Which of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights can we do without?

[DFWdem]

I've noticed several posters lamenting gun violence and suggesting that gun ownership in the US should be illegal or severely restricted. My question to those of you who do not agree with the right of the populace to bear arms is this: If you view the 2nd Amendment as dispensible, are there any other Amendments that are dispensible as well? How about the 1st, or the 4th? Additionally, I do not believe it was an accident that the right to bear arms was the 2nd Amendment as opposed to the 8th or 9th. I believe the forefathers placed such a high degree of importance on an armed populace that could defend itself from a gov't run amok that they saw freedom of speech as the only right that is more important than the right to bear arms.


spelling edit

[GrantDem]

1. Well obviously...

we don't need the 4th Amendment. We are in a war (on terra) ya' know.

:sarcasm:

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. The 2nd Amendment is NOT "dispensible." However....

Like the rest of the Constitution, it must be interpreted with both an eye towards original intent and an eye towards the realities of today. In neither line of sight is the unrestricted ownership and use of weapons warranted.

[DFWdem]

5. True, but you say "weapons", not "guns"

There is a big difference. I don't have a problem with outlawing C4, dynamite, or fully automatic machine guns. However, I do support the right to own any firearm, i.e. handgun, rifle, or shotgun, that is not fully automatic.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. The Second Amendment says neither "weapons" nor "guns" nor "firearms"

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.

This is what I mean about the need for interpretation. What are "arms"?

A case could be made that "arms" therefore means only rifles and muskets: that is, after all, what the militia of the day had access to.

A case could be made that "arms" means any recreational weapon that could be used to defend hearth and home. Sports weapons like high powered hunting rifles, hand guns, bows, etc. are protected but semi-automatic weapons and modern munitions are not.

A case could be made that "arms" means the best weaponry you can lay your hands on, be it a Bowie knife or rocket launched grenades.

A case could be made that the right to bear "arms" is protected only in the context of "a well organized militia" and that anything outside of that scope is not protected.

This comes back to my point over the need for interpretation. The Second Amendment is worded very badly, and as far as I've been able to find, there is no mention of this right in any of the papers left by the Founders. I think a much better question for the OP to ask would be: How would you rewrite the Second Amendment?

[BushOut06]

23. I should be allowed to have a 155mm howitzer

Just in case some nutjob in the next county over wants to start some shit.

[omega minimo]

38. You should be allowed

to post on Free Republic

[benEzra]

26. The same issue occurs with the First Amendment...

does "speech" include libel? Slander? Child porn? Orders from bin Laden?

The line of demarcation between arms civilians are allowed to freely own, and arms that are tightly controlled, was settled 71 years ago, by the compromises embodied in the National Firearms Act of 1934. Gun owners are generally OK with that compromise. There's no need to repeal the 2ndA in order to restrict machineguns, they're already restricted. Just like there's no need to repeal the 1stA in order to restrict child porn, it's already restricted.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

29. I wouldn't

Only His Majesty, King George is allowed to alter the Bill of Rights at a whim. I wouldn't dare touch ANY of those first amendments. While some may find it worded badly, they said "arms" in the same context with "militia." I can make a very solid case that the writings of Jefferson exhibit an influence of Plato and Neo-Platonists like Pico della Mirandola. At least some of our forefathers were familiar with philosophy, history the steady advancement in weapons systems over time. In using the word "arms" they meant ANY anti-personnel device that might be useful to a militia and had NO intention of restricting our populace to hunting rifles, crude handguns and swords. What they obviously meant is ANY future weapon that makes Big Brother reluctant to kick in your door. I don't think, even in their wildest imagination, that these early statesmen visualized nuclear weapons. Keeping big government in it's place is an overriding theme in the whole document, though. The right to bear arms certainly works on an international level. King George isn't planning to bring his brand of religion and Democracy to North Korea in the near future.

[meow2u3]

74. To "bear arms" simply means the right to defend yourself

and the state. Nowhere does the phrase "bear arms" specify the kind of "arms" one is to use in the course of self-defense. In other words, the right to bear arms simply means the right to defend yourself against an aggressor.

[ixion]

3. the amendments in question... just so we know what's on the able...

Personally, I think we need'em all. ;-)


The ten amendments making up the Bill of Rights are:

* First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment – Relates to the right to keep and bear arms.

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.

* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel or unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Yupster]

27. We're pretty much doing without the

Ninth and Tenth Amendments now, so I guess they can be dispensed with.

[Pushed To The Left]

78. Wow. It looks like all or most of those

amendments are being violated these days. :(

[DelawareValleyDem]

4. Uh, you do realize

that the First Amendment enumerates more rights than just freedom of speech, don't you?

[DFWdem]

7. Yes, I just got lazy

Didn't feel like typing. i guess I could've googled the Constitution and copied & pasted, but I was too lazy for that too. :)

[Ron Green]

6. Technology has changed things, hasn't it?

Could the Framers have anticipated a world in which the "militia" could not possibly do successful battle with a government force? On the other hand, could they have imagined semiautomatic weapons in the hands of citizens?

[NewHampshireDem]

9. Or a nation of more than 250 million people ... or cities with

millions of citizens within them?

[Ron Green]

12. Exactly. the Second Amendment is the one made "different" by the changes

in the world over 200 years, because the concept of "arms" is radically changed, as is the very landscape of our society.

