It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How far does the Second Amendment go?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I'm curious about people's opinions on this. Please, before reading, don't take any of this as commentary as to where I stand on gun control (Though if you're curious, I hate it.) I just want to get some people thinking about what the Second Amendment really means to them, and what everyone sees as our Right, and what people see as crossing the line.

I do hope (but doubt) that people will respond in this thread by answering my questions, rather than by going at each others' (and my) throat about things. We've got plenty of threads to debate the issues, and clearly no minds are being changed around here. I just want to know where people stand. Call me morbidly curious. :-)

So, my first few questions:

Robert has been an avid hunter, camper, and lover of all things "wilderness" since he was a young boy. Going through life he never got into any trouble. He's spent most of his life minding his own business and living out a peaceful existence in the country. As an adult, he has a freezer in the garage which is always full of meat from his own kills as a hunter. Robert isn't very concerned with gun violence or self defense - he lives way out in the country, where neither is much of an issue. But Robert worries that someday, the Second Amendment will get the heave-ho and somebody will ban his firearms. He doesn't make much money; hunting accounts for a good portion of the food he's able to put on his family's table.

1. Should Robert be allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns?
2. If Robert can own them, can somebody who lives in a high-crime neighborhood?
3. ow many guns should Robert be allowed to own?
4. Should he be allowed to stockpile ammo, since he's a long drive from the nearest place that sells it?
5. If he's allowed to stockpile, should people who live right down the street from a gun shop be allowed to stockpile also?

Now, another scenario to lead to a few more questions:

Eric raises poultry. Sometimes wild animals are a problem on his poultry farm, so he keeps a semi-automatic rifle for quickly dealing with the animal pest problem. His birds are his livelihood, and when some coyote kills a hen it's money out of his pocket. No sense having a slow gun; quick follow up shots are important. He doesn't want a predator to be able to come back later because he missed and wasn't able to shoot again fast enough. When he kills something, he disposes of it. Coyotes aren't food.

6. Is that rifle too much for Eric's needs? Should the law restrict him to a bolt, lever, or pump action gun?
7. Eric's rifle takes a detachable magazine. For his particular gun, he can use a 5 round magazine or he can get a 20 round magazine. Does the Second Amendment protect his right to get the full 20 rounder, or does that open the door for bad guys to get high capacity, semi-auto weapons?
8. Eric also takes that gun to the shooting range pretty often. The practice doesn't hurt, and he just thinks its fun. He'll go through hundreds of rounds a month easily. Should the government be allowed to monitor people's ammo purchases, and if so, should the amount that Eric goes through raise a flag?

Next scenario, and then, more questions:

Jason enjoys deer hunting. He's not into the meat, he prefers to get his food from the grocery store. He's a city boy, with city friends and a city habit. Deer hunting is just his "guilty pleasure," so to speak. Some men step out on their wives. Some men are into drugs. Jason shoots deer. He's got a brother who lives out of town who comes in and takes the deer meat. Jason gives it away for free because it just doesn't mean anything to him. But Jason... he just likes the thrill of the hunt. He's got a high-powered rifle with a scope, bipod, and fully adjustable sniper-style stock. He's got the highest capacity magazine he's allowed to hunt with. For him, hunting is all about the sheer masculinity of his finely-tuned precision rifle. Not being much for animal rights, the deer is just something to shoot at.

9. Would you consider Jason's hobby to be "hunting deer," or "killing animals?"
10. Should Jason have to restore his gun to a more traditional hunting-style rifle, or should he be allowed to hunt with his "sniper" rifle?
11. About a year ago, Jason got into a fight at a party. It was nothing serious, nobody got hurt. But the cops were called. Should Jason still be allowed to have that rifle?
12. Just yesterday, Jason was in another fight. Mutual disagreement, some alcohol was involved, things got out of hand like they sometimes do. This time, the other guy came out of it with a sprained shoulder and a hospital bill. Is Jason too violent to own a weapon?

