It's fodder for a separate thread, and there are certainly plenty of thoughts and treatises on the matter already...
But the language of the 2nd amendment is so odd. Compare it with the 1st and 3rd. Those have much less ambiguity.
Gun Control Misfire, Sinking Ratings: Why Piers Morgan flopped
Piers Morgan believes he shot himself in the foot by crusading for gun control, with his CNN show as the final casualty.
But the self-inflicted damage was far deeper than that.
The British journalist undoubtedly alienated many in the audience (and perhaps delighted others) with his crusade against guns. But when he would bring on gun advocates and rail against them as “stupid,” well, it was hard to watch.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/25/gun-control-misfire-sinking-ratings-why-piers-morgan-flopped/?intcmp=latestnews
Maybe people are tired of having this issue shoved down their throats by the mainstream media. CNN obviously has an agenda on gun control, to tow the democratic party line.
Hell, we probably could have passed some reasonable legislation on background checks and clip capacity, but the tactics used to push it were so over the top, that there was a backlash against any attempts to control gun ownership.
Nice job Piers!
Definitely the most stupid thread in this forum! Weapons are for people without brain!
So many peolpe get killed in the world with weapons, and then this thread?!?!?!?!?
The language has many presumptions that were commonly understood when it was written. I agree with many that think it should be rewritten or eliminated. Here's why....
If it were eliminated, then the Feds would have to very explicitly demonstrate how it is among their constitutionally granted powers to regulate guns. It is not, unless the commerce clause is yet again written just a big larger and a bit larger. But that slippery slope leads directly to tyranny. The FEDS have no business in this debate. It's a states' rights and local municipalities' issue.
If a rewrite, it should plainly state what is merely inherent in it at present: "The People" (you and I) HAVE a right to have and bear arms. What it is that "shall not be infringed" IS that right. All the other language is "fluff" compared to the inherent presumption of that right.
Governments do not grant the right to self-defense. That right is an inalienable human right. Thus, governments cannot take away that right or infringe upon it.
But that right presumes the MEANS to self-defense... appropriate means to neutralize the sort of threats one is likely to encounter.
Making guns illegal does not remove them from the hands of criminals. So prospective threats against my person (qua individual) will always include the threat of gun violence. Hence, I have an absolute right to have and bear guns as a function of my inalienable right of self-defense. No government grants that to me, and no government can take it away from me, nor "infringe" upon it.
This isn't a "tanks appreciation" thread, but that's fine because I have no need to have and bear tanks (or nukes). Tanks are not a presumptive threat against my person in this society. And nukes are neither immediate threats nor threats against MY person (qua individual). Thus, I have no presumptive need to have and bear tanks (or nukes) for SELF-defense. However, there are "societies" on Earth in which laying your hands on a tank might well be a very good idea!
The sort of "arms" one has a right to bear are directly tied to the presumptive threats one may have to face (qua individual). Thus, guns are a given in this society, and always will be. And the requisite "arms" must scale with the presumptive threats to individuals.
So, yes, I very much appreciate firearms held and borne by law-abiding citizens in this society! And any "reworking" of the 2nd amendment should more clearly explicate the nature of the inalienable right to self-defense and defense against tyranny.
Thank god we have a Supreme Court and a Constitution that makes changing it
extremely difficult. The alternative is Italy, Argentina, or California.
Now if we had cops whose priorities were locking up criminals instead of
securing a nice cushy pension then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
madbolter nailed it! That was the most well reasoned and worded argument I have heard yet. +10
And since he derailed it, I'll keep pushing. His points are all fine and reasonable, except that he has previously asserted that second amendment to mean much more: He has claimed that it allows him (or codifies his inalienable right to) own any gun he desires and sell or give that gun to any person he desires.
appropriate means to neutralize the sort of threats one is likely to encounter.
The sort of "arms" one has a right to bear are directly tied to the presumptive threats one may have to face (qua individual).
NOBODY here or in Congress or in any state government has proposed any legislation that would infringe on that right.
Requiring registration of certain guns, or all guns does not infringe on that right.
Making it illegal to sell guns to criminals does not infringe on that right.
Limiting the number of guns a person can buy in one month does not infringe on that right.
Requiring ID to purchase ammunition does not infringe on that right.
Requiring training for a person wishing to carry a loaded firearm in a public place does not infringe on that right.
Requiring registration of certain guns, or all guns does not infringe on that right.
Making it illegal to sell guns to criminals does not infringe on that right.
Limiting the number of guns a person can buy in one month does not infringe on that right.
Requiring ID to purchase ammunition does not infringe on that right.
Requiring training for a person wishing to carry a loaded firearm in a public place does not infringe on that right.
1)Registration of all guns, hmmm, where did I hear that before? Oh yes, 1935 Germany.
2)It already IS illegal to sell guns to criminals.
3)One gun per monthly limits? To accomplish what? Keeping a father from buying 2 single shots for his 14 year old twins' birthday?
4) Requiring ID for ammo? For age checks fine, but otherwise see #1)
5) Requiring training? THEY ALREADY DO.
Let us know!