tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6180226403686462298.post3356578292751758749..comments2024-03-01T01:18:46.480-06:00Comments on Political Heat: Weapon restriction is not a violation of the Second AmendmentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6180226403686462298.post-88065136425852304332013-02-28T14:07:42.502-06:002013-02-28T14:07:42.502-06:00The previous writer seems to define "arms&quo...The previous writer seems to define "arms" as "firearms", but such a restriction is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Surely if this was the original intent, the Founding Fathers would have written "… the right of the people to keep and bear FIREARMS shall not be infringed", but of course they didn’t. If we accept the most common definition of arms as "weapons", with no qualifiers (since no qualifiers are specified in the Amendment) then it follows the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted as "… the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear arms, biological arms, any and all arms, shall not be infringed".<br /><br />Most folks would find this absurd. <br /><br />If the previous writer happened to my neighbor, I wonder how he/she would react if I explained I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights by keeping a large cache of dynamite and weaponized toxic chemicals on my property?<br /><br />The 2nd Amendment is NOT an unlimited right (as affirmed by SCOTUS in Heller) and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms do not necessarily infringe.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6180226403686462298.post-32418188699517581792013-02-05T11:26:42.135-06:002013-02-05T11:26:42.135-06:00Chris,
You're basing your argument here on th...Chris,<br /><br />You're basing your argument here on the claim that the 2nd Amendment grants "the right for people to keep weapons for their own self protection", and that it is thus limited in scope. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Not only is the scope of the amendment not defined and thus cannot be derived from the text, but if you can't even honestly base that argument on the intention of the amendement. If we are going to look at the intention - which we don't need to do, but just humor me here - we can assume that the purpose was to allow people to protect themselves, their families, their properties, their businesses, and their communities, all of which came under attack by the British. Your entire argument is based on a claim that is completely unsupportable.<br /><br />You also need to understand what the word "infringe" means. Any restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms - ANY restrictions - infringe upon that right by simple definition. I don't have the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. That restriction is an infringement upon my rights. It is, however, a reasonable restriction. Now, I don't disagree with you that it is reasonable to ban assault weapons. It is, to be sure, incredibly reasonable. However, it's still unconstitutional. If there was an amendment that read, "The right of the people to shout things in crowded theaters shall not be infringed", then banning me from shouting "FIRE!" would, while still reasonable, be unconstitutional.<br /><br />You're thinking too small. The 2nd Amendment is in place precisely to prevent the government from restricting or in any way infringing upon the rights of people to own any guns. As long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, any attempts to ban or restrict the bearing of arms will be unconstitutional. That's just a reality. The only way to settle this debate once and for all is to amend the amendment. If it read, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms deemed necessary and sufficient for the protection of themselves and their families, limited by Congress, shall not be infringed.", then your argument would hold water.<br /><br />You're conclusion is not wrong, but your arguments and assumptions weaken your position by making you appear foolish and ignorant. Think before you write, Chris.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com