Rita is a single parent raising two kids on her own. She works an evening shift at an electronics store, takes a bus to work, and walks home five blocks at night, alone. Selling TV's doesn't feed three people and pay for a car, after all. After being robbed at gunpoint on this walk a year ago, she keeps a Glock handgun on her. It holds 17 rounds, and she keeps it fully loaded. She's walking home right now, and little does she know there's a heroin junkie in an alley that she has to pass to get home. He's got a snub-nose revolver he stole off another passed out junkie a few weeks ago... but he's out of cash and product. Unknown to her, yet, she'll be the first person he sees.

13. Would she be safer if handguns were illegal?
14. Should she give up her right to defend herself, and take a 50% pay cut at the safer job that opened up in the coffee shop on the first floor of her apartment building?
15. Should she be required to have a permit for concealing, carrying, or owning that handgun?
16. Rita doesn't know it yet, but when that junkie comes at her with his gun drawn, she's going to pull her own gun and end his life with a bullet to the chest. Does that make her responsible for his death, or him? She chose to take the dangerous route home, but he chose to attack. If either had chosen differently, he'd still be alive...

Next scenario.

Dusan has been living in the United States ever since his country fell to a military coup. Once enjoying democracy, the peaceful people of his country were now under the brutal rule of a military dictatorship. The people attempted a revolution, but to no avail; the military had all the power. Dusan and his family won't go through that again. They are now all legal U.S. citizens. They came to America because they heard that Americans are allowed so many freedoms to own guns. Dusan believes that as long as America has the Second Amendment, he will never have to flee from a tyrannical military takeover again. He exercises his right, and so does his family. He and his wife have both taken professional firearms courses. They each own an AR-15 rifle, several 30 round magazines, and keep thousands of rounds of ammunition. His two sons, one 18 and the other 19, also own guns.

17. On the one hand, he's seen an oppressive takeover first hand. On the other, this is the United States and "That can't happen here." Can that not happen *because* of the armed citizenry, or is Dusan just being paranoid?
18. Although they are now legal U.S. citizens, the dictator that rose up in Dusan's old country is an outspoken enemy of the United States. This dictator harbors, trains, and finances terrorists. He makes frequent attempts to spy on the U.S., and even goes so far as to threaten to launch terrorist-style attacks on U.S. soil. Should Dusan and his family be watched by the U.S. government, considering he owns so many weapons and came from such a hostile country?
19. As an immigrant, should Dusan even be allowed to own all those guns?
20. For that matter, should ANYONE be allowed to stockpile military-grade weaponry?

Two more scenarios to go, here's the next one:

Mike is a white nationalist, and wants to see segregation restored. He's done some time in jail for disturbing the peace, but as far as anyone can tell he's limited his racism to loud words and no violence. He's also into the militia scene, he and about a dozen of the "Good 'Ole Boys" have a lodge out of town where they've got their own shooting range and everything. He operates a web site where he states his belief that the government is going to go after everybody someday, and the Good 'Ole Boys are ready to "Go out in a Blaze of Gunfire Defending their Rights." Mike knows that under current Federal law, a person can own a machine gun if they pay the right taxes and the gun meets certain requirements. Mike legally owns one of those machine guns: a .50 caliber, belt fed Browning Machine Gun, to be exact (Yes, you can legally get one of those in the U.S.)

21. Should Mike's well publicized, demonstrable political stance be a cause to disarm him due to the fact that his stance is now extremely unpopular... in spite of his non-violent history?
22. Should the Good 'Ole Boys be regarded as a criminal gang or a terrorist group, based on their weapons ownership and their racist beliefs?
23. Should his machine gun be taken away? What if Robert, from above, were to inherit a similar gun from a deceased relative... can peaceful Robert be trusted to keep that gun as a keepsake from his lost family member?
24. If the Good 'Ole Boys don't actually commit a crime, but the government comes after their guns and things actually do come down to that "Blaze of Gunfire," would they be defending their rights, or would they be murdering cops?

My last scenario and few questions are gonna have to go in the next post... I'm running out of characters...




