Remember that the 2nd protects the other 9.
Howitzers, for instance, are not protected. Nor are .50 caliber machine guns, among others.
Sorry, but this line is dead wrong. If the second amendment is to allow us to be able to overthrow a government gone rogue, then we have a duty to possess ANY weapon our government agencies possess, and this includes machine gun, cannon, mortar, grenades, tank, aircraft and warships...
an interesting point is that during the revolutionary war, the fledgling United States of America LEASED warships and cannon from private owners.
It would appear that we had more freedom under the crown than we do today....
If we can open the Second for further infringement, we can also open up the First. If we are going to restrict firearm magazines, I say we can restrict vile magazines like Hustler to no more than 10 pages. After all, who really needs more than 10 pages of Hustler?
Then I suggest we follow Mayor Bloomberg’s magazine ban plan: 30 to 10 to 7 to “five or six” to 3 to 1 to ZERO, pages that is.
‘Howitzers, for instance, are not protected. Nor are .50 caliber machine guns, among others. ‘
Disagree! Theres nothing in the 2nd that says or implies this. In fact it was common for private individuals to own arty pieces during our early history. The only restriction was the depth or your pockets.
Howitzers, for instance, are not protected. Nor are .50 caliber machine guns, among others.
Wrong. There is no qualifier. Arms are arms. The amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. All those qualifications about howitzers and machine guns are legislative infringements. Admit of any "qualifications" and you negate the amendment because, like the million dollar proposal to the lady, it establishes what it is and now the discussion is about price.
Those who are horrified at the thought of machine guns being part of the referenced "arms" and think that surely you can't mean that have already compromised the amendment and are just arguing about where the line should be drawn, perhaps nothing deadlier than nerf guns are protected, perhaps nothing at all. The limiter on Constitutional arms possession is, of course, the market. I can't afford a howitzer.When the arms get bigger and, to some, scarier, the Constitutionalist mindset of even conservatives (Hannity, etc) turns to jelly.
The right of free speech, unlike the RKBA, is limitable. The 1st says Congress shall make no law..." thus other government entities and private parties are not prohibited from limiting free speech (and the press and religion), but Congress is so prohibited.
The 2nd Amendment is prima facie the amendment considered the most important by the Founders. They worded it to admit of NO limitations. They did not add a "common sense" clause or an "of course that doesn't mean..." clause.
Yes they are. Read US vs. Miller and read the Federalist papers, the letters of marque that have been appointed, and especially the written orders of Boston's British contengent to the Brits whom marched upon Lexington and Concord (detailed listing of items to be seized and destroyed = cannons).
What an idiot. None of them start with "The government..." and only one begins with "Congress..."
The 2nd Amendment is the “teeth” or guarantor of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, there are unfettered rights; you can see this in the legal world, sometimes, where a litigant presses a claim against another for violating their mutually binding contract (thus claiming rights under the contract).
The government has been attempting to fetter these rights, and has succeeded in corrupting a surprising amount; consider income tax withholdings: either the government is taking while it is not yours (in which case the employer is not paying the agreed wage), or the government is taking it from you, even before you touch it (in which case the government is stealing from you) -- yet withholdings are commonplace and, therefore, considered legitimate by our justice-system.
In like manner most of the other items in the bill of rights have been eroded to virtually nothing. Consider just the 4th: the TSA's screening, no-knock raids, DUI checkpoints.
Gee, and all this time I thought the 16th Amendment was THE most important of all.
It allows the government to take our hard earned money at will and give us all the wonderful programs and goodies we all so need.
It also gives those in power the ability to control us like sheep. Every now and then they throw us a bone in the form of “tax breaks or refunds” just to keep us happy and not make a stink about how much they are stealing from us.
But...it’s worth it!
I had a discussion the other day with someone who is very anti-gun and of course the 2nd Amend came up. We were at odds as to what a well regulated militia really is. Which article in the original constitution is the 2nd amendment actually amending? I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I couldn’t answer. I’d appreciate some freeper inputs.
The 2nd amendment was probably one of the least controversial amendments at the time of the Bill Of Rights inception. Now it is the most controversial...
Actually, this is not correct. We all DO have the right to shout, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. There can be no prior restraint - i.e. they can tape your mouth shut or remove your tongue before you enter a movie theater, just because you **MIGHT** shout, "FIRE!"
Oh, by the way, if there actually IS a fire in the theater, there can be no punishment. However, falsely shouting, "FIRE!" when, in fact, there is no fire and you know there isn't, has been properly judged to be a violation of the rights of others because it is likely to cause a panic (given human nature) and thus injure or kill some of your fellow movie-goers.
But they can't legally prevent you from saying ANYTHING...and in the same way, prior restraint on the 2nd Amendment by limiting (uh, err, INFRINGING upon) your right to buy a particular rifle or some accessory necessary to make it function properly (like ammo and magazines) should be illegal as well. Punishment after misuse is a different story.
FYI, I'm sure everyone knows the apochryphal story of a Marine Corps general who was asked about limiting the right to bear arms ("after all, general, they're equipped to be murderers")...to which he responded, "well, young lady, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but no one has a problem with you walking around scantily clad."). It isn't a true story, but its a good line. By the way, for any male over the age of 12 or 13, you're equipped to be a rapist...and I think that any calls for "prior restraint" of the type that the gun-grabbers would like for the 2nd Amendment would be met with "resistance."
Yes. Actually, they are.
Unless you think the Founders, who hired FULLY ARMED merchant ships as battle ships, wouldn't want the common folk to own things like field artillery.
Only the Right? Wish it had worked out that way, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Communism is still a dirty word in my home, how about yours?