Is the 2A (or any other) absolute?
Community
It is more important because it is our last line of defense to tyrany
Without the second you really have no others. Government will always have guns.
Nothing is really absolute....
The simple fact that the American people are so well armed, is what makes the 2nd Amendment absolute. History has shown ,from time to time, that the only way to protect even Natural Rights, is by the people arming themselves. This was also true in the American Colonies before the Bill of Rights existed, it was an inherint right just for living in the American Colonies, you needed a firearm to survive. Ask the British solders who retreated from Lexington and Concord ? Even the British Monarchy could not disarm the American Colonists. If the US Government tried, good luck with that.
No. Public safety should be recognized.
When I think of arms and the 2a I think of small arms or guns if you will. So if you look at it that way yes I think it is absolute.
Back when the Bill of Rights was written. How many citizens owned cannons? I bet not many.
As for the Supreme Court goes. They also ruled that burning the flag is freedom of speech. I firmly believe they got that one wrong as well as automatic weapons.
With rights, comes responsibilities.
Without personal responsibility in using those rights, an individual abrogates their ability to claim or partake of them. It is impossible to legislate or impose restrictions on the Constitutional defined rights without moving rights of moral citizens who do not abuse them.
History has shown that personal morality and respect for law cannot be legislated. There are segments of all society that cannot nor will not obey even the least restrictive rules or regulations. Gun owners in this country daily demonstrate that the 2A is and should not be an issue.
I would guess that most of the people who hang out on the CF could own and possess just about any military weapon in the government`s armory.
This whole thread should address how to deal with those who lack the ability or desire to be a moral person. Henry has identified this problem that has arisen in this country--especially with the increase in the concept of government increasing it's presence with all it's welfare programs that increase dependency on it rather than community/religious assistance of the past. Look
" How many citizens owned cannons? I bet not many." Even most of the warships were privately owned when 2A was written.
Thirty years ago and later, you never, ever, heard of any American's and politicians, question the 2A, want to open our borders, even had the death penalty, for people killing other people, which today, these thugs just get a slap on the hand, so the left can get political gain from them, if they are easy on these thugs. You know, back when people, and politicians, REALLY cared for the USA., and America was AMERICA. Anyone with half a brain, would realize, that any weapon, is only dangerous, if a person pulls the trigger. We can't, and shouldn't take any weapons from the people. If we do, we will be sitting ducks for these thugs. If any POTUS or Politician wants to take away our guns, or certain types of guns, than they need to do away with the body guards, and their weapons used to protect them. GUARANTEED, the POTUS and politicians, won't let that happen. Same with IMMIGRANTS. Let these clowns house a few immigrants. They won't do that either. It's amazing that the 2A is even a questionable thought in AMERICA.
Doubt the framers pictured a world with the weaponry that exists today. Missiles, fighter jets, nuclear weapons, etc and other weapons that could literally wipe cities off the map did not exist and likely never crossed their mind. As someone who owns dozens of carbines and many NFA weapons (SBRs, suppressors, SBSs) I still believe we need to draw a line somewhere. No, the 2A is not absolute in that it should not grant everyone the right to every conceivable weapon under the sun. If the most destructive weapon in existence was a cannon then that might be a different story. But times have changed.
KPC. Can you point me to where i can see what restrictions they have made since 1934? Thanks
Simply put, no it is not absolute. Neither is the 1st amendment, or the 4th, which are pretty important in their own right.
"" Doesn't the fact that there IS such an obvious difference make the "absolute" question the difficult one that it is? ""
No.
Kevin... Rights are absolute as stated in our Constitution...Good given.
That would seem to indicate that when it comes to firearms (and related), the 2A is an absolute unless one is an atheist (!) or amoral or mentally ill.
The only way to approach any definition of limits has to hinge on the individual. Statistics show that the vast majority of gun owners (and that includes those that legally own NFA type weapons) are NOT a problem. Gun crimes are seen in Chicago (and other metropolitan area) committed by individuals and gangs that do not obey laws on the books...or liberal/Democrat related mass shooters (the mentally defective).
Even anti-2A politicians have admitted that more gun laws would not have prevented this last mass shootings. Why should the majority of gun owners be subjected to more unnecessary rules and regulations WRT firearms when it is a moral/mental health issues?
Perhaps your initial query should be "why shouldn't the 2A be absolute?" Suppressors (for example) should not be so restrictive. In most European countries the use of suppressors is encouraged and does not require tax stamps and bureaucrat approvals.