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Last scenario, I promise:

Darren is a bad guy. By age 12, he was working for a drug dealer. He got caught, did some time in Juvie, got out at 18, and started his own crime racket selling guns. He started small, getting friends without records to buy guns at pawn shops and then turning around and selling them to his old gang. Then he stepped it up a notch, started converting semi-automatic handguns to full autos. Got into smuggling guns, started bringing in coc aine on the side. By now, his group was working bigger jobs for a bigger fish. By the time he was 30, he was so high up on the totem pole that he was working directly under a guy responsible for a multi-state crime organization responsible for the majority of illegal guns and drugs in at least 7 major cities. Then, Darren got nabbed in a drug bust. He assaults a cop during the arrest. Later he threatens to cut his lawyer's head off if he can't get him out of his mess, and then he finally starts cooperating. In order to save his skin, he agrees to help bring in his boss for a reduced sentence. Between his reduced sentence, and making parole after finding Jesus (No, really... he actually gives up crime.) Darren is back on the street before he turns 40. Trying to stay out of trouble, Darren - an African American - moves to a small town where he has some family. It's not until after he moves that he finds out about his wonderful new neighbor: Racist, gun-toting, militia member Mike, from the scenario above.

Last question:

25. Darren's cousin, whom he's moving in with, owns a double-barrelled, break action shotgun due to the racist, gun toting nuts up the road. Should he have to give up his gun, now that a convicted felon is living in his house?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Every American should have at least one long barreled gun.

I'll expand on that further and say that any American who wants to should be able to have a tank or artillery emplacement of some kind.

(Obviously, Depleted Uranium and other non-conventional ammunition would be a no-no. But HE and incendiary shells are basically a requirement for any Tank Owning American and so they should not be regulated. A permit should be required for barrels with a diameter over 105 mm)


I imagine that in such a country a man would be able to keep what he earns. Such a country would not suffer invasion.


Due to the nation-wide Mexican standoff that this would create, Americans would be able to exercise more rights that ever before; with politicians to scared too take them away.

Think of the money we could save on military spending with such a guarantor of safety for the Nation; the well-armed American Citizen .



[edit on 26-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
ALL the way BABY!

YAHA!



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Every American should have at least one long barreled gun.

I'll expand on that further and say that any American who wants to should be able to have a tank or artillery emplacement of some kind.

(Obviously, Depleted Uranium and other non-concentional ammunition would be a no-no. But HE and incendiary shells are basically a requirement for any Tank Owning American and so they should not be regulated. A permit should be required for barrels with a diameter over 105 mm)


I imagine that in such a country a man would be able to keep what he earns. Such a country would not suffer invasion.


Due to the nation-wide Mexican standoff that this would create, Americans would be able to exercise rights that ever before; with politicians to scared to take them away.

Think of the money we could save on military spending with such a guarantor of safety for the Nation; the well-armed American Citizen .

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Exuberant1]


You said tanks


hey, have at it man, its a free country



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Star for you, because we would, in fact, be a terrifying place to consider invading if we had privately owned artillery. FYI, if you have an interest in tanks (and a hefty chunk of spare change) you actually can own a tank. Presently, you can't own one with a functioning cannon... but you can own the big metal crushy vehicle part, which I imagine is hella fun to go muddin' in.

Here's some tanks that are, in fact, for sale to the public. They have some Stuarts!

You'd have to import these ones, but if you can afford the tank you can probably afford the shipping. I want one of the T72s. :-)))



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


In my opinion of the Second Ammendment (Which is taken from analyzing the language, and reading of the founding fathers intentions)
the Second Amendment is a guarantee that American's will be allowed to be armed by their government, which no restrictions. Why no restrictions? Because the purpose of the second amendment is to allow Americans to be armed in their Militia which the government has no guaranteed control of (unless they are asked to defend the nation, in which case it is treason to defy these orders.)

So basically. All other things about the second amendment are all valid, but it's purpose is to have a militia of the people. This is for national defense, and to have a force that can act on their own against domestic enemies.

I will say, that constitutionally they are all allowed to own their firearms.. But I do not believe the constitution guarantees a right to hunt. So while the government can not take their guns, they can take their hunting permits.