[benEzra]

22. Civilian-legal small arms have changed a LOT less

than the technology affected by the First and Fourth Amendments. If NFA Title 2 restricted arms were freely available to civilians (automatic weapons, military AK-47's, grenades, whatever) you might have more of a point, but the fact is they're not.

If I could go back in time, I could hand George Washington my civilian AK lookalike, give him 60 seconds of explanation, and he could not only understand it, but use it competently with no further instruction. It's capabilities are not THAT far beyond the rifles available in 1791, and the technology it represents is only a short jump from that era (you could have made one in 1840 or so had anyone though of it).

But could you have explained podcasting to George Washington? The Internet? Broadcast television? email? Could he have understood and used a PC with 60 seconds worth of instruction? Does that mean the First Amendment only applies to quill pens, hand-cranked presses, and face-to-face speech?

The Patriot Act types are constantly saying that the technology available to criminals/terrorists makes the Fourth Amendment obsolete, often invoking the nuclear terrorist bogeyman. If you are going to try to revoke the 2ndA based on the relatively small advancements in technology that have occurred in civilian firearms since 1791--most of which occurred before 1860, never mind 1930--then you place yourself on a slippery slope indeed, because the 1st and 4th Amendments are FAR more vulnerable to that kind of argument than the 2ndA is.

[manic expression]

69. However

a.) no one's life is put in danger by improvements in information technology.

b.) a militia can be functional without having access to fully automatic weapons, mortars, etc...

c.) while right to bear arms is not infringed by restricting certain weapons, the right to share information is infringed in a terrible way by making restrictions on information gathering.

Here's the thing, did the framers believe that people could privately own cannons? Warships? If not, then the relative restrictions should be put intact. That means that side-arms are allowed, while howitzers are not.

Meanwhile, information was never intended to be restricted (actually it was, the framers were not big fans of "free speech" as we know it) in any way, and so there is no restriction to carry over.

Not that you're a fan of the PATRIOT Act or anything, I'm just putting forth arguments.

[benEzra]

93. Some thoughts...

a.) no one's life is put in danger by improvements in information technology.

The proponents of the Patriot Act, secret wiretaps, bans on strong encryption, and other such nonsense say otherwise. (I don't agree with them, FWIW.)

The right-wingers say porn, violent movies, and subversive literature put people's lives in danger too. So the lives-on-the-line argument can be applied to at least the First and Fourth Amendments.

b.) a militia can be functional without having access to fully automatic weapons, mortars, etc...

Well, since civilians don't have free access to automatic weapons and mortars (they're all restricted Title 2 items under the National Firearms Act), that's more or less a moot point. Gunnies are for the most part OK with the National Firearms Act, and automatic weapons have hardly been on anyone's agenda since 1934.

c.) while right to bear arms is not infringed by restricting certain weapons, the right to share information is infringed in a terrible way by making restrictions on information gathering.

The right to bear arms is not terribly infringed by the restrictions on automatic weapons embodied in the National Firearms Act, which is why gun owners accepted that compromise 71 years ago. However, banning all civilian firearms having the stock shaped a certain way, limiting all civilian guns to only 10 rounds capacity, or or requiring some sort of "hunting" justification for gun ownership, DO infringe the right to bear arms in a terrible way. That's why the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch REALLY crossed the line, and why it was and is so vociferously resisted by gun owners.

Here's the thing, did the framers believe that people could privately own cannons? Warships? If not, then the relative restrictions should be put intact. That means that side-arms are allowed, while howitzers are not.

I'd rephrase that to say that "small arms" are allowed, not just sidearms (sidearms are handguns). The domain of "civilian firearms" in the United States is currently limited to non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearms under .51 caliber that meet certain length requirements and other miscellaneous requirements of the National Firearms Act. Armor-piercing handgun ammunition and small-caliber rifle ammunition is restricted to military and law enforcement only, over-.50-caliber hunting weapons are allowed (12-gauge shotguns, .700 caliber big-game rifles), there are boatloads of restrictions on the books concerning who can legally own a gun, how guns must be transferred, background checks, etc. etc. etc.

Automatic weapons are restricted. Howitzers are restricted. Silenced weapons are restricted. Smoothbore handguns are restricted. Rifles with barrels less than 16", shotguns with barrels less than 18", and any stocked firearm with an OAL less than 26", are restricted. And so on.

Since the domain of firearms that civilians are currently "allowed" to own is already so tightly delineated, any further restrictions on the types of guns civilians the law-abiding can legally own constitutes a MAJOR infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Meanwhile, information was never intended to be restricted (actually it was, the framers were not big fans of "free speech" as we know it) in any way, and so there is no restriction to carry over.

Legitimate restrictions on speech and press primarily concern actions rather than the medium. For example, slander, libel, and child porn are illegal, but it would be a major violation of the 1st Amendment to ban, say, all magazines containing 4-color photos, or all emails containing opinions that Congress finds "subversive."

The problem on the 2nd-Amendment front is that the neoprohibitionists are much less concerned about the ACTIONS of those who misuse guns (which are already illegal), and much more concerned with banning various guns that my wife and I have in our gun safe, based on features like what the stock looks like. That's totally unacceptable from a Second Amendment standpoint, IMHO.

[Greyhound]

96. One note. When the Constitution was written, citizens did own cannons,

and mortars, and many private ships were pressed into duty.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

32. I'm pretty sure...

The framers of the Constitution foresaw the advancement of of hand-held gunpowder based weaponry. They'd already seen those type devices make amazing strides over time. Even the crudest knowledge of the history of weaponry, prior to the Bill of Rights, leads to the conclusion that they anticipated weapons in the not-so-distant future that could rapid fire.