Well KPC. The NFA putting the tax on those guns proved one thing. It kept the law abiding citizen from purchasing one. The thugs will find the guns they need to get their agenda done, and not follow the laws. I personally think that we have to go after all these big gangs, and even deeper, to get these weapons out of their hands, not making laws, and take away guns from the honest person. JMO. Thanks for the link.
And the Acts of 1934, 1968, 1986, & 1993 did what to stop the Vegas shooter? THAT needs to be the conversation. Not conservatives deciding how long the rope is, of which they are to be hung.
Bentstick81, I'm afraid there's been numerous attacks on the 2nd in the past 30 plus years at some state and the federal level. A couple that comes to mind are The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic ...
It's important to remember that regardless of what most of us on this site think and feel, about half of folks in this country disagree with us on the 2nd being absolute. Gene
Kevin
The "restrictions" you focus on should be applied to those who have been shown that fall outside of the vast majority who have shown that the guarantees of the Constitution do not apply to them; i.e. the criminals and mentally "defective".
For the vast majority of moral and law abiding citizens who pose no threat to society, the 2A should be considered absolute. Historically, Civilization has always restricted rights of those who live and prey outside of common laws.
Ergo, the 2A is an absolute for all citizens except for that previously defined segment who fall outside by actions self created.
K C i see where you're going. Yes l feel the mentally ill and convicted felons should be restricted and/or banned from owning firearms. I'm sure at the time of the Constitution was being drafted, a criminal or mentally insane person was held responsible for their actions and appropriate measures were taken whether it was being placed in the stockades, incarceration, death, and possibly forfeiture of any weapons they owned at the time. Gene
Felons don't lose their rights. They have them infringed upon due to their actions. Like most situations where we as a society agree to infringe on people's rights, the individual's actions are why their rights are being infringed upon.
You get in trouble for using free speech to incite a riot. You get in trouble swinging your fist around when it contacts someone else nose. You get in trouble raising cattle when you graze them on your neighbor's place without permission.
With the right to keep and bear arms, the trend is to increase restrictions on individuals without them having done anything wrong.
Yes, the right to carry and own (bear) arms is absolute. Only the stupidness of men can try and take it away.
Yes, the framers knew that weapons technology would change and evolve as they were learned men and knew the history of civilization. That is why it is "loosely" written. Specifics would have addressed weaponry of the day meaning they had no foresight.
Thats like asking if the sun rises. Yes, it rises. Yes, we allow the Government to infringe on our rights.
The right is absolute. The ability to exercise it is where the society/government has an effect.
We can eliminate the 2A, but not the right it discusses. The 2A is clarifying a limitation on government, it does not grant any right and eliminating or modifying the 2A doesn't remove our right.
A "civil right" is a right created by people. Being created by people, they can be eliminated by people. Thats not the type of right discussed in the 2A.
We don't all agree on the previous crimes and mental deformities. There are a long list of felonies that should not come with permanently infringing on a person's gun rights. My friend is severely OCD, his mental health disorder does not warrant him giving up his giant gun collection.
As a society we have established circumstances where we infringe on others rights. The fact that we do that doesn't change the right, it changes our ability to exercise the right. I have the right to protect myself and the guy stabbing me has the right to life. I fully intend on infringing on his right.
We can make any law we want. That doesn't mean its right or Constitutional. With enough force anyone can enforce any law and infringe on any right, of anyone, whether its a good thing or bad.
The debate is about when we will infringe on rights as a society. I am fine infringing on rights when an individual's actions warrant it. Being on-board with infringing on a person's rights because they might use their freedom to do something bad, but haven't, is a tougher sell.
Only death is "absolute" so your question starts with talking around.
This is the way I would frame the question......
At what point do you think the Government can infringe on natural rights?
"how is it that we all seem to agree that the government can restrict that right due to previous crimes and mental deformities?"
We are herd animals that believe in Social order?
How come nobody brings up the human, that has to make the weapon go off. My take on this is, anyone who pulls a weapon, to harm, rob, or kill somebody else, should get the chair. Automatic. No if, and's, or but's. If someone knows that they pick up any weapon, to harm someone, and will get the chair, no questions asked, bet there will be a dramatic reduction in gun violence. These thugs just claim insanity, and know they will get jail time only, and that's all they get. If these thugs know how to load, and use that gun, their insanity plea, should be thrown out. The LAW OF THE LAND is all but gone.
