The Second Amendment

[Llamas]

Do not steal and you won't get shot. I know you want to draw a line...there is validity in this. I do understand. Should you die for stealing a pack of gum? Probably not. But mess with the wrong store owner and you might. Is it fair to die for this? Not really. Is it fair to have your property stolen? No. Nobody said that stealing always ends up being a winning proposition for the criminal.

You just said that you think it's criminals deserve to get shot, and that it's a good thing when they die. Now you just said it's not fair to die for it. Make up your mind. Should jaywalkers get shot, too?

Now we are worried about spending money? That's funny. Hell, ask the teachers that want to vault their guns to pay for the use of the vault. Problem solved.

Lol, you really make no sense. People have advocated for requiring guns in schools, and requiring teachers to be trained to have guns. I was arguing that concept. If we require guns in schools, we also have to require vaults. Unless we want to risk children getting their hands on them. You thinking, bro?

[Static_Martyr]

And just real quick for SM...if you commit a violent crime and end of in prison, I do not care what happens to the crminial in any way. Cruel, unusual whatever. Not my problem. Just make their life miserable. I am real good with that.

'Kay. Just wanted to get you on record saying you're fundamentally against the Constitution. So you'll be a hypocrite if you say the constitution guarantees you any right to own a gun, because according to you, provisions of the Constitution are negotiable and can be ignored if it's convenient for a particular ideology.

[MOTO13]

'Kay. Just wanted to get you on record saying you're fundamentally against the Constitution. So you'll be a hypocrite if you say the constitution guarantees you any right to own a gun, because according to you, provisions of the Constitution are negotiable and can be ignored if it's convenient for a particular ideology.

I am fundamentally against criminals. I am even more fundamentally against people who would give two shits about a convicted murders "rights". Hilarious...in it's stupidity. Cruel and unusual punishment for a violent felon is open for interpretation. If he is still breathing after the end of the day...nothing cruel or unusual happend. You friggin people are more worried that a child rapist or murder will be treated "fairly" to ensure his rights...a person that broke the most sacred law on the planet..and you want to make sure he is all warm and fuzzy with his rights. Yet, a person that has done NOTHING wrong, you piss and moan and want to take away their 2nd amendment right? Hey genius, that guy in prison just killed your family and you didn't have a gun to defend yourself. Make sure and send him a christmas card. Wouldn't want him to feel too punished.

It guarantees this right to law abiding citizens. Felons..no. So when you become a felon, you piss away your rights.

[Static_Martyr]

I am fundamentally against criminals.

Cool story, bro. The Constitution believes criminals still have human rights.

I am even more fundamentally against people who would give two shits about a convicted murders "rights". Hilarious...in it's stupidity.

Which means you're against the Constitution, which provides limits on how we can treat prisoners.

Cruel and unusual punishment for a violent felon is open for interpretation. If he is still breathing after the end of the day...nothing cruel or unusual happend.

Yes, I know you believe that the Constitution is negotiable if it's in the interest of your ideology. That's my point.

You friggin people are more worried that a child rapist or murder will be treated "fairly" to ensure his rights...a person that broke the most sacred law on the planet..and you want to make sure he is all warm and fuzzy with his rights.

If you *actually* gave half a shit about our Constitutional rights, you would have a problem with prisoner abuse as well. Because once you decide prisoner abuse is acceptable (even though the Constitution says it's not), then that means we've set a precedent that our Constitutional rights are negotiable. Which then completely undermines any future argument that we have an "inalienable constitutional right" to anything --- guns, or fair trials.

That's the thing about the Constitution, is you have to abide by all of it, not just the parts you agree with.

Yet, a person that has done NOTHING wrong, you piss and moan and want to take away their 2nd amendment right?

Actually, I don't believe a person has that right to begin with, so it's moot to discuss "taking it away."

Hey genius, that guy in prison just killed your family and you didn't have a gun to defend yourself. Make sure and send him a christmas card. Wouldn't want him to feel too punished.

Case in point: libertarians are completely incapable of registering nuance.

I never said anything about treating prisoners kindly, or even lightly -- that's just your ideology speaking, filling in the blanks where you're not comfortable thinking for yourself. We're talking about humane treatment. And some food for thought: 10,000 people are wrongfully convicted in the US each year on average, only to later have their convictions overturned. If you allow prisoner abuse, you are also allowing a small percentage of law-abiding citizen abuse because you're allowing the abuse of people who were convicted wrongfully. If you're willing to write those citizens off as "collateral damage," then so be it, but be aware that this means (once again) that you are opposed to the principles set up in the constitution.

It guarantees this right to law abiding citizens. Felons..no. So when you become a felon, you piss away your rights.

No, actually, it guarantees rights to all American citizens, prisoner or no --- of course you would know that if you had read the Constitution in its entirety. If a prison guard were to shoot a prisoner in his cell for no reason (which he couldn't in most cases as most prison guards are not armed for safety reasons --- think about that for a moment), that guard could be tried for murder. Because when you are tried for a crime, it's because you have rights; when you are sentenced to, say, 10 years in prison, it's because you have a right to live after your sentence is through; when you are released, it's because you have served your time.

If you abuse your prisoners, you are toying with the justice system in a way that was not intended, and you are adding to their sentence in a way that is not allowed by the Constitution. You are basically interfering with a court judgment of how that person is to be treated. If you kill someone in prison, you are revoking that person's right to continue living in the event that their sentence is lifted or served out. And if they are sentenced to life, then it's still murder to kill them because the government still acknowledges that they have a right to their life --- it's just to be spent under close supervision to ensure the safety of law-abiding citizens.

