[JimB]

Moose, nice shot, but is that a plugged barrel?

 

[Terry]

I know you are all going to want to find out who that "idiot" was that voted for the first option....well, that was me.

My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as originally written, seems to suggest every civilian has the right to bear arms in an effort to defend yourself, your neighbors, and the State. Nowhere does it mention owning arms for hobby, sporting events, hunting, ego boosting, or investment.

We all benefit from the various court cases since the original Amendment was passed, but I honestly think it was intended to read as a more political statement to impress upon England that the United States expected further national and international rebellion.

Don't get me wrong, I support what we have caused the Amendment to evolve into, but I don't think the original authors had the forethought when it came to the battles over personal ownership we face today.

 

[Razor Ray]

In my opinion it means that the people are the militia and because of that the rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.

+1 as the idea is that WE are here to keep our government from imposing tyranny on us.

 

[Luke Cage]

None of the above.

That was my pick

 

[ericridebike]

I voted for the second choice, as I think it reflects the original intention when it was written. I think then guns were all pretty similar with no full auto, suppressors, rocket launchers, etc... to think about. So then there was no need to differentiate further the types of guns we can own. Really, I think it probably incorporates some of the ideas from some of the other choices. In my opinion, it really was written to give us (the People) the means to stand up against a government that has gotten out of control. Definitely, things have changed drastically in our world since it was written, but it should still give us the right to defend ourselves.

 

[NCshooter26]

I think what some people have forgotten/misunderstood/ignored is the fact that the Second Amendment is written and placed within the context of the Bill of Rights, which in itself is a guideline for the guaranteed rights of the citizens of the United States. With that said, what part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand?

 

[shrek]

None of the above.

That was my pick

Please elaborate. Education is what I'm after here to begin with.

Keep in mind that you didn't have to completely agree with any of the answers - only pick the one that was closest to what you believe and then explain in a reply.

 

[tilefish]

I know you are all going to want to find out who that "idiot" was that voted for the first option....well, that was me.

My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as originally written, seems to suggest every civilian has the right to bear arms in an effort to defend yourself, your neighbors, and the State. Nowhere does it mention owning arms for hobby, sporting events, hunting, ego boosting, or investment.

We all benefit from the various court cases since the original Amendment was passed, but I honestly think it was intended to read as a more political statement to impress upon England that the United States expected further national and international rebellion.

Don't get me wrong, I support what we have caused the Amendment to evolve into, but I don't think the original authors had the forethought when it came to the battles over personal ownership we face today.

I think the important thing is to try to evaluate the second amendment with in the context of the rest of the Bill of Rights. When it is viewed in that context it is hard to argue that 2A was anything but a personal freedom being protected.

 

[tcox4freedom]

I voted some restrictions; because (IMHO) people in prison, illegal aliens & liberal politicians should NOT be allowed to carry firearms.

I think the "right" of "LAW ABIDING" citizens should supercede the rights of ALL criminals.

 

[cc2001]

I'd like to add that it includes all arms and is not limited to firearms.

 

[Razor Ray]

I think they omitted those three from the text as they were seen as criminals by the British crown, were illegitimates on American Indian soil and were as LIBERAL in their collective wants as the definition of that word.
Strict Consitutionalist speaking that is...

 

[Learningcircles]

according to 10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes, we are almost ALL in some sort of militia. This implies that anyone not currently serving in the federal army, or in an "organized militia" such as the National Guard, is automatically enrolled into the Federal unorganized militia.

EDIT: I PRESUME that the authors of this code intended it to blanket cover anyone who fought as a partisan in an invasion of the US homeland. That way, in a military tribunal they could be considered lawful combatants, and therefore covered by the Hague and Geneva conventions. AGAIN, that is my personal theory

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

Applying that definition to "militia" as stated in the second amendment, it looks like a WHOLE LOT of folks have the god-given, constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms.

 

[Chdamn]

We had just battled and then written one of the finest documents of personal freedom ever created and realized they had missed a few things that they thought were self evident but wanted to make sure so the pinned the bill of rights.

The way it is written "in order to form" means that in time of need you will be able to form. At the time the constitution was pinned it was commonplace to quickly form militias with any person that had a rifle in their possession. The interpretation that it means an existing, formed militia is not accurate. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed means exactly what it says "shall not be infringed.

The purpose of the second amendment was 2 fold. First, if the country was ever invaded (a real and present risk at the time) the people could quickly form a militia to throw back the invaders.

Second, the founding fathers were very wary of government control. As such, they wanted to insure that the people would always be able to form a militia to defend the freedoms that were guaranteed within the constitution.

There should be absolutely no infringements in the form or ordinance, controls or any other law banning anyone that is a citizen of the united states from owning any firearm that is on the market to be purchased. This includes automatic weapons and any law that says any certain sect of our citizenry cannot keep and bear arms.

Freedom first, your own personal beliefs second.

 

[Phudd]

So many people get this wrong. The Bill o' Rights does NOT grant anyone any rights. It was written to place some specific restrictions on the governments ability to restrict your God given rights.

 

[trcubed]

I voted some restrictions; because (IMHO) people in prison, illegal aliens & liberal politicians should NOT be allowed to carry firearms.

I think the "right" of "LAW ABIDING" citizens should supercede the rights of ALL criminals.

I don't believe our Rights as upstanding citizens supersede criminals' Rights as much as the criminals forfeit their rights for a time due to their actions against society. I have to be careful of placing myself above others because "there but for the Grace of God go I."

What about after they've served their sentences and are released? Should their rights be automatically restored to pre-conviction status or should they be required to petition for restoration? Should they even be allowed to petition for restoration? Who is qualified to make the judgement of whether or not a criminal has been truly rehabilitated?

And, considering the fact that our Rights are God-given, and the supposition that illegal aliens and liberal politicians are created by God just like you and I, why would they have fewer Rights? We get all wrapped around the axle when someone steps on our Rights...wouldn't that be us doing the same to an illegal or libtard..er..liberal politician?

Not trying to start an argument, tcox...just trying to understand another point-of-view.

I voted for no restrictions, btw. No permits, licenses, 4473's, NCIC checks, etc. Those may be well-intentioned to "protect the public," but they're infringements by any definition of the word.

 

[rburgoyne]

I picked the third option with "minimal laws for our safety" for a few reasons.

I believe only law abiding American "citizens" should have the right to own and carry guns. No illegal aliens, citizens of other countries, or convicted felons should be able to possess firearms for obvious reasons.

However, I don't feel every citizen should be able to purchase military grade weapons such as rocket launchers, high caliber machine guns, grenades and other explosive projectiles, etc. Could you imagine how many "Hey ya'll watch this" casualties there would be with those in the wrong hands? Accidental misfires happen all the time with careless people, can you imagine that with a rocket launcher or mortar? "I didn't realize it was loaded" is going to be a lot worse. Perhaps with special training on some things, but who really needs a fully automatic 50 cal to protect themselves anyway?

 

[jcbones]

but who really needs a fully automatic 50 cal to protect themselves anyway?

I do, when the military starts shooting at me with one, I want to be able to fend them off with the same weapons.

 

[Razor Ray]

I can almost hear the refrain, "Four Dead In Ohio, Four Dead In Ohio, Four Dead In Ohio..."

 

[JimB]

I'm trying to find where God gave me the right to bear arms, can anyone point me to it?

By the way I favor no restrictions of weapons for me, but very tight restrictions for everyone else.

Jim who is living I NC but trolling on CSF tonight

 

[Threejs]

I like the idea behind the second amendment, to help protect us from a tyranical government. But today, if our government were to turn the armed forces against the civilian population (and the armed forces went along with it.) A bunch of guys with ARs wouldn't stand much of a chance. Just sayin... That said, I would be one of the bunch.