Any weapon ?? So if your 18 year old kid hits someone with a yard stick he should get the chair...... automatic......??? If we cut people's hands off for stealing I'm sure there would be a reduction in theft too.....
Sorry BB that you couldn't figure out what i meant. Perfect example of the America we live in, and deal with, today. That's all i got. I can't draw pictures on here. Sorry.
Its not possible to take away their right to own a firearm since its inherent. As for infringing on that right:
Yes. A mental disorder that has induced behavior in them that shows access to firearms has or reliably will be a threat to others. Similar to when parental rights are restricted.
Yes. I would support some violent felony convictions to include infringing of rights beyond their incarceration as part of sentencing.
Since my answer had to be no and yes, I couldn't do one word but kept it as short as I could.
So what is the answer ?? No gun laws..... Period. No restrictions..... Period ?? Do away with all gun laws ??? Do away with any age limit to purchase any and all firearms..?? Sell machine guns and RPGs at the 7-11 like slurpees.....???
Trax there are guys right here on these forums that think there should be no limits to gun ownership in America.... in other words.... no gun laws. They think any and all gun laws are unconstitutional.......
How to solve evil or insane people from harming others is a tough problem. I don't have the answer.
Sometimes when you have a tough problem, eliminating things that aren't a solution helps guide people to an answer. I'll start:
Further restricting my rights will not make anyone safer except bad guys. I could own an F-22 and the world would be no less safe.
Blind sheep liberal... ?? I believe that the citizens of Michigan should be able to carry a concealed weapon without having to get a CPL.... does that sound like a blind sheep liberal ??
"The same is true for all other rights our founders claimed were "unalienable" (i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). They might well be endowed on every human being by his or her creator, but they most certainly can be, and are, infringed upon every day."
Well duhhh...did your parents pay for that education or are you self educated?
All rights, inalienable or not, have been infringed upon by man since day 1 at some point or other...The founders did not invent inalienable rights. They were just the first to write them down and develop a platform or structure from which they can be defended. No one has ever said those rights cannot be taken away. Only that it would be against natural law to take them away...The entire idea of the USA is based on this idea of individual inalienable rights. Take away that idea(s) and the idea of America goes with them...JMO
Not really. The statement stands as proof of man's inherent disrespect of each other...
KPC.... I found it interesting that pretty much everyone on this thread and the other one avoided your question about if they would be OK with a mosque stockpiling weapons...... From what I have seen on the CF in regards to guys here never trusting any Muslim..... it would be interesting in hearing a response to that question from everyone here.
The second amendment is restricted already. The amendment grants the right to bare arms. Not guns. Arms. As I have pointed out numerous times before here, our courts (with help from Congress) have already decided to restrict arms. You cannot own a nuclear missile or anti-aircraft gun, certain machine guns, poisons, etc., and so whoever is arguing it is "absolute," I'm not sure what absolute means to you. The real argument is what is reasonable for our society to have. Banana clips? Bump stocks? Machine guns? Congress can pass laws and ultimately the court decides if the law is Constitutional, but some of that comes down to what we as a society think is reasonable. So the area of automatic weapons, banana clips, bump stocks, etc., is all on the table IMO. Hell, I prefer bow zone only with side-arms and long bolt guns. That would be fine with me. I shoot my bow a lot and my guns very little. But I know some of you guys will not agree. If it can make our society safer, I'm listening.
Sounds reasonable..... I'm good with letting the Supreme Court make those decisions for us..... but I would vastly prefer that those judges are conservative and not some crazy liberal....
Again. The 2A does not grant us the right to bear arms. It only lays out the limitations on Government regarding the right. The right is inherent. It was not granted by the founders or by the Constitution and cannot be taken away, only infringed upon if we allow it or are required by threat of force to accept restrictions.
I'm also listening for things that can make society safer but not ignoring the cost and proven effectiveness. The murder rate in the US is much lower than 30 years ago and about the same as it was in the 50's. Mass shootings are awful and tragic but the reality is that the odds of getting murdered in the US are extremely low. If you don't live in an urban area, aren't involved in drugs or crime, the odds get way lower.
If we remove morally and mentally fit from the requirement we end up with an assumption that mentally and morally un-stable people can have firearms. If we include mentally and morally fitness as a requirement for firearm ownership then we have another quagmire of definition and enforcement. Catch 22s. I believe the 2nd to be the best compromise as written. Well thought out and effictive to purpose. Perhaps some minor changes concerning qualififcations and definitions but instituted with great care , examining all possible ramifications or forseeable consequences. God bless, Steve
"".. I found it interesting that pretty much everyone on this thread and the other one avoided your question about if they would be OK with a mosque stockpiling weapons...""
