modernizing the 2A.

[Kutnupe14]

I'm gonna disagree with you on that one. Here's why:

The "Well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free sate" part is the reasoning behind the right. It does not make the right valid, it gives the right purpose.

"The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" is the right and it stands on its own, apart from the initial phrase.

Personally IMO Indiana's clause is better than the US version:

I think a key question in this, is who is referenced as being "the people." I don't think that a person with no interest in the security of this particular "free state," nor with any complelling reason to be counted as "militia," (ie foreign nationals) are view as such. "The" people, IMO means a specific group, Americans. For instance "the people of Cuba," "the people of England," or "the people of Japan." If the founders meant "all" why not say "all?" It fits perfectly in the place of "the."

 

[Booya]

What about self defense, and the best means to carry out said defense? Is THAT a "natural right?"

Yes, of course!

I get your point, but I telling you now, your going to be taken to task on this one.

Haha, ya, I knew that before I started typing.

The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with whether those arms exist naturally or are created. It is rooted in the natural right to defend life and property, not such sticks, stones or more complex weaponry as may be employed to those ends.

To argue using this basis would be a fallacy of logic.

I agree for the most part. Every human on the planet absolutely has the god given right to defend life and property. That said, there is no definable definition of how they get to do it. We'll assume by any means necessary. I disagree though with your statement that that right includes with anything created. By that logic we all have the right to free travel "not such feet, horses or more complex vehicles as may be employed to those ends.". So should anyone just be able to jump into jumbo jet and give it a go? That puts hundreds of innocent people at risk...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I think a key question in this, is who is referenced as being "the people." I don't think that a person with no interest in the security of this particular "free state," nor with any complelling reason to be counted as "militia," (ie foreign nationals) are view as such. "The" people, IMO means a specific group, Americans. For instance "the people of Cuba," "the people of England," or "the people of Japan." If the founders meant "all" why not say "all?" It fits perfectly in the place of "the."

But it doesn't limit who "The People" are. It uses the same language as in the Preamble of the Constitution, "We the People." So who is it talking about there?

It uses more specific language when it wants to: "All MEN are created equal..." Specifically referring to white, male landowners at the time.

IMO this is one of the phrases that DOES change with time. Anyone who considers themselves as having a vested interest in this country would be its People. Green card immigrants are certainly vested, this is now their homes.

IMO the 2A reads like this: Everyone living in America has a right to possess and carry weapons because they are necessary for the security and freedom of America.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree for the most part. Every human on the planet absolutely has the god given right to defend life and property. That said, there is no definable definition of how they get to do it. We'll assume by any means necessary. I disagree though with your statement that that right includes with anything created. By that logic we all have the right to free travel "not such feet, horses or more complex vehicles as may be employed to those ends.". So should anyone just be able to jump into jumbo jet and give it a go? That puts hundreds of innocent people at risk...

Your logic is off kilter...

You don't have a right to a gun or a jumbo jet. You do have a right to them in so far as your means allow. Should you be able to afford to purchase either, you have the right (or should have the right) to use them in any legal manner you see fit.

 

[Booya]

Your logic is off kilter...

You don't have a right to a gun or a jumbo jet. You do have a right to them in so far as your means allow. Should you be able to afford to purchase either, you have the right (or should have the right) to use them in any legal manner you see fit.

That's exactly what I'm saying/asking. So I can afford a jumbo jet, everyone is totally cool with me just flying overhead. P.s. I have no idea how to fly. The point I'm making is that some people state it's a natural right to own a gun (defend your life and property), so it's my natural right to own a jumbo jet (freedom of travel).

For the record, I'm of agreeing/disagreeing with anyone I'm just throwing out points and looking or insight.

 

[flintman50]

Really......encroach on the 2A. The base, raw, unadulterated truth is that an "arm" in the possesion of a private citizen keeps that representative government honest.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

For the record, I'm sort of [STRIKE]agreeing/disagreeing with anyone I'm just throwing out points and looking or insight[/STRIKE] playing Devil's Advocate.

 

[Booya]

Ya! But are these not valid discussion points? I've thought about bringing this up before I just always stayed silent. I don't agree with wiping the constitution and starting fresh, I do believe in our constitution, as written for the most part. I have sworn to defend it with my life. That said though, I don't know that I wouldn't wholly support amendments.

I don't want some a$$hat flying a jumbo jet over my Ouse just because he can afford to buy one....

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ya! But are these not valid discussion points? I've thought about bringing this up before I just always stayed silent. I don't agree with wiping the constitution and starting fresh, I do believe in our constitution, as written for the most part. I have sworn to defend it with my life. That said though, I don't know that I wouldn't wholly support amendments.

I don't want some a$$hat flying a jumbo jet over my Ouse just because he can afford to buy one....

I agree, they are. Personally my perfect answer is not feasible in today's society.

I think anyone should be able to fly or drive or shoot or blow up whatever they want to...

HOWEVER, I believe in personal responsibility and to do no harm to your fellow man at the same time. An untrained person flying a jumbo jet is not responsible. Owning a firearm and not knowing how to effectively use it is irresponsible.

Did the Wright brothers have a pilot's license? Did Henry Ford have a drivers license? Did John Moses Browning have a gun license?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The only modernization required is to make EVERYONE understand what "shall not be infringed" means. ANY law or regulation at ANY level of government pertaining to ARMS of any sort is infringement. PERIOD. The rest is all easily settled by reading the USCode about who the militia is and then read the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[sepe]

So the 2A says anyone can own a gun. But is that really a good thing? The country has changed a lot in the last 221 years. My reasoning for this post is b/c I see so many interpretations of the constitution and how it applies to modern day. We have things the founding fathers never could have dreamed of.

