The Second Amendment

by Englishman 81 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Englishman

  I like guns. I like the feel of them. I like the fine engineering too. I enjoy shooting clays or skeet with a shotgun. So yeah..I guess that I understand why some folk enjoy owning or collecting firearms.

  Re the USA Second Amendment though. When they spoke about the right of the people to bear arms, weren't they talking about muskets and rifles back then? Someone carrying a rifle or musket is obviously out hunting or off to fight a war somewhere. You cant easily conceal a rifle on your person. You certainly couldn't conceal a musket back at the time of the second amendment's being written.

  It seems to me that the original purpose of the second amendment bears no relation to the way it is interpreted today. Nowadays, the right to bear arms seems to be all about carrying a concealed handgun about your person. Surely that's just a mockery of the amendments original intentions?

  Isn't it hight time that the second amendment was amended?

  Englishman.
• 

  ivy

  Isn't it hight time that the second amendment was amended?

  
  I truly agree. I wish I could bring back some of the original writers of that esteemed document to get their opinion on this matter. They had some very good reasons for the Second Amendment, but I think we have to compare the spirit that it was written in against the practical implications of guns as they are today. Our govenor recently vetoed a bill that would allow guns in bars (unless bar owners posted a sign against it). The thing that scares me is that the bill made it that far.
  
  The issue reminds me a little of a well esteemed book that says we must not partake of blood, and some people who use that ancient document as a reason not to take advantage of current medical advances.
• 

  AlanF

  As I understand it, the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not simply to allow people to bear arms to hunt and such, but to be able to protect themselves from nasty governments such as the British they were in the process of fighting. I also seem to recall reading that a related motivation was that people could protect themselves from their own nasty government -- which is not such a bad idea.

  I believe that pistols go back much further in time than the late 18th century, so the writers of the Constitution must have had all sorts of arms in mind.

  AlanF
• 

  Simon

  but to be able to protect themselves from nasty governments such as the British they were in the process of fighting

  Examples please, and no quoting the mickey mouse hollywood history. The people who coined the 'freedom from oppression' jingo were actually the oppressors, the rich landowners who didnt want cheap UK tea, who didn't want slaves to be free or equal and who wanted to expand their lands at the expense of the local populations.

  Be careful who you call nasty unless you know your facts.

  As for the 2ns amendment, like others it is not in need of any reform IMO but just needs come common sense interpretation (maybe fewer lawyers?!?!)

  It was never meant to mean that some red-neck can own assault riffles and carry consealed weapons but it did refer to having an armed populace to defend against nasty governments ... their own.

  Like the freedom of speech though it becomes corrupt and people start trying to use it to allow anything - swearing, hate speech, advocating pedophilia and the like. None of the things that it was meant for (politcial expression).
• 

  EvilForce

  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.
  
  
  Since the US was in it's infantcy the militia was the way to protect the country therefore the reason that the US shouldn't infringe on that right. So the amendment is about militias not private gun ownership for ownership's sake.
• 

  Sith

  Another situation where you can't have it both ways. You can't arm the populace, in case the government gets outta hand, and keep weapons out of the hands of wackos. It's human nature...any freedom is eventually going to be corrupted
• 

  AlanF

  Simon, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek and generically. Didn't I even say, "I also seem to recall reading that a related motivation was that people could protect themselves from their own nasty government -- which is not such a bad idea"? Now who do you think "their own nasty government" refers to?

  AlanF
• 

  Euphemism

  AFAIK, while some states do allow concealed carry, it is not considered a right under the 2nd Amendment. The assault-weapon ban was also deemed constitutional, despite its rather sloppy drafting and definition. Waiting periods, restrictions on gun ownership by felons, etc. are all considered constitutional.

  Despite the impression some people abroad may have, the Second Amendment is not (at least as currently interpreted) a free-for-all that prevents any restrictions on gun ownership.
• 

  Simon

  Alan, with respect, you are talking cobblers:

  You said:

  but to be able to protect themselves from nasty governments such as the British

  Then you claimed you said:

  Didn't I even say, "I also seem to recall reading that a related motivation was that people could protect themselves from their own nasty government

  So, to answer your question ... NO, You didn't say that at all !!
• 

  Heatmiser

  Firearm ownership is written in most state constitutions as well. The states that don't, tend to have stricter gun laws than the federal laws. Kalifornia is a good example of this.