Right to bear arms - Yah or nay

Right to bear arms - Yah or nay


  • Total voters
    127

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
So it took a foreign power five years to join. Big deal. It took your own congress three years to join in.
Yeah, maybe because it didn't exist yet. Your point? :roll:

Oh, and the First Continental Congress met in 1774, a year before the Revolution formally started and a year before the Second one that signed the Declaration of Independence. I still don't know what you're trying to argue here.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
I was just a little confused when you threw in the bloody tea party, yes, it has historical meaning, it's of great symbolic value, but it was not the start of the war, it was a bunch of Boston radicals dressed as indians throwing tea into the sea. Kudos to them, no problem, but I really did not see how that was in any way relevant.

One thing worth noting is that there was no second ammendmet before the war of independence, the second ammendment was more than a decade late for the start of the hostilities.

That's my point.
 

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
I was just a little confused when you threw in the bloody tea party, yes, it has historical meaning, it's of great symbolic value, but it was not the start of the war, it was a bunch of Boston radicals dressed as indians throwing tea into the sea. Kudos to them, no problem, but I really did not see how that was in any way relevant.

One thing worth noting is that there was no second ammendmet before the war of independence, the second ammendment was more than a decade late for the start of the hostilities.

That's my point.
No, I never said the Boston Tea Party was the start of the war, I don't know why you assumed such a thing. That would be when the colonists started to shoot the British, i.e. the Battles of Lexington and Concord, April 19th, 1775. It's a landmark incident, however, that exemplifies the American revolution, and I could have easily mentioned the Boston Massacre of 1770 or the Sugar Act of 1764 for more Revolutionary trivia.

And there wasn't a 2nd Amendment before the Revolutionary War because there wasn't a Bill of Rights. The colonists certainly didn't need one because they adhered to British laws and regulations, namely the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which (shocker!) also gave them the right to bear arms.

(Of course, that predecessor was the Assize of Arms, proclaimed by Henry II, that said all knights and freed men were required to possess weapons and armor in order to serve the king. The colonists in America adhered to this tradition somewhat; they just didn't realize they would bear arms for the exact opposite effect.)
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,870
I'll read more of the replies and post a longer one than this later on when I have time, but for now I'll just say this: this issue isn't really up to debate. It is our Constitutional right to bear arms. Period.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Lets say that the President decided that time has come for a Comprehensive Gun Ban, which according to the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. The congress is split and can not pass any legislation blocking the Presidents action or have him removed from office. Because the Supreme Court has no enforcement powers a large number of people are rendered as criminals. It would be easier than you think to get guns banned. We do not ban them for a good reason.

Arguing against guns is like arguing against booze, weed, or sex! If you outlaw guns you have a large normally law abiding population which overnight has become criminal. During prohibition Americans who had just a drop of alcohol ended up not reporting crimes as not implicate themselves. You outlaw guns people would not report self defense shooting but would attempt to cover them up.
 

Vette Boss

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
5,250
Location
United States, Britain, in time
Car(s)
2006 Volkswagen Passat 3.6 VR6
I don't like the idea of gun ownership being a right, it should be earned. You pass tests and prove your competency, then you get licensed. As it stands now, it's not really possible to do because it's ingrained in American society.

Plenty of perfectly nice people have guns, they understand the responsibility. I just think there should be a system to weed out the mentals.
 

Steve Levin

Master of Disaster
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,482
Location
Sunnyvale, California
Car(s)
Spec Racer Ford!
Why on earth would the right to bear arms NOT be a fundamental right?

Of course, you could define everything in life as a 'privilege.'

For example, why should those that don't take enough time to understand issues be allowed to vote?

Why should those that don't own property have a right to vote on the taxation of property?

The list could go on and on.

Steve
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
Why on earth would the right to bear arms NOT be a fundamental right?

Of course, you could define everything in life as a 'privilege.'

For example, why should those that don't take enough time to understand issues be allowed to vote?

Why should those that don't own property have a right to vote on the taxation of property?

The list could go on and on.

Steve
Because guns, you know, can kill things quite easily. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have things that can kill other things quite easily. Same reason we need a license to drive a car.

It's not a difficult concept to understand.
 

