What 2A restrictions (if any) do you support and why?

E

efgf

New member
Whereas the second amendment recognizes our right to bear arms, what -- if any -- restrictions of this right do you support? For example, most reasonable people probably agree that the 2A covers private possession of a bolt action 22LR rifle. A somewhat smaller number would agree that it covers a 38 revolver, while fewer would say it covers a semiauto AK-47 with a drum mag and even less might say it covers full-auto weapons. A handful would say it applies to grenades, mortars or missiles, but maybe some people would not consider any restriction valid.

I mean this as an honest and legitimate question. I am trying to form my own opinion and am having a hard time coming up with a clear place to draw the line and a consistent rationale that explains why I'd think one thing should be legal but another thing shouldn't be. So, I'd like to consider your opinions.
 
I will admit that I'm all for effective gun laws.. For instance (and this example serves to explain what I mean by effective), there are times when I see people at the range sweeping across other people and have their finger on the trigger whenever holding a weapon, and think that things like the 2 minute CA proficiency demo / test when purchasing a firearm isn't such a bad thing. For a semi-automatic pistol, that test consists of showing how to load a magazine, chamber a cartridge, remove the magazine, then safely remove the cartridge all while keeping the weapon pointed in a safe direction. 2 minutes to learn how to do it correctly and perform for someone that didn't know, and 10 seconds for someone that did. Not exactly an inconvenience, but certainly knowledge that any gun owner SHOULD possess. (For the record, 10 round mags, too long waiting period, etc are not effective gun laws in my mind.)
 
I approve of laws that restrict:

...those who have been judged to be mentally unable to manage their own affairs.
...those who have been convicted of violent crimes.
...any weapon that has lethal, uncontrollable fallout. (Nukes, chemical, biological)

However there MUST be a procedure in place to restore those rights should the mental patient be treated, released, and continues treatment.

As for the person convicted of a violent crime, there should be a probationary period where they are not allowed to own guns. If someone can stay out of trouble for whatever period, be it 5-10 years, I see no reason why they should still be denied their 2nd rights. Lots of people do stupid things and a lifetime ban strikes me as extremely unfair. Why should someone continue to be punished for something that happened 30 years ago if they have been law abiding ever since?

If you want a M-16, M249, M-203, RPG-7, TOW missile launcher 155 howitzer, MOAB, can afford it, and have somewhere to shoot it safely, go ahead. This is a problem that solves itself. Most people can't afford any of these things and those who can are probably going to be very careful with them. Prosecute anyone who misuses or is careless with them and causes injury or property damage.

Pretty much anything else I would oppose. I'm sure I forgot something that I might be in favor of.
 
Any small arm available to our military should also be available to citizens. Most are legal now.

Even convicted felons should be allowed weapons. If they're too dangerous to own a weapon, then why where they ever released from prison.

A right is a right.
 
I'll turn it around and say think about it this way:

Whereas the First amendment recognizes our right to free speech & religion, what -- if any -- restrictions of this right do you support?
 
Any restriction that
1) Serves a legitemate public need
2) Does no more and no less than satisfying the need
and
3) Is the only possible way to satisfy the need

The lawyers among us can spot what I'm getting at. This should also apply to the entire BoR.
 
Amendment II 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.


As most can see, there's no built in limiting language in the Second Amendment. That means that one's possession, ownership, and use are restricted by one's personal wealth and the intrinsic restriction upon all rights, that they do not grant you the authority to infringe on the rights of another person.

Some make the argument that such a view of rights then allows children and other incompetents to own machine guns, but that has never been the case with the concept of rights, making such arguments bogus. In fact, such arguments are those of utility, any arguments of utility that are accepted immediately turn a right into a privilege, the core reason for non-acceptance of such arguments.

The Second Amendment is a requirement upon government to protect the right to be armed with any arm. An arm is any weapon.

There are no exceptions.
 
When public needs clash with individual rights the individual rights must reign supreme, however inconvenient it may seem. The alternative is a system of ever increasing government oppression where your rights are taken away at gunpoint (every government action has a gun somewhere in the enforcement chain) at the slightest claim of need by politicians who are nothing but a front for special interest groups. This is what we have today thanks to the small encroachments that are always claimed as necessary to solve some societal problem. Notice that none of the problems ever get solved, and are often made worse, and that the proposed solutions always require more government control?

GoSlash said:
Any restriction that
1) Serves a legitemate public need.
Click to expand...

Needs are transitory and are never really needs, just wants, and usually the public wants are driven by the group that stands to make the most money by taking something from the public by force. When we see special interest groups lobbying what they are really doing is asking the government to use their guns to force other citizens to do something they wouldn't do if they were free to choose.

GoSlash said:
2) Does no more and no less than satisfying the need
Click to expand...

This is not possible. There are always unintended consequences (and some intended) and often they are far worse than the original problem. Of course these new problems are used to justify further restrictions on people's rights. It's the slow but sure way to complete government control or civil war.

GoSlash said:
3) Is the only possible way to satisfy the need
Click to expand...

There are always options. Especially since, as I said previously, needs are always temporary but the encroachment on rights is permanent. The government doesn't have to try to solve every problem. In doing so it just creates more. There will always be problems in life but I would much rather deal with the type that arise from the free association of individuals then those created, solidified, and backed by the guns of the government.

Subjugating the rights of the individual to the State is not the way to keep a representative republic going. It's the way to socialism, communism, and dictatorship and misery for those unfortunate to live in the country that has taken this road.
 
I think many gun owners are resistant to any form of regulation because trust in government is violated. Too many smiling "for your own good" nanny staters on both side of the lines offering "reasonable" and "common sense" for "crime prevention" restrictions to take any restrictions on face value as anything but a ratcheting of a stranglehold that will snuff out gun rights.

Our founding fathers were not idiots. They understood the cost benefit analysis of allowing an armed population. They knew weapons would be used for unlawful and evil purposes. But the truth then as now is the benefits of gun ownership by the individual far far outweighs the negative. We hold these truths to be self evident. Then as now. DUH.

We have an absurd amount of gun laws and 99% of them are unneeded. Laws aimed at crime prevention only work on the reasonable and law abiding. Laws should be about consequences not intent. If I had the funds I should be able to have a 50 caliber machine gun in my garage. If I can operate it without infringing on anybody else's rights then so be it. If I infringe on someone else I would pay the penalty. Murder is murder, assault is assault, kidnapping is kidnapping, theft is theft. The deed and not the tools are what matters.

All the gun laws do is make me the inferior of the criminal in any violent encounter. Go into the prison and ask them which is a bigger curb on their behavior. A gazillion laws or the possibility they will go toe to toe with an equal in terms of violence?
 
None.

I will never tolerate any restrictions.

Absolutely no infringement.

"I believe in the second amendment" must never be followed with "but...."

If you believe in reasonable restrictions how can you claim you are a freedom loving human? If you believe in restrictions your name belongs in the "subject" or "slave" column.

Anygunanywhere
Second Amendment Absolutist
 
Wuchak,
There is a reason why I phrased it the way I did. As nobody has pointed out here yet, there is no such thing as an "absolute" right. There is, OTOH, such a thing as a "fundamental" right. I believe that everything in the BoR should be treated as such, including the 2nd.
The test I outlined above is called "strict scrutiny" and applies to laws impacting fundamental rights.
The second can be restricted within these very narrow confines without the restriction being unconstitutional.
Incidentally, this level of review is a good deal higher than what we have now.

*edit* I mean... I know where you're coming from, but that isn't how the law works.

In response to your 3 points:
Some public needs are legitemate. Your right to swing your fist about ends where my nose begins, correct? The proper role of government is to ensure that happens.
There are rare instances where a law can be finely tailored to achieve it's goal. It's rare, and when fundamental rights are concerned it should be.
There are rare instances where there are no viable alternatives. It's rare and when fundamental rights are concerned it should be.
 
And finally for the absolutists,
The idea of an absolute, uninfringeable right is completely unsupported Constitutionally, legally, or historically. Our freedom of speech will never extend to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Our right to keep and bear arms will never extend to prison inmates or suitcase nukes. That attitude is hardly productive or realistic IMO.
Legitemate measures do exist, but the vast majority of current gun control measures are unConstitutional by the test I have outlined above.
 
Well actually there are two instances in which I can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I can be arrested for one when all the people trample over each other and second when there actually is a fire.

There is no need to make yelling fire in a theater illegal because it does not make the results of my actions any more heinous a crime.

The old you can't yelll fire in a theater excuse is really lame and tired and needs to go away. Come up with another example of you trying to tramole on my rights with your reasonable restrictions.

This is exactly the same with all of your reasonable restrictions that everyone seems to think is fine. Yes there are absolute rights because my creator, God (dare I say it?) gave them to me when he created me in my mother's womb.

Man puts restrictions on rights.

My rights end where yours begin.

A truly free man is alone. He only needs to rely on himself to survive and he must in fact do so to survive.

When you begin to rely on someone else you put yourself at the mercy of his reasonable restrictions.

When people establish governments and do not follow through with the threat of instantaneous and painful retribution for the government's trampling rights and overstepping constitutional powers then they deserve to have their "rights" reasonably restricted into oblivion.

I do not care if SCOTUS has upheld restrctions on my second amendment rights. They ignored the "shall not be infringed" clause from the beginning. They do not deserve my respect any more than they have shown to me by further trampling my rights.

Anygunanywhere
 
I do not care if SCOTUS has upheld restrctions on my second amendment rights. They ignored the "shall not be infringed" clause from the beginning. They do not deserve my respect any more than they have shown to me by further trampling my rights.
Click to expand...

Guess ya either got to move to a freer place, or show you have a pair and walk to your courthouse with a machine gun to demonstrate your contempt..

O wait, my bad, you are posting on the net, carry on...tell us how the Court is traitors etc.....

Wildkeyboardcommando?Alaska ™
 
Your right to swing your fist about ends where my nose begins, correct? The proper role of government is to ensure that happens.

This is another place where government, federal, state, county or city, should have NO business. Your nose is your business and as long as you keep it out of my business you have no need to worry about my fist. If, on the other hand, you spend time and effort telling me and anyone who will listen just what my rights are and how far I can prosecute them you'd better look out for my left, it packs a pretty good punch too.
Should I wander the countryside punching people in the nose at will, someone needs to take me aside and point out the error of my ways. That 'someone' doesn't need to be a group of JBTs sworn to "serve and protect" either. I have seen far too many cases where a bully has tried to have his way in a group only to find there is always someone else who is stronger, faster and meaner.
This should bring out the cries of "anarchy" and what a terrible thing that would be. Well, contrary to what most nanny-staters think, anarchy isn't always a bad thing - it can be bad but not always. Tyranny though, and especially the tyranny of the majority, is always a bad thing.
 
Wildalaska,

It sure is easy to throwdownn the BS flag in a troll-like fashion when you read something that amuses you. You have issued your challenges to myself and many others too in the time I have been hanging around.

I do not have to back up my comments with you right now by making the 6 pm news by shooting up the courthouse because that is not how it will all come to a head.

Your online bluffs can be taken with the same grain of salt as any others. You are not immune to the BS flag.

Anygunanywhere
 
But then again, I'm not the one posting contempt for law and the Courts based on an erroneus view of the Constitution, am I ?

WildanotheronealltalkandnoactionAlaska TM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top