[LWolf]

8. I don't consider the 2nd, or any, amendment dispensable.

The intent in keeping a "regulated militia," and how that applies to the individual gun owner, is debatable.

[The Straight Story]

91. well I find it interesting they used Both terms - the people and milita

why?

[MrBenchley]

10. Wow...what a confused post....

The only things that are dispensible are the lies about the Second Amendment peddled by shitheads like John AshKKKroft. The Second Amendment allows states to have a well-regulated militia, such as has evolved into the National Guard.

[DFWdem]

15. You are mistaken

"Well Regulated" in the late 1700's did not mean "regulated" as we know it today. "Well Regulated" referred to well-trained, or in good working order.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

[MrBenchley]

18. What a silly argument....

The plain fact is that every court has held Second Amendment to refer to a collective right....

"WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan today dismissed a CATO Institute-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC's ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Judge Sullivan's ruling in United States v. Parker upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976. The Violence Policy Center (VPC) had filed an amicus curie brief in the case.
In entering judgment for the District, Judge Sullivan wrote: "his Court would be in error to overlook sixty-five years of unchanged Supreme Court precedent and the deluge of circuit case law rejecting an individual right to bear arms not in conjunction with service in the Militia."
In praising Judge Sullivan's decision, VPC Litigation Director and Legislative Counsel Matt Nosanchuk states, "The court's decision is a victory for the safety and security of District residents. A ‘handguns for all' mentality may rule inside the CATO Institute, but out in the real world, the last thing District residents want is more handguns in their communities.
The Parker case is the latest decision rejecting challenges to gun laws on Second Amendment grounds following Attorney General John Ashcroft's reversal of longstanding Justice Department policy regarding the Second Amendment, now stating that it protects an individual right to bear arms. Ashcroft's "individual rights" interpretation has been rejected in more than 100 cases, including federal court of appeals decisions in Chicago, Cincinnati, and San Francisco. "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0403cato.htm


"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

The plain fact is that the "gun rights" movement and this dishonest pretense at individual rights has a clear provenance back to right wing extremism, and is just good old fashioned racism hiding under a new sheet....

"Guns entered national politics in the 1970s. What is called the gun rights movement sprang into motion against a waning civil rights movement and a growing push for women's rights. One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun.
And when the gun spoke, it championed the cause of conservative and libertarian America. A proxy politics, the gun rights movement is a potent reaction to the social and political agendas of what is perceived as "liberal America." It takes aim at a range of social solutions for crime, international conflict and personal security. In America, the gun has become a litmus test for political beliefs.
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

[DFWdem]

19. Supporting individual gun rights = racism?

Okay then, that's an interesting argument.

"In entering judgment for the District, Judge Sullivan wrote: "his Court would be in error to overlook sixty-five years of unchanged Supreme Court precedent and the deluge of circuit case law rejecting an individual right to bear arms not in conjunction with service in the Militia."

If this is the case, then why do Americans still have guns? In addition, just because the Supreme Court ruled on a case 65 years ago it does not mean the ruling is THE correct interpretation of the Constitution. Courts have been known to err. See for instance the SC ruling allowing eminent domain for private gain.

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Just because the ACLU believes it does not make it so. Their argument is essentially that well, private citizens probably couldn't oppose a hostile gov't with rifles and handguns, so why let the people have them at all? Talk about your silly arguments.

[MrBenchley]

20. It's sure the provenance of the movement....

"If this is the case, then why do Americans still have guns?"
Wow....again, what a silly comment.

"Just because the ACLU believes it does not make it so."
Between the ACLU and the racist loonies at GOA and the NRA, guress which one has the credibility.

[DFWdem]

36. Well, that's one way to admit you don't have a good point

First, rather than put forth a logical argument, call the person you're talking with a racist. Then, when that doesn't work, simply say "Wow, what a silly comment", again without saying anything of substance regarding the topic.

[MrBenchley]

39. Sorry fact doesn't fit your fantasies....

The plain fact is that the roots of the gun rights movement come from racism, that every racist high or low can be found spouting it's silly and dishonest arguments, that the leaders of the major gun rights groups are openly racist, and that every on-line gun owners forum drips with racist gibberish without the slightest murmur of disapproval.

And don't cry to me that your arguments are silly.

[DFWdem]

41. Have any proof?

"The leaders of the major gun rights groups are openly racist"

If this is the case, then it should be easy for you to produce a voluminous amount of quotes that bear this fact out. Regardless, supporting gun rights does not make one a racist anymore than opposing the death penalty makes one soft on crime.

And once again, when you're not smart enough to think up a good argument, just say "You're being silly!", or "You're a racist!". Thanks for playing.

[MrBenchley]

46. Sure do...it's easy to come by....

The NRA board of directors include such charmers as Ted Nugent....who got his concerts cnacelled last year for being a racist shithead. NRA board director Jeff Cooper refers to balcks as Orangoutangs. Board members Waybe Stump, T.J. Johnston, Harry Thomas and Leroy Pyle are all associated with white supremacist paramilitary outfits.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm

Larry Pratt, head of the Gun Owners of America, is such an odious specimen that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company in public.

http://www.mhrn.org/newsarchive/prattv6.html

One can search the world in vain for even the slightest peep of protrest about any of these scumbags from gun owning Demcorats, who seem quite happy to snuggle up to these shitheads for the sake of their crappy little hobby.

