Amend This (politics threads merged)

[mapuc]

You have the right to bear arm(s)

But it doesn't say wich kind of arm(s) it is.

So Obama could easy say that from now you are only allowed to bear a hammer as your personal weapon.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

You have the right to bear arm(s)

But it doesn't say wich kind of arm(s) it is.

So Obama could easy say that from now you are only allowed to bear a hammer as your personal weapon.

Markus

The first Amendment says, amongst other things, that we have the right to free speech. Now by your logic Obama could easily say that free speech is limited to non political topics. After all it doesn't say what kind of speech is free right?

[Wolferz]

We also have the right to peaceful assembly which is anything but peaceful when the jackbooted thugs wade into a crowd wearing their riot gear where there is no riot.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

We also have the right to peaceful assembly

Depends on how you define peaceful assembly.
I doubt very much a riot squad would make a bee-line through a crowd of Daffodil Day Organisers, who are ever-so-peacefully telling onlookers to buy Daffodil merchandise.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

The first Amendment says, amongst other things, that we have the right to free speech. Now by your logic Obama could easily say that free speech is limited to non political topics. After all it doesn't say what kind of speech is free right?

He could. However it's not the first Amendment that's on the table it's the 2nd amendment that is the big issue here.

And from what I have learned from it. is that the 2nd amendment gives every American the right to bear arms. BUT it doesn't say wich kind it is and how many(Arms is plural so it most be more than 1)

Markus

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures; the prohibition on assault weapons; and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Amendment_USA

Its interesting how in the US the population seems to always contradict itself, we throw a person in prison because of a crime, we let them out on "good behavior", and yet certain persons are apposed to making it more difficult for said criminal to get a weapon so they can commit further crimes and how members of a "certain political party" complains that we can or can't enforce the rules and laws concerning firearms when a "certain organization" has told that "certain political party" to defund the departments and/or organizations tasked with enforcing said rules and laws concerning firearms. Also could someone please explain to me how any of the gun control measures that have been brought up in the past few months, A) Have anything what-so-ever to do with changing any part the Constitution of the United States and/or it violates Article V of the Constitution. B) How exactly do these gun controlling measures violate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution when the courts have ruled otherwise? C) When has any person who has and/or currently supports gun control measures has said "The government is going to take away your guns!", or has said anything similar?

Just some food for thought, though I doubt it will change anyone's mind on what they believe on this particular subject.

[Ducimus]

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

This true in every nation of course the fairness and availability of each option varies.

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

He could. However it's not the first Amendment that's on the table it's the 2nd amendment that is the big issue here.

Every constitutional right is jeopardized when you start redefining one of them. I could easily see a lawyer in some future courtroom using successful infringements upon the 2nd as a justification for infringements on the 1st or any other one.

You have to understand why the Bill of Rights was enacted and why there was resistance to the whole idea of quantifying them.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

Every constitutional right is jeopardized when you start redefining one of them. I could easily see a lawyer in some future courtroom using successful infringements upon the ND as a justification for infringements on the 1st or any other one.

You have to understand why the Bill of Rights was enacted and why there was resistance to the whole idea of quantifying them.

Let me first make something clear, so you don't misunderstand me.

This arms, weapons problem is an all American domestics issue

And it's not my intention to get involved into this

And it is not my intention to "scrabble" the word in your 2nd Amendment

From my knowledge about this issue, there are two major point in this 2nd Amendment

1. Doesn't say what kind of weapon it have to be
2. It says that every American has the right to defend he/her self. And an assault weapon is not a weapon to defend, but use to..mainly... assault.

If the writer of 2nd Amendment could see USA today, do you think, they would have written it in a different way?

I hope that you government will come up with a solution that's a win win for both side.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Let me first make something clear, so you don't misunderstand me.

This arms, weapons problem is an all American domestics issue

And it's not my intention to get involved into this

And it is not my intention to "scrabble" the word in your 2nd Amendment

Understood and please let me make clear that if I use the word "you" in the context that I did:

when you start redefining one of them

...I did not mean you personally.

