A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I recently was reading some interesting background on the 2nd amendment, and I wish I had the source to include here - if I can locate it, I'll add it. It was a critical analysis, and I don't think it was by one of the extreme right wing groups either, but the conclusion might seem to fall in that camp. The upshot is that we, the people, are the militia, and a primary purpose of the public bearing individual private arms is so that the government, with its army, will always be the lesser militia, and less likely to become a facist state, I presume.

What I found so interesting was the conclusion that there could be no government imposed limit on this right. The logical extension of the argument, if not the analysis, is that my right to keep and bear arms extends not only to assault rifles, but would include automatic machine guns, rocket propelled grenade launchers, and even a small nuclear weapon if I could keep one in my home.

What'd'ya think? Is there a limit to second amendment freedom? If so, what is it and why, within the context of the meaning of the Constitution.

It's getting slow in here since the election, so I had to ask somebody.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Like most everything else these days the 2nd amendment is usually interpretted to suit one interest group or the other. Most of the hoopla I think is by those who fear that the government will confiscate their guns. That has happened in different parts of the world with disastrous results when you look at crime statistics. I don't really think the majority of gun owners want an arsenal and but want their freedom to keep their guns. It is the fear of confiscation that I think spurs so much interest in guns.

At the end of the day you have the right to have guns but have a responsibility to use them within the law. The second amendment does not give anyone a license to stockpile machine guns and then go on a shooting spree. Make anything illegal or tightly regulated and the public will want to stock up on it.

Boy you have that right...I just spent an hour at the mall....scary stuff....How many of the fools I observed were packin>?

"What'd'ya think? Is there a limit to second amendment freedom? If so, what is it and why, within the context of the meaning of the Constitution."

I will answer it by rewording the ? and let you answer it back.

What'd'ya think? Is there a limit to first amendment freedom? If so, what is it and why, within the context of the meaning of the Constitution.


why would you want to limit one and not the other? the appearance of saftey?

My thought on the subject is that once you have removed or infringed on one or any of "Bill of Rights" you have weakened the "Bill of Rights" in it's intirity and once that is done you can kiss the intire document goodby and then you will have some form of totalitorian government and with that you can forget most of the personal freedoms you enjoy today.

------------------------------------------------------------

Because it 'feels good'.

TK,

Been gone a while, but I see that KK basically provided a better answer than I would have: that the Supremes have already answered your question regarding the 1st Amendment. I'm not aware that they have provided any similar limit to the 2nd. Which is kinda' my point. Aunty M points out that Congress has passed several laws that appear to limit 2nd Amendment freedoms. Given the advocacy of the NRA, I would expect the more extreme believers among them to have argued a case for personal nukes by now, but I've never heard of anything beyond individual possession of assault weapons.

BTW, my belief about limits to the 2nd would be akin to those Supreme Court decisions about limits to the 1st.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

KK,

Not sure if I've heard of Miller. Maybe I'll look for it later.

I just thought the website I was reading was pretty interesting. It looks like you can amass enough weapons to arm a small army, but as long as you take no unlawful action, it's all OK.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Well, the supreme court has developed certain tests to determine the consitutionality of statutes that potentially violate people's rights. As far as free speech goes, first speech is defined as any action intended to convey a message that is likely to be understood by the audience. That means if I carry a sign with bush's head caricaturized as Hitler, I am clearly comparing him to Hitler and its protected under the first amendment. However, if I ran naked across the capitol steps with a chicken on my head, that's not speech and is not protected.

Next, there are 5 types of speech that are NOT protected, and are therefore "excluded". They are defamation, obscenity, incitement to imminent lawlessness, true threats and fighting words. So, none of these types of speech are protected.

Then there are several levels of tests that determine whether or not the specific law is allowable. Basically, if there is a significant government interest and there is no other way to protect it, the government can legally restrict free speech. That interpretation is left up to the Supreme court, however, so its not the administration you should be worried about...its who they pick as justices.


Personally, I believe in judicial restraint, meaning judges should interpret the laws and constitution as written rather than adjusting it to fit present day standards.


The same kind of situation as above applies to the second amendment, so no, you can't own a nuclear weapon. It is a significant government interest to keep them controlled, and there really is no other way to prevent that than to just not allow people to have them. Not that too many people could afford the multimillions it would take for even a small yield warhead

That's all fine and good, but what if you ran across the capital steps naked with a caricature of Bush on your head? Hmmmm? What then, Mr. Smartypants?

------------------------------------------------------------

Why do all Goharley's fantasies involve men in various stages of undress?

"It looks like you can amass enough weapons to arm a small army, but as long as you take no unlawful action, it's all OK."

You can amass enough books to build a library Guns and books are inanimate objects that can take no action alone or in mass. One gun and one book are enough to start a revolution however.

I think that could be open to interpretation. For instance Selma Hyatt or Jennifer Gardner running naked across the capitol steps is like a form of art, no? I don't think O'Connor would even have a problem with that, and you know for sure Thomas wouldn't.


And what kind of cadet? Please don't say "space."

Wow KK.. Thats quite a bit of research. I remember most of those cases from my Individual Rights classes, but I couldn't recite them at all.

As for the Second Amendment rights, the entire interpretation of the second amendment changes with every president. I know it should only be changed by the Supreme Court, but Bush and Clinton did have opposing views: Clinton wanted the 2nd amendment to apply to militias only, so that basically the states can form National Gaurds which can keep and bear arms. Bush feels that the second amendment applies to every citizen, and pushes for more gun rights.

I'm strongly conservative, and voted for Bush, but so far I have seen more to back up Clinton than I have Bush. The REALLY odd part about all this is that I am also a hunter, AND I joined the Army.

Curtis

That's way wrong, but I don't have the references to prove it, Aunty does. She posted some really good info on another board reference the 2nd Amendment, militias, and the NG. Basically, they are not the same thing in any way. And there is no way the DoD would ever allow its members to "keep and bear arms" in the manner of the 2nd Amendment. It would be a security and logistic nightmare.

I believe you'll find through study that every president believes the 2nd Amendment applies to every citizen of the US. It's kinda their job to believe that. Also you'll probably find through some study that Bush supports gun control just like past presidents have. He's really not the NRA messiah you all think he is.

Hence the idea behind the National Gaurd...

Yes, Bush does support gun control, but not to the same extremes Clinton did (obviously).

And what are you talking about with the Department of Defense? Please elaborate.

Curtis

Ok, I personally would find nothing offensive about either of those hypotheticals .

While there are those who would contend that I AM a space cadet, officially I am an Air Force Academy cadet.

Curtis, the 2nd Amendment allows you to keep a weapon to protect yourself from an overbearing government. That government would use the DoD to oppress. The NG is part of the DoD. Therefore, as Aunty pointed out, the local militia eluded to in the Bill of Rights cannot be the DoD. By the way, have you noticed that a very large portion of the troops in Iraq right now are National Guard controlled by the government?

Additionally, the DoD would never allow its members to take their assigned weapons home and "keep" them in the sense of the 2nd Amendment regarding a privately owned weapon (POW). Matter of fact, when you live in the barracks, you have to register your POW (which includes archery equipment) on post and store it in the company arms room. If you live in goverment quarters with a family, your weapon must be registered with the Provost Marshall. If you plan to hunt on post your weapon must be registered with the Provost Marshall.

That should help you prepare for your permanent station after training.

Geez, I can only imagine the number and content of the sexual harrassment briefings you've had to sit through, lately.