[Nikia]

88. It could be argued just the opposite

In the past, governments took away the rights of the oppressed classes to own weapons so that they could be terrorized and oppressed more easily. Although oppression in America is not about violence as much, that potential exists and there are still criminal violent acts where the motive was based on hatred of someone for their group status.
Because of this, it makes sense that oppressed groups including racial/ethnic and religious minorities as well as GLBT people and women support the use of individual gun ownership and own weapons themselves. I am aware of both a Jewish and Homosexual pro gun groups that support private gun ownership for this reason.

[MrBenchley]

98. But that argument is specious at best

especially if one looks at the sorts of groups who actually ARE trumpeting the disgraceful "gun rights" message.

[Nikia]

102. Wouldn't you want to be armed then?

If you were black and lived in an area where the most racist white people were all armed?

[MrBenchley]

103. What a silly question

[wixomblues]

28. Hand gun rights

and gun rights are still decided on a state to state basis. There is no governing or binding federal precededent. It more or less a States right. It boils down to municipalities voting for or against guns in their community. And there are often ways to circumvent the law through carrying permits or what not.

Here's an interesting link: http://gunscholar.com/gunban.htm

As far as gun right advocates being racist, that's a specist argument at best. While I'm sure that there are plenty of racist people with guns, the same can be said of any cause. Hell, planned parenthood, the largest advocate of choice and provider of abortion, was started by Eugenics and hoped to purge "bad" genes and races from America. I don't think planned parenthood is a racist organization today, and I'm thankful for the work they do.

But the right to have a handgun is not viewed as a collective right overwhelmingly. The cases where this right is banned by a municipality have been upheld, but they were upheld because the Courts found that the municipality had the jurisdiction and the aouthourity to modify and interpret that right as they saw fit. Most, and by most, I mean 99 percent of the municipalities in the country, regard hand gun and gun ownership as an individual right, and do not put bans on ownership.

Those that view it as a collective right are in the minority, and the courts have simply allowed the 2nd amendment to be viewed as collective. If there was a ruling where the courts interpreted the amendment as BEING collective, it would mandate a change in laws elsewhere, and make individual rights illegal.

So, to reiterate, it's basically about community standards. And there are very few communities that ban handguns and use the "collective" approach.

[MrBenchley]

40. Well, that IS rich....

And there is no right to have a handgun, except in John AshKKKroft's wet dreams.

[wixomblues]

58. A handgun isn't a firearm?

[MrBenchley]

59. Wow....the view must be staggering that far from reality

[wixomblues]

60. Do you have any facts, or is your opinion enough

to give you the incredulous tone? The majority view in this country, in practice and theory, is that the individual has a right to own a handgun. And that majority view is in reference to the courts and the thousands of municipalities that can advocate restraint. It seems guns are a pet issue with you, and that's fine. But please, if you want to debate this, do so with facts, or at least respond to my reasoning and facts in the posts above. If you can bring something to the table, I'd love to see it. As far as I can tell, handguns are allowed under the second amendment, and I'm happy they are. If you're against guns, don't own one. Sort of like abortion.....

[MrBenchley]

61. Which facts do you need?

There's no individual right to have a popgun, no mater how furiously right wing fuckwits lie about it.

[wixomblues]

71. I don't follow you.

The second amendment gives us the right to own firearms. And this isn't a rightwing issue. That's a popular misconception. Most people in the country have the same opinion regarding guns and gun legislation. Hand guns are not "assault weapons", and are owned by people of all political and economic stripes. That aside, let's not argue about who loves guns or who doesn't, as I said in my title, I'm not following your "individual right" premise. Are you being clever, and saying that just like owning a car, a phone, or a house, there is nothing that gives us the specific "right" to own any of these things. However, they are not prohibited either, and it would be unlikely that they would ever be made illegal...although stranger things have happened.

Unlike the everyday necessities and material good listed above, guns are actually provided for in the constitution, and the intent was to prevent the tyranny of government, by a large portion of the founders. If there was anything that we own that we have an "individual right" to own, it would be a firearm.

[MrBenchley]

77. Only in John AshKKKroft's wet dream

The Second Amendment confers no individual right.

"Most people in the country have the same opinion regarding guns and gun legislation"
Well that's true....most people are overwhelmingly for strct gun control. Some 80% of voters want assault weapons off the market, for example.

"hand guns are not "assault weapons""
And since no one claimed they were, big fucking whoop.

"I'm not following your "individual right" premise."
Tough titty. The courts do.

[wixomblues]

79. You are unable to defend your position.

Happy New Year. Come back when you can defend your points.

[NickB79]

80. How does the new gun industry protection bill relate to individual rights?

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1036.html

"(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:

(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms."

snip

(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

It sounds like Congress embraces the individual, not collective, right for citizens to own arms.

[MrBenchley]

81. You mean besides screwing every American out of his right

to a day in court? It doesn't have dick to do with the Second Amendment, no matter how much horseshit the GOP shovels in Congress.

"It sounds like Congress embraces the individual, not collective, right for citizens to own arms."
Yeah....Republicans are dishonest shitheads. Tell us something we don't know.

[NickB79]

84. Like it or not, the bill is law

I wanted to know how this law affects the argument that the right to bear arms is collective. Findings of Congress have no bearing on Constitutional interpretation?

Guess I got my answer....

[MrBenchley]

86. Yeah, and it has dick to do with how the Courts

intepret the Second Amendment.