This means that even grenades, missiles, fighter jets, tanks, ect should be allowed to the public by the second amendment, as those things would be considered arms. But it's not like they can afford those things.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
IMO, the 2nd Amendment means this to your questions. First let me say that I am a proud non gun owner who believes that the facts back up my beliefs that if you are a legal gun owner you should be allowed to carry it any where you want and it should be out in the open as most 99% of shottings are by those who are hiding/conceling them.

1. Should Robert be allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns?
YES
2. If Robert can own them, can somebody who lives in a high-crime neighborhood?
YES LEGALLY
3. ow many guns should Robert be allowed to own?
HOW EVER MANY ALLOWED LEGALLY
4. Should he be allowed to stockpile ammo, since he's a long drive from the nearest place that sells it?
YES
5. If he's allowed to stockpile, should people who live right down the street from a gun shop be allowed to stockpile also?
WHY NOT AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT CONVICTED AND IT IS LEGAL
6. Is that rifle too much for Eric's needs? Should the law restrict him to a bolt, lever, or pump action gun?
NO, IT IS A SEMI AUTOMATIC WHICH ARE LEGAL
7. Eric's rifle takes a detachable magazine. For his particular gun, he can use a 5 round magazine or he can get a 20 round magazine. Does the Second Amendment protect his right to get the full 20 rounder, or does that open the door for bad guys to get high capacity, semi-auto weapons?
ERIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE MAX ROUND MAGAZINE AND BAD GUYS/CONVICTED FELONS SHOULDN'T HAVE THEM ANYWAYS
8. Eric also takes that gun to the shooting range pretty often. The practice doesn't hurt, and he just thinks its fun. He'll go through hundreds of rounds a month easily. Should the government be allowed to monitor people's ammo purchases, and if so, should the amount that Eric goes through raise a flag?
NO, HE IS A LEGAL OWNER AND SHOULD NOT BE MONITORED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IT CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THEN HELPS. ERIC IS A LEGAL GUN OWNER
9. Would you consider Jason's hobby to be "hunting deer," or "killing animals?"
BOTH BUT HE IS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS, I WOULDN'T DO IT BUT I PROTECT HIS RIGHT TO DO SO.
10. Should Jason have to restore his gun to a more traditional hunting-style rifle, or should he be allowed to hunt with his "sniper" rifle?
AS LONG AS IT IS WITHIN THE LEGAL STANDING OF THE LAW THEN LEAVE JASON ALONE
11. About a year ago, Jason got into a fight at a party. It was nothing serious, nobody got hurt. But the cops were called. Should Jason still be allowed to have that rifle?
OF COURSE, BECAUSE HE IS A LEGAL GUN OWNER HE IS MORE LIKELY NOT TO USE IT IN A FIGHT WITH ANOTHER PERSON BUT MIGHT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY TRIED TO TAKE IT FROM HIM WHICH HE SHOULD AS HIS 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT IS PROTECTED
12. Just yesterday, Jason was in another fight. Mutual disagreement, some alcohol was involved, things got out of hand like they sometimes do. This time, the other guy came out of it with a sprained shoulder and a hospital bill. Is Jason too violent to own a weapon?
NOT AT ALL, AGAIN HE DIDN'T USE THE GUN WHICH 99% OF LEGAL GUN OWNERS DON'T USE THEM UNLESS PROVOKED BY GOVERNMENT OR POLICE.

to be continued lol...




[edit on 06/03/2009 by Rams59lb]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Any sane, law abiding citizen shoud be able to own machine guns. That does NOT mean they should be able to go out and purchase them willy nilly. A machine gun owner should be able to take courses and hold very stringent licenses to own these type of weapons. Shotguns and handguns are pretty much worthless againts well armed police and military. The citizens should be able to own and house as much firepower as our tyrants short of tanks, bombs, jets etc. I even think "communities" of citizens should be able to own other weapons such as howitzers, mortars, grenades etc. The government needs to know that the people will drop them at a moment's notice if need be.

Government needs to fear the people not the other way around. I think we can all agree they don't fear us at all nowadays.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Star for you, because we would, in fact, be a terrifying place to consider invading if we had privately owned artillery.


You used drug dealers as examples in your posts;

They would not be so quick to deal drugs if there was a man down the street with a functional tank.

*Even if the drug dealer decided to deal drugs out of a tank - he would not be safe from the citizenry with their multitude of tanks.

I imagine this would create a market for anti-tank weapons, I suppose people have right to defend themselves.... You never know when a nut will buy a tank and go nuts. The citizens outta be able to stop him and should not be limited by financial status (which limits there ability to buy a tank of their own).




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


They can in many states.. however it's very expensive as you must find one registered prior to 1985.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Thomas Jefferson said that every able bodied male between the ages of 16-60 was considered part of the militia.

i think that most all americans should be trained in how to use a fire arm properly. keep in mind, in many other country they have compulsory military service which means all of the men in that country have military experience. the citizenry should have at least some basic knowledge of firearms.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
13. Would she be safer if handguns were illegal?
FROM YOUR SCENARIO HER GUN IS LEGAL BUT THE GUY SHE'S COMING UP ON ISN'T SO THE ANSWER IS YES SHE IS SAFER.
14. Should she give up her right to defend herself, and take a 50% pay cut at the safer job that opened up in the coffee shop on the first floor of her apartment building?
THAT IS UP TO HER WEAHTER GUNS ARE LEGAL OR NOT
15. Should she be required to have a permit for concealing, carrying, or owning that handgun?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN'T SAY IN YOUR SCENARIO THAT HER GUN WAS ILLEGAL BUT IF IT IS THEY SHE IS BREAKING THE LAW PERIOD!
16. Rita doesn't know it yet, but when that junkie comes at her with his gun drawn, she's going to pull her own gun and end his life with a bullet to the chest. Does that make her responsible for his death, or him? She chose to take the dangerous route home, but he chose to attack. If either had chosen differently, he'd still be alive.
IF SHE IS A REGISTERED GUN OWNER THEN SHE SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, THERE SHOULD BE A GOOD OR BAD WAY HOME, THERE SHOULD JUST BE GOING HOME SO OF COURSE SHE WILL FEEL BAD FOR TAKING A LIFE BUT SHE DIDN'T SEEK HIM OUT. BUT SHE COULD BE DEAD IN YOUR SCENARIO AS WELL.
17. On the one hand, he's seen an oppressive takeover first hand. On the other, this is the United States and "That can't happen here." Can that not happen *because* of the armed citizenry, or is Dusan just being paranoid?
HE'S NOT BEING PARANOID BUT HIS AK 47 IS ILLEGAL SO YOUR SCENARIO IS FLOWED.
18. Although they are now legal U.S. citizens, the dictator that rose up in Dusan's old country is an outspoken enemy of the United States. This dictator harbors, trains, and finances terrorists. He makes frequent attempts to spy on the U.S., and even goes so far as to threaten to launch terrorist-style attacks on U.S. soil. Should Dusan and his family be watched by the U.S. government, considering he owns so many weapons and came from such a hostile country?
IF HE HAS NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME HERE IN THE US AS A CITIZEN THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEAVE HIM ALONE
19. As an immigrant, should Dusan even be allowed to own all those guns?
AS AN IMMIGRANT WHO IS NOW A US CITIZEN HE HAS THE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT AS WELL IF THIS TRANNY STILL ALLOWS THE CONSTITUTION TO BE IN PLACE.
20. For that matter, should ANYONE be allowed to stockpile military-grade weaponry?
ONLY AS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL WEAPONRY!
21. Should Mike's well publicized, demonstrable political stance be a cause to disarm him due to the fact that his stance is now extremely unpopular... in spite of his non-violent history?
MIKE SHOULD NOT BE DISARMED UNTIL HE BREAKS THE LAW WITH A FELONY
22. Should the Good 'Ole Boys be regarded as a criminal gang or a terrorist group, based on their weapons ownership and their racist beliefs?
NO
23. Should his machine gun be taken away? What if Robert, from above, were to inherit a similar gun from a deceased relative... can peaceful Robert be trusted to keep that gun as a keepsake from his lost family member?
YES BUT HE SHOULD CHANGE REGISTRATION TO HIMSELF
24. If the Good 'Ole Boys don't actually commit a crime, but the government comes after their guns and things actually do come down to that "Blaze of Gunfire," would they be defending their rights, or would they be murdering cops?
DEFENDING THEIR RIGHTS!
25. Darren's cousin, whom he's moving in with, owns a double-barrelled, break action shotgun due to the racist, gun toting nuts up the road. Should he have to give up his gun, now that a convicted felon is living in his house?
NO, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GET RID OF HIS GUN, DARREN KNOWS HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO HANDLE A WEAPON WITH A FELONY BUT IT SHOULD BE LOCKED UP SOMEWHERE IN THE HOUSE SO IT WOULDN'T BE EASY FOR DARREN TO GET TO IT.

