Another 2nd amendment thread..:D

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I already stated that the 2nd amendment does not cover whether or not career criminals can carry or not and whether the government can take that right away..since it says cannot be infringed.

Another thought occurred to me...it does not state whether you can stockpile weapons, whether or not you can only own one weapon or how much ammunition you can have.

So how is the government infringing on rights when they can make laws on how many, type or amount of ammo one can have. The second amendment does not cover any of this..so the government is free to do whatever they want. They can make it so you have only one weapon and 50 bullets...your right still will not be infringed..

So tell me where does it show they cannot do any of this... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed...no where stated does it state the government cannot limit your weapons. Just that they cannot stop you from owning a gun. As for the arms part they obviously meant many people can own a gun not that people can own multiple weapons.

I think, and I'm no expert on the constitution, that would be something that would be the responsibility of state government. That would be my guess.

This link seems to support my guess:

The court ruled today against Thomas Pocian, who, in 1986, was convicted of felony forgery. Subsequently, in 2008, Pocian shot two deer with a rifle borrowed from his father. After reporting the deer to the DNR, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Wisconsin Statute § 941.29.

In evaluating the overbreadth challenge, the court started with the general proposition from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that state laws prohibiting “possession of firearms by felons” are presumptively lawful.

So it sounds like that sort of determination is left up to the state.

ANY law that regulates guns in any way is technically an infringement.

Any lack of limitation is essentially permission. If I invite you to dinner and don't tell you that you can't have any mashed potatoes, you assume that you can have some, right?

If the second amendment does not address the type or quantity of arms that the people can have, then why would you assume that there are limitations?

Not another thread....the infringement part (vs an all out ban which is clearly unconstitutional) is the part that has been allowed to be interpreted by the courts (and in some cases the executive branch). The "people" is both people individually and collectively. While the rights of the collective can not be infringed (at least should not) the individual who has abused that right (violent felons for example; especially repeat offenders who use guns in the commission of their crimes) and who also would not qualify for military service (uniform services or state militias) should be denied that right by their own actions (not the whims of wimps in public office). The alternative would be more tragedies like we have seen recently with gun violence with no real benefit to society in terms of the original and real rational for the Second Amendment. These felons are probably not the ones who took up arms against the British but rather played both sides for their own enrichment. As to your other point "arms" is plural.

i kind of believe that owning more than one gun of any type and any amout of ammunition is just fine. except full auto for the very reason of you would be wasting money really fast, and accuracy is key when operating any gun. i might get another rifle in the future, something milsurp with classic tones like an ak-47 or m1 garrand depending on how many 5 gallon buckets of quarters i can save. also felons can find anything they want in the right neighborhood if they get lucky or in certain gangs so why not support gun capitalism and let retailers sell? also every time a false flag attack happens, gun sales skyrocket probably because they would rather try to fight back. we americans hate being victimized

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Cannot be an infringement if there is no set rules and laws about what the government, state or any entity is able to do when it comes gun ownership. It only states that you are allowed to own a weapon..not how much, what type or how much ammunition can be stored.

It is infringement if said people decided you cannot own a weapon...without making an amendment to right...which they have done in the past to deal with the times.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Yes arms is plural...so that it did not state that people can own a gun....meaning that a group of people did not have to share one single gun..which is stupid..but shows how bright the founders thought their people were...

reply to post by forgetmenot


SInce the constitution was drafted, every amendment has been slowly eroded by lawmakers and judges in favor of government control. Don't assume that things are left to the state, especially the second amendment, when it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This is THE federal Constitution, anything in it supersedes state law.. It does not say "shall not be infringed, unless the states decide to infringe upon it".

reply to post by kerazeesicko


You are trying to invent some meaning that is not there. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the instruction of the second amendment. There is no "if" statement, or "unless" statement. It is a blanket statement that says that citizens can own guns, period. Doesn't matter what type or quantity or caliber.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
shall not be infringed.

How are the rights being infringed upon if they decided to make rules on what type, how much gun one can own or how much ammunition you can have.

As long as you have A GUN, your right is not infringed.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

You are trying to invent some meaning that is not there. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the instruction of the second amendment. There is no "if" statement, or "unless" statement. It is a blanket statement that says that citizens can own guns, period. Doesn't matter what type or quantity or caliber.

Doesn't need " an if or unless" if they did not make it clear on what type, how many guns you can own or how much ammunition you can have.

I am not inventing a meaning, I am showing you that the government can limit people on gun ownership if it pleases without breaking the constitution.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..and isn't if you do get to own a gun.

Originally posted by forgetmenot
I think, and I'm no expert on the constitution, that would be something that would be the responsibility of state government. That would be my guess.

This link seems to support my guess:

The court ruled today against Thomas Pocian, who, in 1986, was convicted of felony forgery. Subsequently, in 2008, Pocian shot two deer with a rifle borrowed from his father. After reporting the deer to the DNR, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Wisconsin Statute § 941.29.

In evaluating the overbreadth challenge, the court started with the general proposition from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that state laws prohibiting “possession of firearms by felons” are presumptively lawful.

So it sounds like that sort of determination is left up to the state.

edit on 27-12-2012 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)

You my friend just helped my argument...they state or government can place limits on gun ownership without breaking the constitution.

It did not state whether or not criminals can own also own weapons...pretty much left that up to the government which they did but also a broke the constitution when they did. They broke the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part. So they can also limit gun ownership...to type, to how many or what type of ammunition is available to people without breaking the constitution.


Where was the outcry when this happened...what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is not clear.

Oh wait...it is OK to break the 2nd amendment when it is against someone else...but not you..

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Soon the second amendment will be in full force. Hold on to your hat, buddy.

/conversation

reply to post by AwakeinNM

Just to play the devil's advocate....having a drivers license is an infringement of the constitutional right to travel also.
(Article 4 in the Articles of Confederation but the founders thought it was so basic and fundamental that it did not need explicit language in the Constitution....altho the "priviledges and immunities" clause of the Constitution covers it as well). Then again...."they aint comin' for the cars!"

reply to post by kerazeesicko

Actually OP, you hit the biggest headache right between the eyes with this one. The D.C. Vs. Heller decision which made individual ownership and incorporation down to local level absolute is a lengthy decision. It's worth taking the time to look up the whole thing and read completely.

We got our cake, as pro-gun people.....but just as we got ready for a big bite, the Robed ones took it back and said not so fast... The decision clearly states that in the opinion of the Court it IS Constitutional to have regulation of firearms and the nature or extent was something they deliberately left for future cases in lower courts to settle.

So, you're absolutely right in the true sense of things. They CAN pass all this they are talking about ..and it'll stand as law too. At least until our side gets a judge to issue an injunction and/or this gets back up through the system to see the Super Court once again.

By THEN...I am sure Obama and Co. are morbidly betting a few vacancies will have come and been filled by natural causes to see hopeless laws actually have hope by a different make-up on the bench. THAT is a scary thing that could happen, too.

reply to post by kerazeesicko

If the power hungry, rotten, corrupt politicians upheld their sworn oath to the Constitution, the government would not exist as it does today.

The states, the counties and local municipalities (the people), however, were designed to have an incredible amount of power but they still cant violate the Constitution so long as they continue to be a part of the "Union".

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-- U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

reply to post by AwakeinNM

Commensurate with the "infringement" has been a slow growth of the Federal Government....a slow but tectonic paradigm shift in the frame of reference of government (from the consent of the governed to it, the Federal Govt, as an institutional dynamic of its own). A Federal Govt afraid of its citizens and usurping the locus of power from them collectively and the several states.

I would like to thank those of you who replied with respect. Most times you bring this topic up..people get nasty..as I do too.

So thanks..

I am taking off for the night..if anyone replies to me and does not get replies back...I will or then again I got crap for a memory and may just forget about my own thread..

Originally posted by kerazeesicko


So how is the government infringing on rights when they can make laws on how many, type or amount of ammo one can have. The second amendment does not cover any of this..so the government is free to do whatever they want. They can make it so you have only one weapon and 50 bullets...your right still will not be infringed..

So tell me where does it show they cannot do any of this... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed...no where stated does it state the government cannot limit your weapons. Just that they cannot stop you from owning a gun. As for the arms part they obviously meant many people can own a gun not that people can own multiple weapons.

Its very simple....any laws passed to dampen the ability to bear arms in an effective manner is an infringment.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


were gonna need a bigger walk in closet, centerfolds, thumbtacks, to hang on the cieling, and a refrigirator cause lets face it, who doesn't like those chocolate pistols? with peanut butter in the middle? forget about it! but seriously though, i think that there are enough guys in the military to find taking weapons from citizens kind of rediculous. i mean how many died in the civil war? if berry soetero goes rubberstamp dictator on us, it will be pure chaos.