General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen did the Second Amendment become holy scripture?
I mean, I've read holy scripture, man, and that shit ain't in there!
We have local governments ordering "The Catcher In The Rye" to be removed from school libraries. Unjustly so.
Threatening the President's life is a Federal offense. Justly so.
You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater if there isn't a fire. Justly so.
You can't make damaging, unfounded allegations about someone in the public press without being slapped with some sort of sanction. And justly so.
The rights of "free speech" and "free press" are infringed all the time in the interest of public safety and the public good. It's a (mostly) fair trade-off.
But don't you dare take away my weapon of mass murder?
God, I fucking hate the gun-crazies...
Gun-troll attack in 3...2...1...
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Or anything else we are guaranteed. Just asking.
Aristus
(66,294 posts)for various reasons in the name of public safety, a civil public discourse, etc. Sometimes we push back, and with good reason, such as the banning of books, also mentioned in the OP. But by and large, we accept that there are at least a few limits to "free speech".
But no limits to the 2nd Amendment, even considering the intent of the founders, and the literal definition of the text itself? Why?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)But there are laws that define those limits of speech as you noted, are there not laws that limit the acquisition and ownership of guns, as well as those that are ideaological in nature. I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't even own a gun or guns, not my thing.
Aristus
(66,294 posts)There are laws stating you can't bear a gun within 1,000 feet of a school building. But that's icing on a turd. There ought to be laws that a private citizen can't own a firearm. Keep and bear? Sure, if one is a member of a well-regulated militia. But own? Unlimited numbers? Thousands and thousands of rounds of ammunition?
If, despite the First Amendment, I'm am disallowed from accessing and reading, to say nothing of publishing, classified military documents, why can we not reserve military-grade weaponry for the military alone?
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)probably going to have a different view. Not sure it matters how many thousands of weapons one owns when you can only employ one or two at a time. Some of the earliest restrictions were placed upon the storage of Powder. DOT and the fire service still have restrictions on how much of certain types of materials such as explosive and blasting agents can be transported/stored.
Military Weapons is a moving target. 20mm explosive round detonates on impact or range/flight time is military. Brown Bess was military but today is an antique. Shotguns long used by the military have also been the subject of proposed bans from military service.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)death penalties and laws which permit killings like Florida's stand-your-ground.
So, as the First Amendment's free speech and religious rights can be and are routinely abridged as part of ensuring that other folks' individual rights are not violated, then so can the Second Amendment's gun ownership rights be abridged to ensure that other folks' rights are not violated. Plus there's that little matter of gun rights only applying to a "WELL-REGULATED" militia.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)way today's nutjobs have interpreted it...pretty firghtening.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Slow day at work?
Aristus
(66,294 posts)it would make your head swim.
And it doesn't take much bait to bring the gun trolls skittering out of their trailers and tar-paper shacks, anyway.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Or are the Democratic Underground Gun Trolls so repulsive as to have earned your disdain and hatred?
Aristus
(66,294 posts)The breath-taking contribution guns have made to art, music, dance, literature, public speaking, child-rearing, medicine, gardening?
Disdain, yes. Hatred? No. Pity, certainly, for anyone who lives a life so full of fear, anxiety, mistrust and self-inflicted uncertainty that they have to go heeled every minute of every day.
Does my support for gun control make me a better person than the gun-crazies? In a few abstract ways, yes, perhaps. But mostly, I imagine I'm simply happier, and less full of fear.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)In a way they are beneath your notice . . . except you just did a post calling them out.
Bryant
Aristus
(66,294 posts)By definition.
Anyway, the gun -lovers have some rather awful ways of making themselves noticed. And if it takes the deaths of 20 young children in order to get one's name in the papers and on TV, well, small price to pay...
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Democratic Underground Gun Trolls were somehow responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook. But clearly you aren't insinuating that.
sheshe2
(83,660 posts)and speaking of sneezing...
Restrictions for Sudafed.... guns, not so much. Is it just me or is this crazy!
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/buy-too-much-sudafed-and-you-may-get-a-visit-from-a-cop/3316
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)It's the only thing that takes away the sinus headaches I get
sheshe2
(83,660 posts)I hope your sinus headaches are better, RockaFowler.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I'm really tired of the pharmacist thinking I'm a meth cook. I live in the Ohio River valley, and if you live there, you HAVE sinus problems! Period. Our state legislators all think the solution to the meth problem is to outlaw Advil Cold & Sinus.
Good grief! Maybe, just maybe, they should try something ELSE to deal with the meth problem.
Bake
LeftinOH
(5,353 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Here is a picture of the Constitution being delivered to the US:
fleur-de-lisa
(14,624 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)Bake
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's a very broad agreement, even from the NRA, on restricting machineguns. There's a very broad agreement, even from the NRA, on background checks for sales through licensed dealers.
A lot of us would like more restrictions.
I guess my question would be, what is it about gun laws currently that makes you think the 2nd Amendment isn't subject to any regulation?
dkf
(37,305 posts)A joke.
I think we are deluding ourselves that we have rights, that we wave them around for some feel good supposed pride in our country. But look at the right to choose. Republicans have whittled down availability so much that they've pretty much stamped it out in some areas.
Look at our privacy rights...the government has allowed some amazingly intrusive acts to go on.
We've let our rights be whittled down to almost nothing. I think that is why they always fight so hard to be able to keep their guns.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Before Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, the Constitutional guarantee of assistance of counsel was essentially meaningless. Prior to Miranda and its progeny, the 5th amendment was essentially meaningless. Arrests which violate the 4th amendment are thrown out in courts every day.
How many cases got thrown out on 4th amendment grounds in, say, 1900, 1920, 1950? About none. It happens every day. It happens so often that you don't hear about it.
The first phase of just about any criminal case going to trial consists of a whittling down of what evidence is going to be admissible. That is routine. It was most certainly not routine in the past.
Pick a year - any year you like - in US history when we existed in this idyllic wonderland of not having "whittled down" rights. Just pick one and stick with it.
dkf
(37,305 posts)We've made rights so specific. I doubt the founding fathers thought it would be so.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The founding fathers would be surprised that we extended them to the state level, more than anything else. You think criminal procedure was more protective of rights in 1800 than now?
Go ahead and cite me one 4th Amendment challenge to a criminal conviction at any prior to the Civil War. Cite one.
swayne
(383 posts)one of the ways to do that was to use "slave patrols" (look up slave patrols and see what they were) and keeping these slaves in line with guns is the "gun heritage" that these people are speaking about.
It was designed to keep tabs on black people, but you can't say this historically, in action and deed even though it is, in very large part, the same reason for the "love" of guns today.
That's why the 2nd amendment is worded is such a strange way.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Any other use besides hunting and sporting applications is misuse.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"A deadly weapon is usually defined as a firearm or any object designed, made, or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious physical injury."
"Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; "
""Deadly Weapon." Any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury,"
edit quotes added
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)but that's a form of speech. The gun itself is a weapon designed solely to kill.
Johonny
(20,820 posts)off gun sales. Take out the massive amount of money in the weapon sales and suddenly these organizations would see the regulated part of the 2nd amendment as reasonable as polls show the average American.