I belive I'm the only one who actually took the time to answer all of your questions so I will say that even though your point haven't been made with your scenarios. The law is the law and the constitution grants us our rights but it's humans that have to decide if they are 51/95 good or evil and make responsible decisions with their own lives.

What says you?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 



Class III weapons are pretty hard to obtain and lots of loop holes, taxes, etc.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   


I just want to know where people stand.


Ok.

It might help to know if you want out opinions on what the second amendmant intends or if you want our opinions on what we want it to intend.



Robert
1. Should Robert be allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns?


"Should" is a poor choice of words. I believe the original intend was that yes, Robert is legally entitled to own hunting rifles. I also agree personally that I would like the second amendment to entitle him to own hunting rifles.



2. If Robert can own them, can somebody who lives in a high-crime neighborhood?


Sure. Standing, or living next to criminals does not cause me to forfeit my rights.



3. ow many guns should Robert be allowed to own?


As many as he can procure and find space for. "Shall not be abridged" is fairly clear.



4. Should he be allowed to stockpile ammo, since he's a long
drive from the nearest place that sells it?


Yes. And manufacture it himself in his backyard if he wants.



5. If he's allowed to stockpile, should people who live right
down the street from a gun shop be allowed to stockpile also?


Where somebody lives is irrelevant. The second amendment is not dependant upon somebody happening to live far enough away from gun suppliers to not interfere with their business. If the shop or immediate next door neighbors of the gun/ammo supplier choose to stockiple weapons and or ammunition, that's their perogative.



Eric
6. Is that rifle too much for Eric's needs? Should the law
restrict him to a bolt, lever, or pump action gun?


It may be excessive for his needs, but this is irrelevant. I see no place in the second amendment to restirct his choice of weapon. If he wants to keep and own grenades and shoulder-mounted missile launchers, this would also be excessive for his needs, but I would suggest that he is entitled to own these.



7. Eric's rifle takes a detachable magazine. For his particular gun, he can use a 5 round magazine or he can get a 20 round magazine. Does the Second Amendment protect his right to get the full 20 rounder, or does that open the door for bad guys to get high capacity, semi-auto weapons?


Magazine capacity is completely irrelevant.



8. Eric also takes that gun to the shooting range pretty often. The practice doesn't hurt, and he just thinks its fun. He'll go through hundreds of rounds a month easily. Should the government be allowed to monitor people's ammo purchases, and if so, should the amount that Eric goes through raise a flag?


...this is not covered by the second ammendment. A case could possibly made that government monitoring is a violation of article four: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

I'd be willing to consider either interpretation, but my gut instinct is to suggest that article four does not explicity forbid government monitoring, but that there is also no basis upon which to require gun sellers to report such information. Ultimately...I'd probably leave it up to the states. It's not a federal concern.



Jason
9. Would you consider Jason's hobby to be "hunting deer," or "killing animals?"


Me personally? Hmm. I could see it either way. In a conversation with him I'd probably make a point of calling it "killing animals" to express my personal distate, but I wouldn't be likely to attempt any sort of legal challenge claiming that he wasn't hunting.



10. Should Jason have to restore his gun to a more traditional hunting-style rifle, or should he be allowed to hunt with his "sniper" rifle?


It's fine the way he's doing it. Again..."shall not be abridged" is pretty clear.



11. About a year ago, Jason got into a fight at a party. It was nothing serious, nobody got hurt. But the cops were called. Should Jason still be allowed to have that rifle?