1) Should the mentally ill (or w/e your preferred term is) be allowed?
Yes I know this in an extremely broad label, be specific with your response if you want.

2) Should criminals be allowed?
Tax evasion and battery are two very different felonies.

3) What age should ownership be allowed?

4) Immigrents?

5) Depending on your opinion, how do we filter out people.

6) It should be a state level issue, but how do we make it nationally uniform.


I'm sure there are more, I can add them to this post as they get brought up.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Unrestricted
4) Yes
5) You don't
6) Say what? If a state wants to regulate it, that would be in their power.

When I become president, everyone will have guns. Newborn babies, mentally ill, violent felons, I don't care...if you're alive and want a gun, you've got one.

 

[ATM]

^ I would arm the dead as well.

 

[Booya]

I agree, they are. Personally my perfect answer is not feasible in today's society.

I think anyone should be able to fly or drive or shoot or blow up whatever they want to...

HOWEVER, I believe in personal responsibility and to do no harm to your fellow man at the same time. An untrained person flying a jumbo jet is not responsible. Owning a firearm and not knowing how to effectively use it is irresponsible.

Did the Wright brothers have a pilot's license? Did Henry Ford have a drivers license? Did John Moses Browning have a gun license?

We're on the same sheet of music.

The only modernization required is to make EVERYONE understand what "shall not be infringed" means. ANY law or regulation at ANY level of government pertaining to ARMS of any sort is infringement. PERIOD. The rest is all easily settled by reading the USCode about who the militia is and then read the SCOTUS ruling.

1)When I become president, everyone will have guns. Newborn babies, mentally ill, violent felons, I don't care...if you're alive and want a gun, you've got one.

I believe this stance is just irresponsible. It puts those that can't defend themselves in instant way of harm!

Dido miss implied purple? I'll jump on oars with this if the laws change and we can just smoke potential threats with no repercussion. I have kids, I'll not willingly allow ARMED mentally ill or violent felons around them.

 

[chibicascade]

I wouldn't want to rewrite it, but I wouldn't complain if they made a new amendment to clearly state that we have a right that can't be infringed. There are too many politicians who ingnore the "shall not be infringed" part.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

We're on the same sheet of music.





I believe this stance is just irresponsible. It puts those that can't defend themselves in instant way of harm!

Dido miss implied purple? I'll jump on oars with this if the laws change and we can just smoke potential threats with no repercussion. I have kids, I'll not willingly allow ARMED mentally ill or violent felons around them.

And this is why you and your children will have guns too! Those that would do harm to innocents will rapidly be put out of societies misery rather than becoming a burdensome prisoner at the expense of the rest of us. BTW, why should a violent felon even still be alive? Wouldn't that sort of be a requirement for release? I mean after all, they're "rehabilitated" before they are released right? Considering that, why should they not be allowed the same rights and protections of the rest of us upon their release?

I wouldn't want to rewrite it, but I wouldn't complain if they made a new amendment to clearly state that we have a right that can't be infringed. There are too many politicians who ingnore the "shall not be infringed" part.

You would give control of the edit button to the asshats in Washington? Really? Every time I hear someone claim we should have or need a new amendment I scream inside and a big part of me dies along with another tiny piece of hope for society.

 

[sepe]

We're on the same sheet of music.





I believe this stance is just irresponsible. It puts those that can't defend themselves in instant way of harm!

Dido miss implied purple? I'll jump on oars with this if the laws change and we can just smoke potential threats with no repercussion. I have kids, I'll not willingly allow ARMED mentally ill or violent felons around them.

Heh, the mentally ill and violent felons can already access firearms if they want. Regulation doesn't stop someone from going to the black market.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Have a need to feel superior to a lesser class of people? That is the only real reason for gun control, and that is ALL your "improved" version of the 2A is, a framework for gun control.

A gun makes people free. Gun control makes them slaves. You cannot regulate yourself into prosperity OR safety, you make it yourself.

I am a free and prosperous man today because I own and am willing to use my gun to protect it, you will never take away my freedom while I possess it.

Further, who gets to decide what counts as your gauging factors for gun control? More and more "diseases" are considered mental illness to the point that almost anyone can be considered unfit to possess a firearm by our government. You say it should be a State issue but then talk about conformity on a national level? Do you want a FEDERAL State to control you or a more local State of control?

You need to do a LOT more research in the real world and learn how things like Constitutions and laws really work before you go trying to "fix" our current system.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Anyone that feels a law or rule will keep them safe needs a mental exam and a clue. They are the ones we need to worry about.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

We're on the same sheet of music.


We'll see...


I believe this stance is just irresponsible. It puts those that can't defend themselves in instant way of harm!

Dido miss implied purple? I'll jump on oars with this if the laws change and we can just smoke potential threats with no repercussion. I have kids, I'll not willingly allow ARMED mentally ill or violent felons around them.

But there are armed violent felons all around right now as we speak. In fact, I could scarsely imagine a single violent felon not in prison that does not have in his possession or immediate access to a firearm.

Mental illness can be whatever the governing body SAYS it is. Think the government is after your guns? Preparing for the end of the world? Hate taxes???

Then you my friend are suffering from Tinfoilitus and are no longer a proper person in the state of Indiana...

I assume everyone has a gun, because they might. I do not rely on government regulation to protect me. The same criminal, or insane person can just as legally buy and carry a gun as me until they are caught or diagnosed. Regulation just isn't reliable.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I do not think mikedippert should own guns at all because I disagree with his premise