"Guess I got my answer...."
Yeah, you did. Funny you don't give a shit about losing one of your basic American rights, just so trash like the Reverend Moon can avoid getting sued when he operates irresponsibly.

[NickB79]

87. The rollcall was 285-140 passing the bill

It sounds like many Democrats are also dishonest shitheads, based on your criteria.

[High Plains]

73. So why do so many people have hand guns

they have no right to possess?

[billbuckhead]

11. In 1786 mercenaries were"militiaized" to help bankers

Bankers in 1786 paid mercenarys hired to put down a grass roots rebellion against debtor's prisons.
The mecenaries were then legitimized as "militia". The 2nd amendment has been broke since the beginning. From Wikepedia

Rebellion

Calling themselves Regulators, men from all over the western and central parts of the state began to agitate for change. Initial disturbances were mostly peaceful and centered primarily on freeing incarcerated farmers from debtor's prisons. In the late summer of 1786 the conflict escalated when armed Regulators shut down debtor courts in Northampton, Worcester, Concord, and elsewhere. After the passage of the Riot Act, the Regulators seized arms from the Springfield Armory. Militia groups called out to fight the Regulators often switched sides.

The rebellion eventually gelled into an organized army, led by one Daniel Shays, a farmer from East Pelham and a former captain in the American Revolutionary War. Another leader, Luke Day, was the son of a wealthy family in West Springfield. While the Regulators are usually thought of as a rabble of poor farmers, many of them were members of prominent local families, including the Dickensons of Amherst. In addition, many of the rebels were former soldiers who fought in the American Revolution.

The lack of a standing army under the government of the time (set up by the Articles of Confederation) prevented Congress from sending Federal forces. Due to a lack of funds and some empathy for the Regulators, the Massachusetts legislature was unwilling to approve a raising of the militia. Desperate for a solution, Governor James Bowdoin and a number of Boston-area bankers then assembled 4,400 privately-paid mercenaries (who were later legitimized as a militia) under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln to quell what was becoming an increasingly effective rebellion. When the Regulators heard about the mercenary army, they planned to return to the federal arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts for more weapons. A column of rebels led by Luke Day was delayed by heavy snows, but were repulsed by forces under Gen. William Shepard, allowing Lincoln's as-yet illegitimate army to seize the armory's weapons first. When the other column of Regulators arrived, an extended conflict between the rebels (of some 2000 men) and the Lincoln's army (of around 4,400 men) followed. In the end, this "Battle of Springfield" resulted in a rebel defeat, although only four rebels were actually killed.
--------------------------------snip----------------------------------------
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays_Rebellion>

Sounds like Blackwater mercenaries in New Orleans. The 2nd amendment has always been about allowing the rich to protect themselves and their property including slaves.

[Mabus]

13. We've been doing without portions of the First Amendment for a while

The media drank the kool-aid and all we got was Bush.

[Poppyseedman]

14. That's like asking which one of your children you would throw away

There are all important and loved.

[Dr.Phool]

16. The one about coveting thy neighbors wife.

Oh... Never mind.

[VaYallaDawg]

43. Isn't that one of the ones that nutjob judge was all hot over

with his 5-ton monument that got hauled out of the courthouse in Alabama??

BTW, love your wicked sense of humor.
:rofl:

[kath]

17. 6 amendments sounds about right:

"Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six"
<excerpt>
"We're not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security," the Attorney General said. "By allowing for greater government control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights will now offer expanded personal freedoms whenever they are deemed appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective operation of the federal government."

The Attorney General added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of Rights now offers protections that were previously lacking, including the right to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment III), the guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the states and people will be carried out by the federal government (Amendment VI), and freedom of Judeo-Christianity and non-combative speech (Amendment I).

According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."

<more>

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27610/print/

[benEzra]

24. LOL! They nailed it. (n/t)

[-..__...]

25. The 10 amendments are numbered in the order they were ratified.

There is no special importance or significance for one over another.

But, to answer your question... if I really had to pick one to eliminate,
I'd go with the 3rd.


"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." -- Alan Dershowitz

http://www.answers.com/topic/alan-dershowitz

[kath]

35. Actually, the first 10 amendments, aka the Bill of Rights, were all

ratified on the same date, Dec 15, 1791. They were a "package deal", all proposed at the same time. There were originally 12, but 2 were not ratified at that time.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=13

[robbedvoter]

30. These days, I'd hang on to the Constitution - as is. Timing is wrong

for this subject, as the Fourth has just been cast to the winds...I just caan't see this discussion as theoretical at a time like this.

[leftofthedial]

31. regulation is *part* of the second amendment

"well-regulated"

not doing away with it

NONE of the amendments are disposable

if anything, we need to expand the Bill of Rights.

[gizmo1979]

33. Do you live in a rural

or urban area?Just asking because they want to pass a conceal carry law here in WI.All the letters to the editors for the law site a right to protect themselves and their families.The only problem with that is they are all from small towns with very low crime rates,as opposed to people from large cities that could probably actually use the weapon for protection.I can honestly say in 40 years living in Wisconsin I have never been so afraid that I felt I needed a gun,but I'm a big guy so maybe that's it.If you're scared though go ahead and buy all the guns you need maybe you'll sleep better.

[Bridget Burke]

34. I have no problem with a Well Regulated Militia....

But I wonder why so many feel that the 2nd Amendment matters so much more than the others.

In fact, they are so unacquainted with the Bill of Rights that they must "Google" for the wording of the rest.