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
Because guns, you know, can kill things quite easily. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have things that can kill other things quite easily. Same reason we need a license to drive a car.

It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Then again, just because it's a "right" doesn't mean they hand out guns in school lunches and on the streets to every citizen for free. There are licenses and applications and background checks involved, similar to driving cars.

Here's food for thought: if cars had been around back in the time of the Founding Fathers, would they have made driving an unalienable right as well? There's a lot of debate over how cars are a "priviledge" granted by the government, and you lose your ability to drive a car if you break the law enough times. (Granted, you lose your ability to own a gun if you kill someone, too, being in jail and everything, but that's beside the point. ;))

Can we go back to talking about obscure British treaties?
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
Then again, just because it's a "right" doesn't mean they hand out guns in school lunches and on the streets to every citizen for free. There are licenses and applications and background checks involved, similar to driving cars.

Here's food for thought: if cars had been around back in the time of the Founding Fathers, would they have made driving an unalienable right as well? There's a lot of debate over how cars are a "priviledge" granted by the government, and you lose your ability to drive a car if you break the law enough times. (Granted, you lose your ability to own a gun if you kill someone, too, being in jail and everything, but that's beside the point. ;))

Can we go back to talking about obscure British treaties?
My point is basically that if you're calling something a right, it should mean everyone gets it. I'm not saying it's a privilege that should be hard to get by any means - just be sane and pass a safety course - just that not everyone should be allowed firearms.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
There are licenses and applications and background checks involved, similar to driving cars.

Here's food for thought: if cars had been around back in the time of the Founding Fathers, would they have made driving an unalienable right as well? There's a lot of debate over how cars are a "priviledge" granted by the government, and you lose your ability to drive a car if you break the law enough times.
Repealing the Second Amendment the "right to bear arms" would mean prohibiting any gun. Unlike a car which WITHOUT a license you can own. WITHOUT a license you can drive your car on your own property just not public roads. WITHOUT a Second Amendment you could not own or operate a gun on your own property or anywhere.

Rather your question is a straw-man; the tenets of freedom suggested open mobility, it does not note specific means. A horse or carriage would not be regulated other than having the means to own one. Although we have the tenets of open mobility in our culture, but not an enumerated right to such, government can and has prevented movement. The Ninth Amendment keeps this in check.
 
Last edited:

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
My point is basically that if you're calling something a right, it should mean everyone gets it. I'm not saying it's a privilege that should be hard to get by any means - just be sane and pass a safety course - just that not everyone should be allowed firearms.
In that case, everyone CAN get a gun - i.e. everybody has the ability to go down to a gun store and fill out the application to own a firearm. There's no innate discrimination in that regard.

Whether they actually should own a gun, however, is determined by the legal loopholes they then jump through. ;) That's the basis behind the Amendment: you can bear arms, but whether you should is determined by other means. If you're a psychopath or a criminal, for example.
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
In that case, everyone CAN get a gun - i.e. everybody has the ability to go down to a gun store and fill out the application to own a firearm. There's no innate discrimination in that regard.

Whether they actually should own a gun, however, is determined by the legal loopholes they then jump through. ;) That's the basis behind the Amendment: you can bear arms, but whether you should is determined by other means. If you're a psychopath or a criminal, for example.
That's exactly how it should be, really. I think my main issue is just being pedantic about the language, which is my job in reality.

Wait a minute, two people have basically agreed on the internet. Something is wrong here...
 
Last edited:

Aircooled

Active Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
252
Car(s)
00' Jeep Cherokee
My point is basically that if you're calling something a right, it should mean everyone gets it. I'm not saying it's a privilege that should be hard to get by any means - just be sane and pass a safety course - just that not everyone should be allowed firearms.
There are a number of groups that are restricted to purchase firearms. Basically you are deemed competent until proven otherwise.
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Should it be a right to bear arms, or should it be a privilege?

You have to pass the Armed Forces exam (granted, with only a 45% score, but still) to be able to use a firearm to defend our country. Our well-regulated, uniformed militia is privileged to own a firearm... but it's a right for Joe Sixpack to own one?
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Joe Sixpack, who keep in mind is not part of our well-regulated militia... or any well-regulated militia, for that matter.
 
Top