Customer Discussions > Politics forum

The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 365 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 15, 2012 8:06:11 AM PST
Bruce Fox says:
When the framers of the constitution talked about the right to bear arms, they were envisioning a musket. They were not thinking about a man armed with automatic weapons walking into an elementary school and slaughtering five-year-olds. It is just too easy to obtain firearms in this country. In some states, easier than voting. Would it make a difference if weapons were not so easy to obtain? Maybe not enough difference, but I imagine it would make some difference. It's certainly worth a try.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 8:09:18 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:50:53 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 8:18:40 AM PST
If the framers had automatic weapons at the time and needed those to fight off the equally armed British, the 2nd Amendment would still be the same.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 8:21:26 AM PST
M. Daniel says:
Bruce Fox says: "Would it make a difference if weapons were not so easy to obtain? Maybe not enough difference, but I imagine it would make some difference. It's certainly worth a try."

You can compare states for your answer. Do states with tougher gun control laws have less gun-related crime than states with more lenient laws?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:14:21 AM PST
Clint E. says:
Nobody with automatic weapons shot up an elementary school yesterday!!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:36:42 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 15, 2012 10:37:26 AM PST
seajaw says:
But the times are different now. The context for which the Second Amendment was written no longer exists (except in the minds of the Right Wing fringe).

Our Armed Forces and National Guard fill the "well regulated militia" need that was envisioned by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is not perfect. It has been amended 27 times. The amendments themselves are not infallible, as there have been repeals and the threat of repeal.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:40:57 AM PST
M. Daniel says:
The 2nd Amendment is not prohibiting gun regulations.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:43:46 AM PST
And when they envisioned the right to free speech they were envisioning printing presses and word of mouth, not the internet. Does this give the government then the right to censor our amazon forums?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:48:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 15, 2012 10:49:43 AM PST
We're not in a revolutionary war now but the Constitution doesn't say anything about that either. It doesn't differentiate between war and peace in the amendment. If anything, it's the context of the word "militia" that is arguable but it's pretty clear about the right to bear arms. The people were the militia back then.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:49:16 AM PST
I agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:52:49 AM PST
seajaw says:
No, but people who block gun regulation use the Second Amendment as their argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:58:29 AM PST
I believe in common sense regulation. Not in the banning of any guns but in the requirement of registration and background checks. No felons. Of course, unless there is federal uniformity of gun laws across the nation, you'll never really be able to get a comprehensive database.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 10:58:40 AM PST
seajaw says:
That is the big thing. Many of today's gun owners would never consider allowing themselves to become part of a "well regulated militia" as part of their commitment to gun ownership.

"You mean join the Army? Fight for our country? You must be joking. I could get killed! Quit fooling around here. Just gimme the gun."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:01:25 AM PST
Since when is the army a "militia"?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:01:36 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 15, 2012 11:01:58 AM PST
seajaw says:
Believe it or not, I believe in common sense applications here.

However, to me, that means limits on what private citizens are allowed to pack. It does mean limits on clips, and a reaffirmation of the Assault Weapons Ban.

I have no problem with the rights of hunters, although I don't think you need an AK-47 to take down a squirrel. If you do, you probably shouldn't own one to begin with...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:04:15 AM PST
M. Daniel says:
seajaw says: "No, but people who block gun regulation use the Second Amendment as their argument."

True, but it is public opinion that actually blocks such laws. Some states and cities have more restrictive gun laws that are not blocked by the 2nd Amendment.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:05:52 AM PST
Many "assault rifles" that people want to ban are just semi automatic weapons that look scary. They are functionally very simaler to weapons people don't want to ban, but look scarier.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:06:06 AM PST
seajaw says:
Army, National Guard, collection of citizens banded together to protect the settlement from the British, or indians, or roving bands of cattle rustlers.

Whatever. A force that is organized and answerable to a central acknowledged authority.

In the frontier days, the need of the citizens to have their own "quick response" capability was different. It might take days for the Cavalry to arrive.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:07:42 AM PST
seajaw says:
Definition of MILITIA

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:08:48 AM PST
Military members are not "civilians." That's where they do not fit the definition.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:09:06 AM PST
seajaw says:
No. It is a well-organized and well-funded minority, much like the Tea Party defends tax cuts for the rich.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:09:53 AM PST
M. Daniel says:
seajaw says: "a reaffirmation of the Assault Weapons Ban."

That was a joke. It had so many loopholes it did not keep anybody from getting an assault weapon. I don't see why conservatives opposed it or liberals favored it since it did not prevent ownership. It a gun is a semi-automatic it doesn't matter if it is an "assault weapon" or not. It can do the same damage.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:13:52 AM PST
Everybody is answerable to a central authority. The law. Whether that is your local statutes, state laws or federal laws. Nobody is just operating outside of the society legally.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:16:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 15, 2012 11:18:23 AM PST
M. Daniel says:
seajaw says: "No. It is a well-organized and well-funded minority, much like the Tea Party defends tax cuts for the rich."

Check the public opinion polls. It is not a minority in most states. The number of states allowing concealed or open carry has increased in recent years because of public opinion (of those who care about the issue). I think Illinois is the only state not allowing citizens to carry.

As the number of states with carry laws have increased the rate of murders and violent crimes has decreased. I don't think there is any connection between these two things, but it makes it difficult for those who argue otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2012 11:17:05 AM PST
seajaw says:
Read it again.

"...subject to call to military service."

Civilians who were subject to being called into military service. That was the Old School militia that the Second Amendment refers to.

You might actually get conscripted. A price for admission to the gun club, so to speak.

That doesn't mean you had to sign on the dotted line. But the right to own a gun came with the caveat that you might get a call.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
2677 1 day ago
And the Winner Is..... the Sequel 1645 20 minutes ago
why do white republican women hate themselves? 139 1 hour ago
Preserve your right to own a gun - vote GOP in November. 507 1 hour ago
why did israel provoke the latest war? 2746 1 hour ago
History tells us NOT to trust the democrats on gun control. Don't vote for them in November. 0 2 hours ago
Should Democrats who support the Assault gun ban own assault guns? 12 2 hours ago
Racist cops handcuffed and arrested actress Danièle Watts, who starred in Django Unchained. 870 2 hours ago
President George W. Bush predicted the result of withdrawing troops from Iraq too early with eerie precision 619 2 hours ago
america is being destroyed by design - the end of america as we know it. welcome to the nwo 44 2 hours ago
The human race has no reason to lead reluctantly from the rear. 0 2 hours ago
head of isis was released on obama's watch 114 2 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  365
Initial post:  Dec 15, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions