Does The 2nd Amendment Need?

[Howey]

A "Public Safety" exemption?

From the LA Times Letters to the Editor:

Now that we know there is a "public safety" exception to constitutional rights like the Miranda warning guaranteed by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, can we please admit that we need a "public safety" exception to the 2nd Amendment?

The families of future school and theater shootings deserve nothing less.

Kathi Smith

Ojai

 

[SmarterthanYou]

as do mom and daughter news paper delivery people. so start with the LAPD and we can talk.

 

[Rationalist]

Haven't the courts already established that there are reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment? Fully automatic rifles are illegal, as are many other weapons. There are many gun laws on the books at the Federal, state, and local levels of government.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Haven't the courts already established that there are reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment? Fully automatic rifles are illegal, as are many other weapons. There are many gun laws on the books at the Federal, state, and local levels of government.

the courts are wrong. 'shall not be infringed' does not mean 'reasonable restrictions'.

 

[Rationalist]

the courts are wrong. 'shall not be infringed' does not mean 'reasonable restrictions'.

The 2nd Amendment was written before the advent of machine guns, RPGs, tanks, etc. Do you believe these are protected by the 2nd Amendment? Personally, I think the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is pretty reasonable.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The 2nd Amendment was written before the advent of machine guns, RPGs, tanks, etc. Do you believe these are protected by the 2nd Amendment? Personally, I think the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is pretty reasonable.

the time of the writing and the advancement of technology is irrelevant. the 2nd was written to ensure that the newly formed government could never have the power to oppress the citizenry. Any weapon that an oppressive government would use against 'we the people' must be made available to the people in order to ensure our free states security.

 

[Rationalist]

the time of the writing and the advancement of technology is irrelevant. the 2nd was written to ensure that the newly formed government could never have the power to oppress the citizenry. Any weapon that an oppressive government would use against 'we the people' must be made available to the people in order to ensure our free states security.

Should 'we the people' have the right to keep and bear nuclear warheads?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Should 'we the people' have the right to keep and bear nuclear warheads?

do you believe that the federal government would be foolish enough to use a nuke on we the people?

 

[Rationalist]

do you believe that the federal government would be foolish enough to use a nuke on we the people?

Fair enough. Do you think 'we the people' should own tanks, mortars, and F-22s?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Fair enough. Do you think 'we the people' should own tanks, mortars, and F-22s?

do you believe that the government would use F22s against us? we already know they would use tanks and mortars, so 'we the people' should have access to tanks and mortars. at the very least, anti-tank weapons.

 

[Rationalist]

do you believe that the government would use F22s against us? we already know they would use tanks and mortars, so 'we the people' should have access to tanks and mortars. at the very least, anti-tank weapons.

I am very thankful that I do not live in the world you envision.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Haven't the courts already established that there are reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment? Fully automatic rifles are illegal, as are many other weapons. There are many gun laws on the books at the Federal, state, and local levels of government.

No they aren't. The case that dealt with them specifically said they were protected.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Fair enough. Do you think 'we the people' should own tanks, mortars, and F-22s?

We can (well, not the F-22, but other war planes) and do. A lot of people in my area, for example, collect tanks and other military vehicles.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The 2nd Amendment was written before the advent of machine guns, RPGs, tanks, etc. Do you believe these are protected by the 2nd Amendment? Personally, I think the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is pretty reasonable.

The 1A was written before the radio, television, and the internet. The 6A before DNA was discovered. The 3A before the invention of PMCs.

Technology does not change rights.

 

[Anti-Party]

the courts are wrong. 'shall not be infringed' does not mean 'reasonable restrictions'.

So you are saying that the people and the courts are wrong? Or are you saying they can't have an opinion. Or are you saying that their opinion doesn't matter.

I'm pretty sure every thought and opinion matters and no one is wrong when thinking freely. The only people that are wrong are the people telling you can't think freely.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I'm pretty sure every thought and opinion matters and no one is wrong when thinking freely. The only people that are wrong are the people telling you can't think freely.

No, not every opinion matters. The opinion of a hobo on nuclear fission (a hyperbolic example, to be sure) is irrelevant. The opinions of people who have little or no knowledge on the subject, are not worth the opinion of an expert on the subject and therefore can be dismissed outright.

 

[SJJRSJJS]

the time of the writing and the advancement of technology is irrelevant. the 2nd was written to ensure that the newly formed government could never have the power to oppress the citizenry. Any weapon that an oppressive government would use against 'we the people' must be made available to the people in order to ensure our free states security.

Absolutely correct, firearm weapons have developed over years and have become more lethal, but a tyrannical Government has access to the same weapons that the citizenry have so, the expression fight fire with fire comes to play. The 2nd Amendment was put in place when the Feds and the People also had the same firearms, muskets. Now, we still have the same firearms, AR-15s and that is what the 2nd amendment means, that the People should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government on an equal basis. It does not mean that the people shall defend themselves with muskets against M-16s, that would not be equal and the people would get slaughtered every time. When Homeland Security buys up 3 billion rounds of ammo, are they trying to level the playing field to make things equal, I doubt it?

 

[Don Quixote]

the time of the writing and the advancement of technology is irrelevant. the 2nd was written to ensure that the newly formed government could never have the power to oppress the citizenry. Any weapon that an oppressive government would use against 'we the people' must be made available to the people in order to ensure our free states security.

does that include weapons of mass destruction?

ps far more people are killed by hand guns than long guns like assault weapons

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I am very thankful that I do not live in the world you envision.

a world where 'we the people' didn't have to be concerned about our government using tanks and mortars against us?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you are saying that the people and the courts are wrong? Or are you saying they can't have an opinion. Or are you saying that their opinion doesn't matter.

I'm pretty sure every thought and opinion matters and no one is wrong when thinking freely. The only people that are wrong are the people telling you can't think freely.

I said the courts are wrong. If a person believes that 'shall not be infringed' means 'reasonable restrictions', then they are also wrong. they can certainly have an opinion, nobody is denying that.