So you think you know the 2nd Amendment

[bae]

The crime is heinous indeed. The gun however was not the moral actor.

[The Storyteller]

Do you propose similar limits on the First Amendment? Freedom of the press and speech would be quite different if so.

There already are limits on the First Amendment, ones that most people find reasonable. Copyright, obscenity, harmful to minors, trademark, libel, slander, threats, etc. are all restrictions on the First, which I would submit is much less ambiguous than the 2nd. Perhaps it is time to realize there are reasonable exceptions to the 2nd, as well.

[Alan]

Alan you are forgetting the well regulated militia part that is in the same sentence. There was no standing army to protect the colonies so they had to use state militias. These were made up of armed citizens who could be called on to protect the colonies.

I haven't forgotten that at all. The thinking of the time was that all citizens had a duty to protect their homes, their communities, their states and their nations. I happen to agree with them, but more importantly, the Supreme Court agrees with them as well.

If you want to consider the "well regulated militia" clause as a qualifier, consider that the clause announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[bae]

We already have tens of thousands of "reasonable" restrictions of the 2nd Amendment on the books.

The proposal offered though, to which I was responding, was the tired "let's limit the 2nd Amendment to muskets" line...

So, would it be "reasonable" to exclude the Internet, cell phones, telegrams, and so on from First Amendment protection. You know, since the Founders didn't have those things?

Absurd.

I have a rifle sitting right here that I was working on this morning. It belonged to my great grandfather. It is semi-auto, holds 16 rounds, and can be reloaded pretty darned swiftly. It was made in 1914. This is not new technology, and the technology is not the issue, it's just a marketing approach for proponents of gun control, because many semi-automatic rifles are scary-looking and it is easy to froth about them.

[Yossarian]

There already are limits on the First Amendment, ones that most people find reasonable. Copyright, obscenity, harmful to minors, trademark, libel, slander, threats, etc. are all restrictions on the First, which I would submit is much less ambiguous than the 2nd. Perhaps it is time to realize there are reasonable exceptions to the 2nd, as well.

But those are all restrictions on someone's actions that cause harm to others or infringe on their rights or property. I would not contend that the right to bear arms allows me to harm others or shoot or carry guns on their private property without consent. Would you say the first amendment doesn't apply to the use of the internet because it allows you to slander someone to more people faster than an 18 th century moveable type printing press?

[The Storyteller]

We already have tens of thousands of "reasonable" restrictions of the 2nd Amendment on the books.

Then a couple more wouldn't hurt, particularly assault rifles, 30 round magazines, and 100 round drums. Closing the so called gun show loophole wouldn't hurt, either. Maybe a gun registration requirement in the mix. I have to register my animals, after all.

You are correct that semi auto assault weapons have been around for a long time, though, so that has nothing to do with it. We had the M-14 back in the early 60s, and machine guns much longer. I'm against civilians owning those, as well.

[Spartana]

Restricting rights. That's what i keep hearing...restricting rights. Kind of a straw man, or redirect. But, if you want to talk the constitution, let's talk the constitution.
First of all, who said owning every weapon of death every created is a right? If you want to keep with the strict meaning of the constitution, then let's do that. Let's look at the weaponry available at the time the second amendment was written and go with that. Muskets? Cannons maybe? Sure. Arm yourself with a musket. You have that right AS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. They only knew muskets, and not owning time machines, had muskets in mind when they wrote that. So, gather unto yourself all the muskets you want, and form your militia. Let us stick, absolutely, to the TRUE MEANING of the writers of the constitution.
These weren't magic men. They didn't have crystal balls. if you profess to be a strict constitutionalists, then you must know that it was written according to the times. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, What weaponry did they have in mind? What weapon did they think of? I say let's stick with that.

Of course no one (the bad guys) were firing at the Founding Fathers, the Well Armed Militia, and the private citizens with semi-automatic firearms back then either - they were using single shot muskets too. I imagine that the "intent" of the Amendment was that citizens can protect themselves and their communities with equal firearms of any given period in time, irregardless of the period of historical time or firearms technology when the Ammendment was written.

[The Storyteller]

But those are all restrictions on someone's actions that cause harm to others or infringe on their rights or property. I would not contend that the right to bear arms allows me to harm others or shoot or carry guns on their private property without consent.

Really? Every time someone walks into a business establishment packing a piece, no matter how legal, is doing so without that business owner's consent.

But the First Amendment is about words and thoughts. The Second is about things. If you can restrict words and thoughts, you can restrict things. So, it is within the state's scope to restrict firearms, short of banning all of them altogether. I would submit that the simple restrictions I am advocating here would pass muster, even under the current conservative court.

[The Storyteller]

I should point out that I recognize the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that it does apply to self protection, not a state militia. That isn't how I read it, but it is how the courts have read it, and that is what counts. I support our system of laws and that is just how things work. I would submit that there is a great deal of room for interpretation, and different courts will likely see it a bit differently than the current court, but the thing is likely to be around as an individual right in any case.

I would love to see the thing repealed, but then, I'm also in favor of replacing our current legislative system with a parliament. Neither is likely to ever take place, not in my lifetime or a dozen others.

[dmc]

Really? Every time someone walks into a business establishment packing a piece, no matter how legal, is doing so without that business owner's consent.

I have started seeing signs posted at some business establishments that concealed carry is legal and permitted at their place. The last one I saw was at a shop that was doing some work on my plane. This was inside the airport.