[DFWdem]

37. In my opinion they are all equally important

I value each of the 10 Amendments equally, but you never hear anyone saying, "You know, the government should be allowed to make citizens house 1 soldier in their homes, regardless of what the Constitution says." The 1st & 2nd Amendments come under attack more than any of the others (at least, from what I can tell), which is why they are discussed more often than the others.

And yes, it's been over a decade since my last US gov't class, so I don't remember the exact wording of each Amendment, but I do remember the rights afforded by those Amendments.

[manic expression]

70. The reason

that no one talks about quartering troops is because it's not a pressing issue. If, for instance, there was an actual war on American soil and the military would benefit from putting troops in people's houses, there would definitely be such discussions.

Just a thought.

[radio4progressives]

42. The notion of doing away of the 2nd amendment i believe is a canard

I'm a Progressive, and the 2nd Amendment is just as important as all of the bill of rights...

There are concerns of gun violence in cities and other urban areas, but i haven't read or heard anyone say that we should do away with the right to bear arms. Whenever I hear this, it's always coming from a Libertarian repeating NRA talking points, that have no bearing on reality.

Just because people don't want guns in the schools or out in public streets, doesn't mean that people want to take away the right to own a weapon.

Just because some people want to ban certain automatic machine gun weapons from being sold willy nilly, isn't a statement of wishing to ban the second amendment.

On the issue of access to automatic weapons like machine guns, really do need a modicum of common sense brought into these debates in the public fora, imo.


Just to be clear, I say there isn't a single amendment that should be eliminated (hell, I want the right to bear arms, safeguarded by the constitution and our laws) though we might want to add one or a few more - or at least clarify the existing amendments better. For instance, the first amendment should include Separation of Church language specificially...

[DFWdem]

47. I agree

I don't take issue with restrictions on people owning fully automatic machine guns or not being allowed to have guns in certain places. My issue is with those who believe the right to own guns should be severely restricted (i.e. only black powder rifles or revolvers or no handguns at all) or outright banned.

[benEzra]

94. All automatic weapons have been restricted for 71 YEARS...

Just because some people want to ban certain automatic machine gun weapons from being sold willy nilly, isn't a statement of wishing to ban the second amendment.

On the issue of access to automatic weapons like machine guns, really do need a modicum of common sense brought into these debates in the public fora, imo.

ALL automatic weapons were restricted 71 years ago, by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Gun owners and the NRA generally have no problem with that law.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch didn't have a thing to do with automatic weapons, including military AK-47's and Uzi's; those are already controlled by the National Firearms Act.

[benEzra]

95. (self delete--double post n/t)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. I have no quarrel with the 2nd Amendment..."in a well regulated militia".

As to "an armed populace that could defend itself from a gov't run amok..", when did that last happen? Waco? Ruby Ridge? Oklahoma City?

[DFWdem]

45. Yes, Yes, and No

Waco? Absolutely gov't run amok. There was no reason for the house to be stormed and firebombed by the gov't. They could have waited them out. Eventually the people in there would've run out of food. Don't forget, they made all the media do their reporting from 1 mile away "for their safety".

Ruby Ridge? Same thing. They were serving a warrant because the guy sold a sawed off shotgun. Sounds like a good reason to execute the guy's wife and infant, don't you think? He may have been a white supremacist scumbag, but the last time I checked that didn't authorize gov't agents to kill you.

OKC? That would be a whacked-out nutjob run amok.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Not the way I heard it.

In Waco, Koresh's little band of looneys shot first. Whether, they could waited out is debatable. At Ruby Ridge the same thing. The idiot's wife was part of the armed group and, again, they had fired first.

I'm not a fan of violence on either side of those incidents, but I don't see how having the loonies in Waco or Ruby Ridge or McVeigh and his ilk are very good advertisements for a "well armed citizenry".

If none of those folks had been well armed, do you think the deaths would have occurred?

[DFWdem]

51. Of course each side says the other fired first

At Waco, yes, the Waco-ites (?) did fire first when they saw the swat team approaching with machine guns. Dumb mistake, but did that make it right for he govermnent to firebomb the entire complex, knowing how many women and children were inside?

As for whether the deaths would have occurred had the people not been armed, I don't know. I suppose you could ask Amadou Diallo or the guy who ran off the plane in Miami earlier this month. Wait, no you can't; they're dead, shot by police or federal agents, and unarmed.

At Ruby Ridge it's not as clear. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

After several months of unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate Weaver's surrender, the US Marshals Service began surveillance of the Weaver property in preparation for an arrest. On August 21, 1992, several well-armed US Marshals went to the Weaver property to clandestinely survey it. According to a Department of Justice report on the incident, the Marshals were detected by the Weaver's dogs and began to retreat. Randy Weaver, his (14-year-old) son Sam and his friend (and house guest) Kevin Harris left the house to investigate, all carrying firearms. The DOJ report corroborates this with a statement dictated by Randy Weaver to his daughter, in which he says that "Approximately 11:30 Friday morning....the dogs started barking like they always do when strangers walk up the driveway. Randy, Kevin, and Sam ran out to the rock with their weapons." Eventually the Marshals stopped retreating and took up defensive positions in the woods.

The sequence of events during the ensuing shootout is disputed, with Weaver and Harris saying that the Marshals fired first and did not identify themselves. The Marshals' version of events is they were fired on first after identifying themselves. In the ensuing exchange of gunfire, Sam was was fatally shot in the back and Harris shot and killed a U.S. Marshall by the name of William Degan.