You're being way too gradual about this buildup. I assume you're trying to make a point. As above, I see no legal justification for the idea that he can be forbidden from owning a weapon.



12. Just yesterday, Jason was in another fight. Mutual disagreement, some alcohol was involved, things got out of hand like they sometimes do. This time, the other guy came out of it with a sprained shoulder and a hospital bill. Is Jason too violent to own a weapon?


Same answer. No legal justfication to take away his weapons. There can't really even be any question about it unless he uses them to break the law. If the fight was with fists...no legal justification to take away his weapons.



Rita
13. Would she be safer if handguns were illegal?


No. She would be safer with her glock loaded, safety off, with a round in the chamber and held in both hands pointing in the muggers face. By guns being legal, the mugger will know that this circumstance is more likely, and she's less likely to be face to face with a mugger in the first place.



14. Should she give up her right to defend herself, and take a 50% pay cut at the safer job that opened up in the coffee shop on the first floor of her apartment building?


That is a personal decision for her to make, whether or not guns are illegal. She may feel safer working closer to home whether or not she owns a weapon. The question is not relevant to gun ownership.



15. Should she be required to have a permit for concealing,
carrying, or owning that handgun?


I would say no. Again, "shall not be abridged" is pretty clear. I would argue that requiring concealed carry permits is a violation of article 2. However...again, if a state wishes to attempt to track ownership, I see no problem with that provided no enforcement actions are taken. To phrase it another way, it's perfectly legitimite for a state to mandate ownership tracking and concealment permits, but it is also perfectly legitimite for individuals and gun suppliers to refuse to cooperate. For example, you are permitted to carry a concealed weapon. And if you have a permit saying that you're permitted to carry a concealed weapon, that doesn't take away the fact that it is permitted from people who don't have the piece of paper that says they're permitted.



16. Rita doesn't know it yet, but when that junkie comes at her with his gun drawn, she's going to pull her own gun and end his life with a bullet to the chest. Does that make her responsible for his death, or him? She chose to take the dangerous route home, but he chose to attack. If either had chosen differently, he'd still be alive...


Homocide is justifiable when it is in defense of life or property. Yes, she is responsible for his death. She pulled the trigger with intent to kill. No, this should not be a crime, it was in self defense. However...in a case like this I would expect there to be a trial and for her to be evaulated by a jury of her peers. A decision would need to be made whether her homocide was an act of self defense or not. In the scenario as you've described it we have the benefit of knowing that the dead guy was intent on mugging her. But investigators on the scene would not be certain in that knowledge. If it was demonstrable that she was defending herself, then she committed no crime. But if someone was simply walking down the street and pulled out their gun to check the safety, and she panicked and shoots them...then yes, a crime has been committed. An investigation and trial would need to be conducted to rule on the intent of the person killed.

(Continued)


[edit on 26-8-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   


Dusan
17. On the one hand, he's seen an oppressive takeover first hand. On the other, this is the United States and "That can't happen here." Can that not happen *because* of the armed citizenry, or is Dusan just being paranoid?


I don't understand the question. Whether or not he is paranoid is irrelevant. Paranoiad people may own weapons too. As to whether or not "it can happen," I would suggest that it "could" happen whether or not the citizenry is armed. However, it's probably less likely if they are.



18. Should Dusan and his family be watched by the U.S. government, considering he owns so many weapons and came from such a hostile country?


I think this question has been answered before. The cirumstances don't really change anything. The the government wishes to try to "watch" him, sure they can do that provided they don't interfere with his rights. And he is entitled to be uncooperative if he chooses.



19. As an immigrant, should Dusan even be allowed to own all those guns?


Ahh. Now this is an interesting question. Fortunately you made it easy for me. You said he is now a US citizen. Therefore his former immigrant status is irrelevant. Yes, he is entitled to own all the guns he can buy.



20. For that matter, should ANYONE be allowed to stockpile military-grade weaponry?


Finally we're getting to interesting questions. I see no reason for suggest that there is some sort of "magic difference" that weapons used by the military are ineligible for ownership. Yes, I would propose that article two entitles people to own tanks, missiles, fighter aircraft, etc.