From my knowledge about this issue, there are two major point in this 2nd Amendment

1. Doesn't say what kind of weapon it have to be
2. It says that every American has the right to defend he/her self. And an assault weapon is not a weapon to defend, but use to..mainly... assault.

A couple notes about that:

1. No it doesn't specify the specific type of weapon although "arms" has always meant the arms and equipment which would be useful to the militia. I would submit that one would be hard pressed to find a firearm more suited to that particular role than an AR-15.

2. "Assault weapon" as used in American gun debates is a politically made up name having no real definition. Guns on the AW ban list are functionally the same as ones that are not. The only real identifiable difference seems to be that an assault weapon looks scarier than other firearms. This is on purpose IMO because once this banned list is passed into law just about any weapon can be added to it without futher legislation.

If the writer of 2nd Amendment could see USA today, do you think, they would have written it in a different way?

Fair question. Yes, I believe they would have significantly strengthened the language to prevent the kind of infringements that we're seeing today, not only regarding the 2A but the others as well.

Like Ducimus points out you can't look at the gun debate as a stand alone issue. In the past 20 years or so in particular all civil liberties have been significantly limited by a national government that has grown huge and increasingly oppressive.

I hope that you government will come up with a solution that's a win win for both side.

Markus

Thank you for your sentiment and I would share your hope except that I know the anti-gun side will never be satisfied with an AW or magazine ban. It would just become the new starting point for further restrictions and infringements until the RKBA is totally eliminated and/or it causes the country to fragment into warring states. Some say (not me) that we're at this point already.

[Bilge_Rat]

In Canada, we had a centralized national gun registration until last year, have background checks, have firearm acquisition permits, limits on magazines (5 rounds max.), prohibited weapons (mainly fully auto weapons), you may buy AR-15s, but it is a restricted weapon (so limits on how it is transported and where it may be used).

However, this baby is fully legal and I was thinking of buying one a few years back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

I have 8 firearms, 6 functioning: bolt-action .303, Winchester rifle, 2 shot guns, 2 .22 semi auto rifles; The government has not tried to take any away.

And this is in socialist, liberal, nanny state Canada, where most people do not own firearms.

How anyone could view the current mild senate weapons bill as an attack on the constitutional right of americans to carry machine guns is beyond me.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

Understood and please let me make clear that if I use the word "you" in the context that I did:
...I did not mean you personally.

A couple notes about that:

1. No it doesn't specify the specific type of weapon although "arms" has always meant the arms and equipment which would be useful to the militia. I would submit that one would be hard pressed to find a firearm more suited to that particular role than an AR-15.

2. "Assault weapon" as used in American gun debates is a politically made up name having no real definition. Guns on the AW ban list are functionally the same as ones that are not. The only real identifiable difference seems to be that an assault weapon looks scarier than other firearms. This is on purpose IMO because once this banned list is passed into law just about any weapon can be added to it without futher legislation.

Fair question. Yes, I believe they would have significantly strengthened the language to prevent the kind of infringements that we're seeing today, not only regarding the 2A but the others as well.

Like Ducimus points out you can't look at the gun debate as a stand alone issue. In the past 20 years or so in particular all civil liberties have been significantly limited by a national government that has grown huge and increasingly oppressive.

Thank you for your sentiment and I would share your hope except that I know the anti-gun side will never be satisfied with an AW or magazine ban. It would just become the new starting point for further restrictions and infringements until the RKBA is totally eliminated and/or it causes the country to fragment into warring states. Some say (not me) that we're at this point already.

Thank you for the lesson August. I wasn't that deep into the 2nd Amendment. My statement came from what I have heard and seen on our danish and swedish tv-channel.

If I understand you right, you are one of them who fight for the right to bear arms. But even you must somehow be tired of hearing about all those masskilling, that seems to happens almost 1-2 days per week.

I do understand that a ban of some kind would not prevent those killings, ´cause it's not the weapon that kill, it's the person behind it.

By reading some of yours posting and others I can say this:
I'm glad I'm not the president of USA.

Markus