Question for pro-gun people

[SPC]

Question mainly aimed at conservatives, but anyone who considers themselves pro-gun in free to vote. Voting will end one week from today, where I will assess the results.

[A18]

I'm not comfortable with the use of the word "give." But certainly, the Amendment creates a constitutional barrier to its denial by the federal government.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I believe the first part of the 2nd amendment establishes that the second part is meant to keep a well regulated militia.  Even so, it doesn't say "unless" anywhere in that clause... thus, well regulated militia, military, or none of the above, your right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon.

But I guess you could also read it like "A well regulated militia (emphasis on regulating the militia which are not necessarily the people), necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Which is interesting because the founding fathers were very wary of government military and could have thus given the right to bear arms to the people in order to keep that militia "regular".. and it would then fit in better with the 3rd amendment, which is almost entirely forgotten these days.

I'm so confused... I just say to use common sense... yes, you can have your rifles to go hunting and you can even have guns to play with or for defense in a needed situation...

But there is NEVER a reason that you should be toting an assault weapon around in the name of self defense or the 2nd amendment because you think you can.  That is just your insecurity hiding behind a gun.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm confused to why anyone who is pro-gun would vote it doesn't mean that, it would seem quite contradictory

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm confused to why anyone who is pro-gun would vote it doesn't mean that, it would seem quite contradictory

     Same here. Though the question itself is strange. After all, the 2nd Amendment directly says that "the right of the People, to bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[dead0man]

Right, it doesn't give us anything we didn't have already.  It's just, in theory at least, a right the govt choses to let you enjoy.

[Person Man]

Right, it doesn't give us anything we didn't have already.  It's just, in theory at least, a right the govt choses to let you enjoy.

A "right" must be three things to be a right-
- A guarantee from or to a certain thing
- Can be individually waived
- Government must enforce that right unless it meets the proper constitutional burden for infringing on that right.

I believe the Second Amdendment "creates" the "right" for a individual to bear arms.

[John Dibble]

Right, it doesn't give us anything we didn't have already.  It's just, in theory at least, a right the govt choses to let you enjoy.

A "right" must be three things to be a right-
- A guarantee from or to a certain thing
- Can be individually waived
- Government must enforce that right unless it meets the proper constitutional burden for infringing on that right.

I believe the Second Amdendment "creates" the "right" for a individual to bear arms.

I wouldn't say it creates it - rights are ideas, and the idea existed before the Second Amendment. The ideas of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly existed before the First Amendment as well, right? So, I would say that the Second Amendment indicates government recognition of the validity of a right to bear arms.

[Person Man]

Then again, are we talking about legal rights or natural rights or perhaps common-law rights?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Right, it doesn't give us anything we didn't have already.  It's just, in theory at least, a right the govt choses to let you enjoy.

A "right" must be three things to be a right-
- A guarantee from or to a certain thing
- Can be individually waived
- Government must enforce that right unless it meets the proper constitutional burden for infringing on that right.

I believe the Second Amdendment "creates" the "right" for a individual to bear arms.

I wouldn't say it creates it - rights are ideas, and the idea existed before the Second Amendment. The ideas of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly existed before the First Amendment as well, right? So, I would say that the Second Amendment indicates government recognition of the validity of a right to bear arms.

     Or for that matter, a guarantee of the continued right to bear arms. We have to consider that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was most likely to afford the public self-protection against a tyrannical government. With the amendment in place, if said tyrannical government tried to take people's guns away, they would have no legal basis to do so. In that case, they would have to do it by force, which would mean almost certainly invoking a massive public uprising.

[Person Man]

Then again, could a "well regulated militia" be used for things other than mounting insurgencies or defenses against alien states?

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Second Amendment does NOT give (or grant) the right to keep and bear arms, but rather was put into the constitution to recognize that natural right, and offset the propensity of the Hamiltonian's to argue that the government could do anything not specifically prohibited to it by the constitution. 

It also specified "the people," to make it clear that the "select militia" argued for by Hamilton and his gang was NOT what was meant.

[SPC]

This was a trick question, and it appears that only 2 people didn't see through it, based on the poll results. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you any rights, it merely prevents those rights from being infringed.

[NDN]

The Second Amendment does NOT give (or grant) the right to keep and bear arms, but rather was put into the constitution to recognize that natural right, and offset the propensity of the Hamiltonian's to argue that the government could do anything not specifically prohibited to it by the constitution. 

It also specified "the people," to make it clear that the "select militia" argued for by Hamilton and his gang was NOT what was meant.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This was a trick question, and it appears that only 2 people didn't see through it, based on the poll results. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you any rights, it merely prevents those rights from being infringed.

Actually a good question.

Too few people have even a basic understanding of the legal structure.

Keep up the good posting!

[SPC]

This was a trick question, and it appears that only 2 people didn't see through it, based on the poll results. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you any rights, it merely prevents those rights from being infringed.

Actually a good question.

Too few people have even a basic understanding of the legal structure.

Keep up the good posting!

Thank you. I had a feeling many conservatives would not analyze the question carefully and choose the first option.

[Left-Wing Blogger]

This was a trick question, and it appears that only 2 people didn't see through it, based on the poll results. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you any rights, it merely prevents those rights from being infringed.

Actually a good question.

Too few people have even a basic understanding of the legal structure.

Keep up the good posting!

Thank you. I had a feeling many conservatives would not analyze the question carefully and choose the first option.

The difference is between positive and negative rights. To a big-government liberal like me, that is not much of a difference at all.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes, it does.

[Nym90]

Yes, though of course like all rights it has its limits.....you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, and you can't own your own bazooka or AK-47. Both seem reasonable to me.

[SPC]

Yes, though of course like all rights it has its limits.....you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, and you can't own your own bazooka or AK-47. Both seem reasonable to me.

Whether or not someone has the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre is up to the theatre-owner. If the theatre-owner wants to lose customers and allow the audience to be constantly disrupted, that is his choice. Likewise, I don't see why AK-47s or bazookas shoiuld be banned, since no law is going to prevent criminals from obtaining the weapon of their choice.