The next day, a FBI sniper named Lon Horiuchi wounded Weaver while Weaver, Harris, and Weaver's 16-year-old daughter were outside. As the three people ran back to the house, Horiuchi fired again in an attempt to shoot Kevin Harris, but the shot went through the open door of the cabin killing Weaver's wife Vicki, and only wounding Harris. Vicki Weaver was holding a baby in her hands when shot. Much controversy was later generated by the fact that, after the first day's events, the FBI had changed the rules of engagement. Specifically, that "deadly force could be used against any armed adult male if the shot could be taken without a child being injured." <2>

A stand-off ensued for ten days as several hundred federal agents surrounded the house, in which Weaver and his three surviving children remained with Harris. The area was surrounded by protesters angered at the heavy-handed nature of the authorities' actions. James "Bo" Gritz, then a third-party presidential candidate who had formerly been Weaver's commanding officer during the Vietnam War, served as a mediator between Weaver and the government. Eventually, Weaver elected to abandon the stand-off and trust his case to the judicial system.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Amadou Diallo would be alive if he had a gun?

Or, the fellow on the plane? I think not.

As an alternative, Koresh and Weaver and their followers could have surrendered. I guess they just didn't think of that, being too busy reloading.

[DFWdem]

63. You misunderstand me

You asked:

"If none of those folks had been well armed, do you think the deaths would have occurred?"

I was merely pointing out that one does not have to be armed to be gunned down by agents of local & federal gov'ts.

I agree, the Koresh people & the Weavers should've surrendered. However, I still have a problem with the way the gov't "resolved" the Waco issue. Firebombing the entire compound?

As for Randy Weaver, he eventually did surrender. However, if you read the reports, one person was shot in the back (meaning he was running away and not facing in a direction that could threaten the federal agents) and Mrs. Weaver was shot while holding their infant son. You and I both know that if a report came out of Iraq saying a US soldier intentionally (and maybe even unintentionally) shot a woman who was holding an infant in her arms there would be hell to pay, and rightfully so. Why should it be any different for this woman and her infant?

[MrBenchley]

64. Koresh burned his own followers

after weeks of ranting about a "fiery end"....

And that son of a bitch Weaver started the firefight.

[DFWdem]

65. Yeah, we know because...

After all, the government would NEVER lie about the official story, would they?

On edit: check out the documentary on Waco if you get a chance. It was on HBO a couple of years ago. The amount of evidence from the compound that the government "lost" or "misplaced" was astounding.

[MrBenchley]

66. Hey, if you want to stick up for Koresh, be my guest....

Myself, I plan to start worrying about what a raw deal he and that racist asswipe Weaver got about the same time Koresh arises from the grave and starts performnig miracles.

[DFWdem]

67. Actually, Weaver got $3.1 million from the gov't

Please show me where I have stuck up for Koresh or Weaver. They both should've surrendered, but they didn't. However, they did not warrant the government's heavy-handed response in either circumstance. Are you trying to say that it was okay for the gov't to plow into buildings with armor, pump in huge amounts of highly flammable gas, and escalate the situation to the point that 85 (? forget the exact number) people were killed? In the same vein, is it okay for government agents to shoot a woman holding her baby because she's married to someone they're serving with a warrant? You go ahead and defend collective punishment all you want. George Bush would be proud of you. After all, he's using collective punishment on those brown-skinned muslim terra-ist evil-doers.

[MrBenchley]

68. Hey, Koresh killed his own followers

and Weaver deserved what he got. Now go cry about it to somebody who gives a shit.

[High Plains]

75. Glad to see you sticking up for law enforcement run amok.

Somehow, that doesn't come as a surprise.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

99. It was Koresh and his nutcase cult that ran amok....

And you're welcome to them.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

48. I don't think removing any ammendments is key.

I am one of those strong advocates of not going overboard with gun rights. However my friend who is a strong gun activist has a good saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". We can't do away with people's intent to commit wrong, we can only fight it or make it seem unappealing.

Firstly, we should make it so law enforcement at any given time has the larger right to munitions or any kind of arms/weapons that would help protect them and others. When we make criminals stronger than our police force, we make our police force INTO criminals. They'll break the law to save their ass, which is dangerous for innocent bystanders.

I think a new bill should be passed which prevents any position of power to manipulate or further alter the ammendments in the bill of rights. Which wouldn't make it a thing of interpretation or opinion, but a thing of stability. Affording americans equal beneficial rights, be it harm no one by physical or traumatic mental means (aka christians finding gay marriage 'offensive' meaning absolutely nothing in congress), and enabling the congress and government to better suit the needs of the american people, not the american corporations.

This in turn means any ammendments to gun rights or the bill of rights is obsolete. People will find the intent to harm, be it with a gun or in our senate votes. What we need is a strong government who doesn't want to go the way of rome. So far, we don't have that. We only have them going overboard in extreme with extremes we don't want or need, and not living up to their promises. Maybe this outsourcing is a good thing. When the american corporate empire falls, maybe we'll learn to live as a nation who cares about people's ideals again, not money.

[davepc]

50. What the hell is with all the gun threads in GD lately?

I've participated in a few myself, but we do have a forum for the topic.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

54. Finally, the real issue

davepc writes: "What the hell is with all the gun threads in GD lately? I've participated in a few myself, but we do have a forum for the topic."