That would depend if the Muslim's are US citizens are not. If they're here illegally the answer would be I'd have a problem with that. I would have the same opinion with any illegal immigrant in the USA stock piling weapons.
Big Bear, pay attention to what Glunt has posted. And, go back and read the other thread. I answered Kevin and you both on that.
Sleepy, the dems will not agree with you. The dems are yelling "GUN CONTROL", all the while, fighting Trump to keep our borders open. The dems want ILLEGALS in our country. What a bunch of dumba$$es.
I'm not a Democrat... I'm not a republican..... I voted for Trump. I would have voted for Ozzie Osborne over Bitch Clinton..... but for the most part I don't trust any politician....
“Should the 2A evolve as weapons evolve? If so, wouldn't that indicate that it is in fact not absolute?”
KPC, I think it has evolved. At the time when the 2A was written arms (guns) were muskets. Then came guns that fire ammunition. Single shot, lever action, bolt action etc. semi automatic came a long eventually. However we draw the line at fully automatic for some reason.
For the record. After reading numerous posts since I posted. I would agree it’s not absolute. Due to new laws passed by the government officials we elected.
Big Bear. That's exactly why i voted for Trump, myself. I too, don't trust any POLITICIAN.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms [against a tyrannical government or invading foreign power] shall not be infringed."
You know that is what they wanted to insert but couldn't...
If they're legal citizens, they have the same gun ownership rights as I would. Don't want to bust anyone's bubble but that's how I see the 2nd Amendment.
""Sleepy, the dems will not agree with you.""
Bent, without a doubt they would. I think that is where the sticking point is, the Dems want only certain people to own firearms not everybody who can legally own one.
One of the prices of free speech is tolerating people saying vile offensive stuff. One of the prices of the right to bear arms is allowing people with ideas you despise to also exercise their right as long as they aren't harming others.
Rhody: We probably agree that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would qualify as inalienable. These natural rights are infringed on by law all time.
The 2A says "....the right of the people....". It discusses a right that already exists. It doesn't grant the right and neither does any law or political action. Its a natural right. Did God or Mother nature endow us with an AR-15? No, but the right of self protection is inherent. For a turtle, he can use his shell, a pronghorn can use his speed, a whale can use its intelligence and a human can use what his physical and mental ability allows him to build, acquire, or calculate.
If you read the other Amendments, many of them reference being subject to laws, court of law, due process of law, manner prescribed by law. The authors had no problem including wording about being subject to law when applicable.
As for my Muslim neighbor amassing weapons, of course that would seriously concern me. Denying him of his rights without due process worries me just as much.
I get that a nuke in every garage in the neighborhood is unrealistic but I also get that the whole idea of being able to own and use firearms is centered around the ability to defend against a foreign invader or replace the government if necessary. Pretty hard to do with a Glock and a Remington 700.
Yes, the 2A can be changed or eliminated by men. That would not eliminate the rights it discusses. Same with the 1st and 4th.
If you walked into the Supreme Court and said that the right referred to in the 2A is pre-existing and not created by the Constitution or any other document or written law, it would not be embarrassing because the court agrees and has ruled exactly that.
So how would it all play out if the government outlawed gun ownership and wanted /started to confiscate guns? Would we be able to fight? is the military going to side with the revolutionists or their Commander in Chief. I understand people say it would be a revolution, but most people are not trained in even the most simple aspects of urban warfare, and that is exactly what it would be. Would the police departments side with the majority? I don't have any of the answers, but I am curious to see what you all think. I think if the military and police where involved in the confiscation, and they most likely would be, they could take almost any bodies weapons they wanted. Could/ would the remaining population be willing and able to fight? It's a scary thought.
"Putting all of the[ ] textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed....”
Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2797-98."
That reads to me that the SCOTUS agrees that the right was pre-existing.
Their rulings on how much it can be infringed on are another matter.
Antifa and the extreme left call us Nazis. Does this give them the right to anarchy and to kill us using the second amendment. I guess everyone is disingenuous about this in using it as a reason for the second ammendment. That is, If one leaves out the moral and mental application. Here is the problem , their reasoning and immorality are diametrically opposed to my morality and my reasoning and I believe the intent of the constitution and of its authors.
God bless, Steve
