Arms" is a loose definition by any standard.

does this means you're into WMDs and "destructive devices"

Are you confusing arms (personal carry) with ordnance … your bombs are ordnance

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

I have finally read the 2nd amendement, and some interesting discussions on what it means in the context of when it was written. Those who believe that it enforces the individual's right to own a gun seem to be connecting some rather distant dots. However, I have a lot more research and reading to do on this subject. In the meantime, I shall continue to carry a plastic bag in my pocket at all times!

yeah i can see how that would happen

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

what's so difficult to understand about that again?

At the time it was written, arms would probably have been understood to mean black powder muskets, pistols and swords.

If we take that definition to include modern weapons, then Steven's nuclear weapon example probably isn't all that far off.

Also that while you may CCH a pistol, I could still conceivably be arrested for carrying a sword in a public place. Are my rights to bear a sword and/or own a nuclear weapon, or indeed a very large bomb still covered under the definition of 'arms', and if so - why are they being infringed?

Some interesting history on the 2nd Amendment:

Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC2

[bgreed 0]

Purple Hibiscus, Not my interpretation but how the framers of the constitution saw it and wrote about it in there letters and memoirs.

[pedroh 21]

I found what you can do with a plastic bag! (from Manhunt game, wtfpwns)

[natty bumppo 297]

I can "bear" a belt of C4, connected to a dead man's trigger. Of course, I don't imagine it will make me too popular on the subway.

You're the one that wants to mindlessly nitpick over how guns are the same as kitchen knives and plastic bags - how's about some of your own medicine in return? What I wrote is ridiculous - so are the pages of $hit you posted about mass murderers and drink drivers.

"Arms" is a loose definition by any standard.

It was originally about personal resonsibility and "intent". It migrated to where someone brough in the plastic bag as a potential weapon.

How many people need to be intentionally killed ... by an object ... before it becomes a mass murder committed by a person? Be the act fueled by stupidity or ignorance ... if the person made an intentional decision that resulted in many deaths by that object ... it's still mass murder.

Intentionally drive through a crowd with an SUV ... killing 10 people on the first pass ... that's not mass murder?

Intentionally get drunk and intentionally drive ... kill many people ... not a mass murder ?

Or killing many people with a knife .. that not mass murder?

What is mass murder

It is how an object is intentionally used and personal responsibility, that was the issue ... Not guns, kitchen knives, plastic bags?

Oh .. ever had a harmless fruit punch?

Flavor Aid

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Purple Hibiscus, Not my interpretation but how the framers of the constitution saw it and wrote about it in there letters and memoirs.

Congratulations on having unearthed the irrefutable, everlasting truth. Congratulations indeed.

[/sarcasm]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and ... to plug you theory into another amendment ... freedom of speach protection ... there goes the internet, radio, TV, etc.

you can't have it both ways ...

Assuming of course that those rights are absolute and unconditional. I don't believe that they are.

Bear ... Carry ... Can you carry a "nuclear weapon or very large bomb"?

Darn ... you must be a very strong person ..

I can "bear" a belt of C4, connected to a dead man's trigger. Of course, I don't imagine it will make me too popular on the subway.

You're the one that wants to mindlessly nitpick over how guns are the same as kitchen knives and plastic bags - how's about some of your own medicine in return? What I wrote is ridiculous - so are the pages of $hit you posted about mass murderers and drink drivers.

"Arms" is a loose definition by any standard.

does this means you're into WMDs and "destructive devices"

Are you confusing arms (personal carry) with ordnance … your bombs are ordnance

Your distinction, not mine.

Like how cars, knives, plastic bags and guns are indistinguishable as weapons.

BTW "bear" and "carry" are relative terms too. What I can't carry I can tow with a car.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Number 6

[natty bumppo 297]

and ... to plug you theory into another amendment ... freedom of speach protection ... there goes the internet, radio, TV, etc.

you can't have it both ways ...

Assuming of course that those rights are absolute and unconditional. I don't believe that they are.

Bear ... Carry ... Can you carry a "nuclear weapon or very large bomb"?

Darn ... you must be a very strong person ..

I can "bear" a belt of C4, connected to a dead man's trigger. Of course, I don't imagine it will make me too popular on the subway.

You're the one that wants to mindlessly nitpick over how guns are the same as kitchen knives and plastic bags - how's about some of your own medicine in return? What I wrote is ridiculous - so are the pages of $hit you posted about mass murderers and drink drivers.

"Arms" is a loose definition by any standard.

does this means you're into WMDs and "destructive devices"

Are you confusing arms (personal carry) with ordnance … your bombs are ordnance

Your distinction, not mine.

Like how cars, knives, plastic bags and guns are indistinguishable as weapons.

BTW "bear" and "carry" are relative terms too. What I can't carry I can tow with a car.

Well ...

A weapon is a tool used to injure, incapacitate, or kill an adversary.[1][2] Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile.

What is a weapon ....

Not specific to an object is it ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and ... to plug you theory into another amendment ... freedom of speach protection ... there goes the internet, radio, TV, etc.

you can't have it both ways ...

Assuming of course that those rights are absolute and unconditional. I don't believe that they are.

Bear ... Carry ... Can you carry a "nuclear weapon or very large bomb"?

Darn ... you must be a very strong person ..

I can "bear" a belt of C4, connected to a dead man's trigger. Of course, I don't imagine it will make me too popular on the subway.

You're the one that wants to mindlessly nitpick over how guns are the same as kitchen knives and plastic bags - how's about some of your own medicine in return? What I wrote is ridiculous - so are the pages of $hit you posted about mass murderers and drink drivers.

"Arms" is a loose definition by any standard.

does this means you're into WMDs and "destructive devices"

Are you confusing arms (personal carry) with ordnance … your bombs are ordnance

Your distinction, not mine.

Like how cars, knives, plastic bags and guns are indistinguishable as weapons.

BTW "bear" and "carry" are relative terms too. What I can't carry I can tow with a car.

Well ...

A weapon is a tool used to injure, incapacitate, or kill an adversary.[1][2] Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile.

What is a weapon ....

Not specific to an object is it ?

Well I'm sure next time there's a mass killing at a school - it will be the result of a psychopath using strong language.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well I'm sure next time there's a mass killing at a school - it will be the result of a psychopath using strong language.

Well, the last boy they arrested in PA just a few days ago prior to him pulling his planned stunt off wasn't exactly piling up dictionaries of foul language. Nor did he amass cars, box cutters, bread knives or plastic bags. To my "surprise", firearms of all sorts seem to have been the weapon of choice. Just like all the other times. But I'm sure we'll eventually have a mass slaying involving a guy swinging a club or something.

[Jenn! 918]

Hmmmm, if a gun is no different than any other object that you could use to whack someone over the head or something I wonder why they were invented in the first place. I mean, technology is generally an improvement or advancement, right? Now what is it about the gun that would be "better" than any other heavy inanimate object? This is really a head-scratcher.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

6. So yes you should be able to own that M-16, FN-FAl, HK91, AK-47, .30cal or .50cal Machine gun.

Though none of these would be my choice for personal protection on the street. Give me my

custom 1911-A1 commander in 45ACP thank you.

good choice

[DeadPoolX 9]

I can't believe this debate is still going on...

You know, I brought this subject up with my fiancee last night and she brought up, what I think, is an interesting point about the 2nd Amendment. It guarantees the right of all U.S. citizens (and perhaps permanent residents too) to bear arms, right? Well, she said if that right cannot be waived or changed or is a "God-given right" as some have claimed, how can we take away that right from those whom we deem unacceptable in society, such as those with a criminal record or psychological disorder?

I told her that anyone with a criminal record or psychological disorder may prove to be a danger to themselves or those around them and that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights made no provision for criminals or mental illness.

My fiancee replied, "Well, wouldn't someone who was untrained in the use of a firearm be just as much of a danger to themselves and others?" She then went on to say, "Why would the Constitution or Bill of Rights need to make a provision for it? According to what you've said, that document grants every American the undeniable right to own and use a firearm; it never said UNLESS you were a criminal or had a mental disorder. If you can make special exceptions for those issues, then you can make special exceptions for others as well."

I've got say, folks... usually, I'm pretty good at arguing my case, but this time, she beat me, fair and square. I had no way around that. Yes, I feel criminals and those with psychological disorders shouldn't own guns, but why? Because they'd be a danger. But my fiancee is right -- someone who hasn't trained to use a gun would also be a danger, so the "they'd be a danger so they can't be allowed to own and use a gun" argument doesn't hold water.

We need to be consistent here. Either we begin allowing everyone complete access to firearms (as stated by the 2nd Amendment) or we begin making special exceptions, which we have already done in some cases. Since we've already done it, there's really no reason why we can't make a ruling that if you want to own and use a firearm, you must be able to pass a written/practical test, psychological exam and get a license.

[Peikko 1,575]

You mean, I have to surrender my plastic bag until I pass the test?

[DeadPoolX 9]

You mean, I have to surrender my plastic bag until I pass the test?

Unfortunately, yes. The new system will be very much like a role-playing game's graded system. In other words, you'll start off with a "paper bag" and then eventually move to use a "cloth bag" and when you're ready for your license, you'll receive you're officially stamped "Concealed Plastic Bag License."