Gun control has always been an inflammatory issue and truly the far right turned it into a rallying cry long ago. Is it now so prevalent on DU because secret right-wingers in here want to distract us from MORE VALID constitutional issues or is it because we need justify a position on Civil Liberties that some Democrats took in the past. If you read my posts you'll find I'm somewhat conservative, especially on the Constitution. I feel we must ALL conserve each of it's resources... I guess I take a conservative approach to the environment, as well, because I believe that it is God's gift to us all and we must protect what few pristine areas are left in the world. I'm into leaving a legacy of my kind of conservatism to future generations. The more I embrace the Democratic Party the more conservative I become. After all, with benevolent policies toward the poor and equal rights for all the Democratic Platform is FAR more Christian than Republicans want people to think. Now, I will go back to rallying other conservatives to our cause. It's tough to do, here, in the very heart of the Bible-belt. We will not win minds by telling our adversaries they are wrong. We must seek common ground to win minds and votes before the mid-term elections. If our goal is to stop a power-mad regime and unseat a dictator, we must relate to a very religious and patriotic middle of the road voter. If we don't work now to change red states to blue, expect at least four more years of the same attitudes with a new Republican puppet-dictator at the helm. I might even suggest that in upcoming years we will see them usurp ALL TEN AMENDMENTS, while violating the other big Ten, which are the very Commandments they claim to protect.

[rman]

83. Some topics can stay in GD, some not

There's a religion forum, but GD threads on religion are not moved there.

Much unlike the topics of 9-11, Israel/Palestine, peak-oil.

I don't know why that is, i merely observe it.

[DemGirl7]

52. None of the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights should be dropped

All of them are important in their very own way to this country, and as for the 2nd Amendment, it is continuely misused by right. I don't think that the founding fathers wanted guns to be in the hands of dangerous criminals and others that would pose harm to society, given the evolution that guns have gone through within the last couple of centuries.

[Czolgosz]

53. If I had to choose, I could do without the 3rd Amendment. It's been a

while since the quartering of troops in peoples' houses has been a big threat so, if I had to give up one amendment from the Bill of Rights, I give up the Third Amendment.

Or was this just a snarky question?

[Egalitariat]

55. The 10th has been obsolete since the Interstate Commerce Clause gave

the Congress carte blanche.

[Neil Lisst]

57. The 10th would be my choice. Clavicle of the cat thing.

We've still got it, but we don't need it, and it remains, in spite of our lack of a need for it.

For those unfamiliar with the line, it was used by some famous jurist, to describe the law which lingers and is followed, even though the need for it has passed in time.

The interstate commerce clause and the 14th's interpretations have obliterated the 10th.

[Rocknrule]

62. Huh? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution

We're in a war on terra, you know, so the entire Constitution is expendable. Except the 2nd Amendment, of course, that one's a God-given right and must be respected, no matter what. :sarcasm:

[High Plains]

72. The Fourth Amendment

It doesn't really exist anymore, anyway--ask the president.

It was already so tattered by years of drug war-induced rulings that it was on its deathbed.

So let's cut the crap, get rid of the Fourth, and just admit we're a banana republic.

My personal favorite insane Fourth Amendment Suprme Court ruling: A drug dog search is not a search.

[rman]

82. We have the right to drive a car - but not unrestricted

Would it not make sense if it were the same with guns?
You know, regulation, licenses and all that. Not a ban, not a restriction of rights - just common sense.

So in order to regulate gun possession it is not necessary to abandon the 2nd amendment.

[NickB79]

85. Driving is a privilage, not a right

We as citizens have no intrinsic right to drive a car.

[rman]

89. We do have the intrinsic right to freedom of movement -

but again, not unrestricted.

Driving a car not a privilege since it is not limited to a certain class of people, not limited to certain professions.
It is limited to people who fulfill certain conditions of a practical nature related to the subject at hand. Ie in order to drive a car you'll have to demonstrate that you have the skills it takes to drive safely and follow traffic regulations. It only makes sense, and the same should apply to weapons.

[serryjw]

90. Many DUers have a problem with the 1st amendment

They do not like petitions and the fact that I participate in them.

[depakid]

92. EVERYTHING except for the 2d Amendment

That one needs to be strenghtened by taking the conditional language out and incorporating it into the 14th Amendment.

[Paladin]

97. Hold Your Breath

n/t

[Exiled in America]

100. I don't agree with how you interpret the 2nd ammendment.

I don't want to get rid of the second ammendment. I'd just like to see an understanding of the fact that the "right" to bear arms was not an indisciminate right to own any kind of weapon or any number of weapons without any regulation or oversight. The "right" is married with the phrase "a well regulated militia." That phrase is every bit as important as the part gun enthusiasts like.

I'm all for a well-regulated right to bear arms. I am not for the indiscriminate right to bear arms. :)

[yellowdogmi]

101. I want them all

Yesterday I started this thread dealing with an idea I had. How can we illustrate to any freeper out there the frustration I feel about the way this administration has ignored the sanctity of our fourth amendment rights. Below is the post please give it a look and stop all of this infighting.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2343139

:evilfrown:

On second thought, let me weigh in. I agree that in these perilous times we should not go mucking about with what few common threads that bind us together. We may need to appeal to the general populace about the potential loss of these rights. Being a congenital flip/flopper I also think that the time may be right for a new constitutional convention. But I would not recommend a single bozo in washington with the honor of representing me at it.
:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

104. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall

not be infringed." Seems plain enough.