[Baldwin]

You friggin people are more worried that a child rapist or murder will be treated "fairly" to ensure his rights...a person that broke the most sacred law on the planet..

Actually, High Treason is "the most sacred law on the planet". Child rape and murder, well, a huge amount of cultures and societies have been quite okay with that. High Treason is that one penultimate crime that no matter where you are, or what time period you're in, or what type of regulating body you commit it against, they're going to make you to suffer as much as they can possibly make you suffer. If the most liberal and "criminal-friendly" government in the world thought they could get away with cutting out a traitor's heart and showing to the mob, they'd do it. No question. If you had to name one law or tenet that's fundamentally inherent and sacred to human beings, it's High Treason.

And about those guys who wrote that little constitution of yours....

[bronc_28]

I wish there was a real solution to break and enter protection laws. In the US, people are shot and killed for entering a house when the owner thought they were there to cause harm but they weren't. In Europe, people aren't allowed to defend themselves physically unless physically attacked (the defense must match the offense). This has led to stories like, a guy broke in to a home multiple times to steal money, successfully stole tens of thousands... when he was caught by the owner, the owner beat him with a baseball bat. Sure, that was stupid, but in the end, the homeowner's crimes were considered worse than the theft, and the homeowner had to pay the thief's medical bills - in addition to keeping all the money he stole. However, the thief didn't deserve to die. Both extremes are shitty, and I wish there was a middle ground.

I was excited to agree with you 'til here

It really does disgust me how willing people are to KILL someone who enters their home. Killing a person has got to fuck you up in a serious way mentally, and some people seem to actually hope they get to use their guns in this manner someday. It's like, well I can't kill anyone normally... but if they break into my home, I can!! Honestly, I don't know that I'd rather have to live with the fact that I'd killed a person than to be killed myself. I really don't. I think it would haunt me for the rest of my life.

Sorry, this is kind of off-topic, but at least related to the second amendment.

I don't know anyone who wants to kill anyone, and historically speaking those who say they can/or want too, aren't able to, at least in war.

However, when it comes to the safety of my family, all bets are off. Breaking into someones home, doesn't elicit signs of benign intent.

[bronc_28]

I've been reading up on the second amendment for awhile now, and it seems to me that this notion of a "personal right to carry any weapon ever manufactured for civilian use" is a recent invention, as late as 2008. Granted it's been touted as such for longer, but the earliest SCOTUS ruling I am able to find comes from 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed the "individual right to carry." But as far back as 1876, United States v. Cruikshank established that the second amendment was only regarding the rights of states to regulate guns, and actually goes out of its way to establish that there is not an "individual right" to gun ownership, stating that the second amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government:"



The Westlaw Insider Blog has an interesting breakdown of the timeline of these cases and their effects on national gun laws, if you're interested in some casual reading:



That said....I've brought this up in conversations about gun ownership with a few people on facebook, and so far the most common responses include (A) "You don't understand the constitution" (I'm not saying I do, I'm merely citing people whose job it is to interpret the Constitution), (B) "Second Amendment rights, I can own whatever guns I want!" (ignores the entire point), and (C) "Well, the SCOTUS said in 2008 that we DO have an individual right!"

That last one is technically a fair point, though it's interesting because nine times out of ten, I'm having this conversation with a person who said SCOTUS was "corrupt" for ruling Obamacare constitutional.

Anyway, thoughts? Strongly-worded opinions? Violent knee-jerk rhetoric? I'm hoping that maybe here, it will be possible to discuss this in an adult manner, without resorting to ignorant partisan rhetoric.

The SCOTUS, has gotten many rulings wrong, most recently Obamacare. The intent in the constitution seems hard to mistake to me. The revolutionary war was not too distant a memory, maybe that's why it was the SECOND amendment?!

[bronc_28]

They are not douchebags...they want their rights upheld. At any one time Obama and all the other hollywood types are surrounded with guns. Hell, Obama just signed on order for SS for life. SS is basically full on, gun toating protection for himself and wife...for LIFE. Apparently he feels guns are OK as long as they protect his dumb ass. What gun license are you talking about?

Assault rifles are basically guns with pistol grips and high capacity clips. Limit clip size to 20 rounds...fine. That really doesn't bother me. A well armed civilian population is one of the best defenses from someone invading our country. You may not like that idea, but it is a fact. We ever get invaded, anyone w/o guns will be running to someone with guns.

Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, two of the bigger gun control advocates both have concealed carry permits, and in states with some of the tougher gun laws already!

[bronc_28]

And oh, PS - tax dollars do not fund abortions.

and food stamps are actually food that little food fairies make in their easy bake ovens!

[Static_Martyr]

The SCOTUS, has gotten many rulings wrong, most recently Obamacare. The intent in the constitution seems hard to mistake to me. The revolutionary war was not too distant a memory, maybe that's why it was the SECOND amendment?!

I agree, I think they got the 2008 ruling regarding the individual right to carry wrong (though I think they ruled correctly on Obamacare). As there is a preponderance of evidence prior to that ruling that there is no individual right to carry implied by the second amendment --- all the historical and contextual evidence leans against the individual right. Ironically, the prior ruling cited in that judgment in support of the individual right, was immediately succeeded by a paragraph explaining that the constitution does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms.