The 2nd Amendment??

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by JJIII

In all the discussions of the 2nd amendment I never see anyone deal with the word "infringe". Seems to me that the word is very important in its use here.

So, what does it mean to you?

[JJIII]

To me it means that the right should not be messed with at all. That being said, I do not include bombs and other weapons of mass destruction in the definition of "arms". I would guess that a statement like that will bring a world of posts about exactly where the line should be drawn. (I guess its like porn, I know it when I see it.)

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by JJIII

To me it means that the right should not be messed with at all. That being said, I do not include bombs and other weapons of mass destruction in the definition of "arms". I would guess that a statement like that will bring a world of posts about exactly where the line should be drawn. (I guess its like porn, I know it when I see it.)

Then, let it fly.

Maybe this is an aspect of the issue that we have not touched on yet?

Thoughts, anyone?

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by JJIII

In all the discussions of the 2nd amendment I never see anyone deal with the word "infringe". Seems to me that the word is very important in its use here.

Don't forget the use of the term "well regulated." That has to be given some meaning as well. The construction of the provision clearly links the right to bear arms to the necessity of a "well regulated" militia. Shouldn't that phrase have some meaning in the context of regulating firearms?

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

I suppose that since the idea of a "well regulated militia" was conceived as the replacement for a "standing army" the question would be moot as 1812 proved that a militia was no match for a trained army.

One need also consider what types of weapons were available to the Framers, flintlocks, a few rifled long guns, blunderbusses, after that cannon on wheels (and I would love to see you 'bear' one of those). Stingers, RPGs, AK47s, Sterlings I do believe do not qualify.

[JJIII]

Merrylander has a much better way with words than I do. He has just expressed my thoughts.

[merrylander]

You are welcome.

[Sandy G]

The 2nd Amendment is an extreme embarassment to the Left-No other country has as free & unfettered access to civilian ownership of weapons as we do. And they know that even when they eventually succeed in getting this relic removed, & have enacted mandatory confiscation/destruction, there will STILL be hundreds of thousands of firearms "out there". Virtually every gun owner has a few that are "Off the Books". There is an easier way to slow down/stop the gun problem in the US, though-While the 2nd Amendment stands in the way of overt gun confiscation for now, it says NOTHING about ammunition. This could easily be outlawed on post 9/11 homeland security grounds. Another thing would be to get another couple of Justices on the Supreme Court, bring up another 2nd Amendment case, & have them rule in such a way as to render it meaningless, for all practical purposes. However, the left is being as stupid as usual, & prefers directly assaulting the 2nd Amendment, which will prolly NEVER work.

[hillbilly]

How do I define the 2'nd? And shall not be infringed? See below.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

The 2nd Amendment is an extreme embarassment to the Left-No other country has as free & unfettered access to civilian ownership of weapons as we do. And they know that even when they eventually succeed in getting this relic removed, & have enacted mandatory confiscation/destruction, there will STILL be hundreds of thousands of firearms "out there". Virtually every gun owner has a few that are "Off the Books". There is an easier way to slow down/stop the gun problem in the US, though-While the 2nd Amendment stands in the way of overt gun confiscation for now, it says NOTHING about ammunition. This could easily be outlawed on post 9/11 homeland security grounds. Another thing would be to get another couple of Justices on the Supreme Court, bring up another 2nd Amendment case, & have them rule in such a way as to render it meaningless, for all practical purposes. However, the left is being as stupid as usual, & prefers directly assaulting the 2nd Amendment, which will prolly NEVER work.

I donno Sandy, the Democrats have kinda dropped their anti-gun rhetoric after they figured out it was costing them elections. There are a lot of union members, who should be solidly in the Democratic camp, who vote Republican strictly on the gun control issue.

Ammunition is another story. I can see the anti-gunners going after ammo because they think that the can slide this in under the radar. I doubt that it will work at this time, but it is another means to their ends.

Besides, if the war on ammo is as effective as the war on drugs, most everybody will be walking around looking like Pancho Villa.

This isn't to say that the gun grabbers have given up, they haven't. They're just taking a long term approach.

Might work, might not.

Chas