Do I have a 2nd Amendment right to bear ANY arm...without restriction or registration

[GordonGecko]

Yes or No?

 

[trapdoor]

No. The Supreme Court has said that some limited restrictions on firearms are constitutional.

 

[EatTheRich]

"The people" have that right. The point of the amendment is to prevent the government from disarming the workers, peasants, artisans, etc.

 

[rus]

Yes or No?

NO The old coots that wrote the constitution lived in a different age. The constitution needs some updating.

 

[Union_Jack_1972]

No, but if were able to then can I have granny pressure cooker???

Too soon???

 

[NinaS]

No. The Supreme Court has said that some limited restrictions on firearms are constitutional.

Then why in HELL when they talk about restricting "SOME" firearms such as assault type weapons that can kill a couple dozen people or more in a minute YOU PEOPLE say it's against their 2nd amendment rights??

 

[trapdoor]

Then why in HELL when they talk about restricting "SOME" firearms such as assault type weapons that can kill a couple dozen people or more in a minute YOU PEOPLE say it's against their 2nd amendment rights??

Because the Supreme Court ALSO ruled that limits can't be extended to weapons in common use -- the AR-15 (just to pick an example) is in common use. Semiautomatic firearms have been in common use in this country since about the mid-1890s. Restricting them IS in opposition to our Second Amendment rights.

 

[EatTheRich]

NO The old coots that wrote the constitution lived in a different age. The constitution needs some updating.

Your opinion does not entitle you to ignore the Constitution, only to try to amend it.

 

[fairsheet]

The top poster asks if the 2nd grants him the right to own any weapon he likes. Our resident advocate for the 2nd, says no...the Supreme Court has ruled that the guvmint has discretion in these matters. Then, he gives us his opinion as to which weapons the guvmint should restrict and which it shouldn't. What if someone else disagrees?...not as to restriction itself, but as to the specifics?

 

[freyasman]

The top poster asks if the 2nd grants him the right to own any weapon he likes. Our resident advocate for the 2nd, says no...the Supreme Court has ruled that the guvmint has discretion in these matters. Then, he gives us his opinion as to which weapons the guvmint should restrict and which it shouldn't. What if someone else disagrees?...not as to restriction itself, but as to the specifics?

Well, the standard SCOTUS used was "in common use"; I guess we could argue over what that means specifically....

 

[trapdoor]

The top poster asks if the 2nd grants him the right to own any weapon he likes. Our resident advocate for the 2nd, says no...the Supreme Court has ruled that the guvmint has discretion in these matters. Then, he gives us his opinion as to which weapons the guvmint should restrict and which it shouldn't. What if someone else disagrees?...not as to restriction itself, but as to the specifics?

You misrepresent what I wrote. I won't attempt to defend YOUR statement about what I wrote, which was factual. I cited the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling on firearms -- the government has some discretion to limit firearms, according to the court. The government does NOT have unlimited discretion to regulate firearms, any regulation is subject to strict scrutiny. Guns in common use may not be regulated. All of those are factual statements about what the Supreme Court has ruled vis a vis firearm regulation. Not MY opinion, the court's.

 

[fairsheet]

Actually, per your recitation of what I wrote and you wrote, I'm not seeing evidence of "misrepresentation", in the least. I allowed that you would apply your personal opinion as to which specific guns must be allowed or may be forbidden. That's exactly what you did.

 

[trapdoor]

Actually, per your recitation of what I wrote and you wrote, I'm not seeing evidence of "misrepresentation", in the least. I allowed that you would apply your personal opinion as to which specific guns must be allowed or may be forbidden. That's exactly what you did.

No -- you're misrepresenting what I wrote. I didn't offer a personal opinion, I offered the court's opinion.

 

[fairsheet]

No -- you're misrepresenting what I wrote. I didn't offer a personal opinion, I offered the court's opinion.

Show me where The Court inummerated specific weapons.

 

[trapdoor]

Show me where The Court inummerated specific weapons.

I haven't said it did so. The court said that restrictions cannot be placed on weapons "in common use." That would include, of course, weapons such as the AR-15, which has been on the market for 50 years and is currently the most popular rifle being sold.

 

[Woolleybugger]

The only criteria then is availability apparently. In this view of the issue, no one has the right to ban or limit sales of any weapon once they have become commonly available. Interesting distinction between other rights. For instance, cigarettes were very available before we put age restrictions upon them and kept them from being advertised. Lead pipes were common once. DDT was common. Throwing raw sewage into the Mississippi was common. Shooting and killing every single carrier pigeon was common. Having cocaine and marijuana was fairly common. Using asbestos in housing was common. Why is this argument used solely to restrict the government from regulating arms yet seems so absurd when arguing that we should allow passengers on airplanes the right to smoke cigars, cigarettes, pot and hash on transcontinental flights?

 

[freyasman]

The only criteria then is availability apparently. In this view of the issue, no one has the right to ban or limit sales of any weapon once they have become commonly available. Interesting distinction between other rights. For instance, cigarettes were very available before we put age restrictions upon them and kept them from being advertised. Lead pipes were common once. DDT was common. Throwing raw sewage into the Mississippi was common. Shooting and killing every single carrier pigeon was common. Having cocaine and marijuana was fairly common. Using asbestos in housing was common. Why is this argument used solely to restrict the government from regulating arms yet seems so absurd when arguing that we should allow passengers on airplanes the right to smoke cigars, cigarettes, pot and hash on transcontinental flights?

What does any of that have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Woolleybugger]

They are restrictions upon rights...isn't that what the gun nuts say is taboo by the constitution only in regards to weapons? Seems like all the other rights can be restricted...why is owning a gun so special?

 

[freyasman]

They are restrictions upon rights...isn't that what the gun nuts say is taboo by the constitution only in regards to weapons? Seems like all the other rights can be restricted...why is owning a gun so special?

What other rights are you talking about? Which amendments pertain to raw sewage, DDT, asbestos, or cigarettes? What "right", enumerated in the Constitution, upheld as an individual right by SCOTUS and has been determined that any restrictions upon it must pass the "strict scrutiny" standard, do these other random items fall under?

 

[EatTheRich]

The 9th Amendment specifies that we all have rights that aren't enumerated in the Constitution.