"Shall not be abridged" is clear, yes? What provision is there to arbitrarily say that this weapon is ok. but that one isn't?



Mike
21. Should Mike's well publicized, demonstrable political stance be a cause to disarm him due to the fact that his stance is now extremely unpopular... in spite of his non-violent history?


No. One of the very specific reasons article 2 entitles us to own weapons is to facilitate the overthrow of the US government if we so choose. Read that again please.



22. Should the Good 'Ole Boys be regarded as a criminal gang or a terrorist group, based on their weapons ownership and their racist beliefs?


I don't understand the question. Regarded by whom? You may regard them in any way you please provided you make no illegal actions against them.



23. Should his machine gun be taken away? What if Robert, from above, were to inherit a similar gun from a deceased relative... can peaceful Robert be trusted to keep that gun as a keepsake from his lost family member?


By now do you see how most of the scenarios you're throwing at us are irrelevant? No, there's no reason to take his machine gun away.



24. If the Good 'Ole Boys don't actually commit a crime, but the government comes after their guns and things actually do come down to that "Blaze of Gunfire," would they be defending their rights, or would they be murdering cops?


Well, both. But if "the government" comes after them and they defend themselves, then they're really no different than Rita defending herself from the junkie. Though...if "the government" is engaging is such flagrantly illegal actions, then legal theory and personal perference aside, I think it's reasonable to suspect that "the government" is not going to see it this way.



Darren
25. Darren's cousin, whom he's moving in with, owns a double-barrelled, break action shotgun due to the racist, gun toting nuts up the road. Should he have to give up his gun, now that a convicted felon is living in his house?


No. But you're letting us off easy. LIke I said before, "Standing, or living next to criminals does not cause me to forfeit my rights." And in this case, Darren isn't even a criminal. He is a former criminal. The better question would be "the day he gets out of jail, Darren heads straight for a gunshop and tries to purchase an assault rifle and 5000 rounds of ammunition. Should he be allowed to?" To which my answer would be: there is no legal justification for preventing him from making the purchase. Having fulfilled his obligation, the state is not entitled to prohibit him from making such a purchase. However, the gun store owner is not obligated to make the sale, and I would not fault him for refusing to sell weapons to Darren, if he chose to.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Star for you, because we would, in fact, be a terrifying place to consider invading if we had privately owned artillery.


You used drug dealers as examples in your posts;

They would not be so quick to deal drugs if there was a man down the street with a functional tank.

*Even if the drug dealer decided to deal drugs out of a tank - he would not be safe from the citizenry with their multitude of tanks.

I imagine this would create a market for anti-tank weapons, I suppose people have right to defend themselves.... You never know when a nut will buy a tank and go nuts. The citizens outta be able to stop him and should not be limited by financial status (which limits there ability to buy a tank of their own).



Yeah thats a great argument.


I would imagine that the only guy in the neighborhood who could actually afford a tank or anti-tank weapons is the one dealing drugs.

Why am I even humoring you though?

Stars to LordBucket for giving reasonable answers to every question.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by milesp

I would imagine that the only guy in the neighborhood who could actually afford a tank or anti-tank weapons is the one dealing drugs.


Doubtful.

A tank is a bit too conspicuous for a drug dealer.

(That is also why you do not usually see drug dealers practising open-carry)


[edit on 26-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by milesp

I would imagine that the only guy in the neighborhood who could actually afford a tank or anti-tank weapons is the one dealing drugs.


Doubtful.

A tank is a bit too conspicuous for a drug dealer.

(That is also why you do not usually see drug dealers practising open-carry)


[edit on 26-8-2009 by Exuberant1]


The point I'm trying to make is that in the neighborhoods where drug violence happens, the people who are dealing can afford the big guns.

Maybe if everyone owned a tank there would be no drugs!



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by milesp

Maybe if everyone owned a tank there would be no drugs!


If everyone owned the tanks drugs wouldn't be illegal and thus would probably have the profit margin of tomatoes.


A lot of laws would not exist if the average citizen could bring to bear that much firepower in support of the rights given them by their creator.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join