Quote:
Originally Posted by premier3is
Like I said, I really have no solution but maybe we can start off by outlawing owning automatic rifles by civilians? I'd love to know why a regular person should be allowed to own one.
|
Because they are the best tool for the job. Modern equipment works better.
Because you are "allowed" to own a modern computer instead of having to rely on a quill and parchment or even a printing press.
Because you are "allowed" to own a modern, high-powered automobile when a horse and buggy would suffice. Or just walk.
Because you are "allowed" to own pretty much whatever you want in America, so long as you are not doing harm to others. Want to own a big-ass yacht? Go buy one. Want to own a private jet to fly you around to conferences on global warming? Knock yourself out, Al.
Someone else wrote this, but I'm quoting it here because I agree with it.
Quote:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a pretty absolute statement. It is "the right of the people," hence the right is connected to, and possessed by, the PEOPLE. To "keep and bear arms" obviously means to "maintain ownership and possession of," and "to carry upon one's person" arms (of the types that can be owned and carried). "Shall not be infringed" is the requirement no govt. may attack said right: the word "shall" is an "imperative," meaning it's not polite asking, it means "you WILL comply". The government CANNOT "infringe" the right. I think many either do not really understand or deliberately ignore this word. "Infringe" has two meanings in my dictionary; 1.) To intrude into. 2.) To diminish. If one cannot intrude into, say, a room, one may by definition not touch, alter, or enter into the room to perform any function in said room. If it must not be diminished, then by definition it must remain whole.
We have certain rational exclusions that have long been true; for example, felons and excons are generally prohibited from owning or carrying arms as they have been adjudicated guilty in a court of law. Children who are below "the age of understanding" cannot handle guns as they won't comprehend the consequences of misuse or might accidently hurt themselves or others.
But a adult who is in full possession of his rights, is not an excon, must not have his rights under the Second Amendment be abbreviated, diminished, or altered. In this sense, it is absolute.
Not ALL gun laws will necessarily injure 2A rights. A jurisdiction may decide that open carry is lawful, or that the weapon must be concealed. But one, the other, or both, must be permitted.
A point of contention may be conceal carry permits vs. "Constitutional Carry." Must a citizen request "permission" to carry? I suppose if the law is "must issue" such a law can be acceptable, but not "may issue," as capricious officials might deny a permit based on whim or political ideology.
|
Just to clarify what our 2nd Amendment does: It protects our right to arms; it does not grant the right to arms. It limits the government's authority to regulate arms. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. It is inherent to being a US citizen. It is a God given right and that is a right that can not be taken away by government.
The scholars who created this country knew exactly what they were saying when they wrote the Constitution. The Constitution establishes our country and limits what powers the government has. The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, is a list of limitations to the government's powers. The founding fathers knew that these individual rights were so important, that they had to place strict limits on the government authority so that the government couldn't infringe on these rights.