Originally Posted by PrimePorkchop
Ya know...i've been thinking about your words all day, and I have to admit that i'm ashamed that I didnt think of this on my own. You are exactly right.
Punishment for screaming fire in a theater *IS* a reaction, not a prevention. The crime was already committed.
Just wanted to give credit where it was due...*hanging head in shame*
DON"T be ashamed of expressing yourself.
For those of you who don't like long winded posts,its simple.
The government didn't create the right that the 2a is written to protect,therefor,it does not get to lawfully destroy that right (by denying it to people) or dictate the terms of its application or use (by regulating it).
Its that simple.
You don't need to read any further to get the gist of my post.
The blanket statement that "as long as americans (who have permission) can legally keep and bear arms (a list of allowed guns), regulation of firearms IS NOT unconstitutional." doesn't cut it.
The legislative authority,as well as the entire government,and by extension of the Supremacy Clause- the state governments who agreed to the Constitution as well,are bound by law to not infringe on the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Here is the definition of "infringe" from the Merriam Webster online dictionary:
"to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"
listed as "obsolete" is:
The obsolete is relevant because back when the words were used to formulate the Constitution,things might have meant slightly different things.
But we see that generally speaking that "to infringe" means pretty broadly to "violate,encroach,defeat,or frustrate".
This is a word with a pretty broad definition that in my opinion was intentionally used,in the Second Amendment, to make it clear that the government was not to "violate,encroach,defeat,or frustrate" the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Therfore,the government doesn't get to put up a whole host of regulations and restrictions that has the effect of telling people who can own what.
Saying it does basically legitimizes the ridiculous notion that people sometimes sarcastically comment about that if gun control advocates got the Second Amendment they wanted,we would all be limited to single shot bolt action .22 rifles,break breech single barrel .410 shotguns,and gate loaded 5 round .38 revolvers;and that only those specifically on government permission lists may own these weapons,that all weapons must be stored at special,licensed gun clubs,and that ammunition must be used the same day its purchased.
People can still,by definition of your assertion,legally keep guns (at the gun club) and bear them (while target shooting and hunting),right?
So,by your definition,the Second Amendment hasn't been infringed?
Another of the constant themes I keep coming across is all this "law abiding citizen" stuff as well as the ridiculous notion that background checks and other regulations do not infringe on the Second Amendment.
Where in the Constitution does it say you have to be "law abiding" to have inalienable rights?
Last time I checked,all you had to be is A HUMAN BEING ENDOWED BY YOUR CREATOR to have inalienable rights.
As well,the Second Amendment does not "grant" us the right it declares.It is actually a prohibition on government from infringing on that right.
Government does not grant us these rights,people.
These rights are ours by virtue of our humanity.
Government is incapable of taking them away or of designating that only those who abide by its rules get to have rights.In fact,when those conditions do exist,when government gets to dictate who has what rights,these are not "rights" at all,but government administered privileges
There is a world of difference between a government that has the power to treat "rights" as government administered privileges and a government restrained from infringing upon the inalienable rights of all humans.
For a good example,just look at the "rights" granted to people under the Soviet government of Russia.Oh yes,they had a "Constitution" and even a "bill of rights" in soviet Russia......go look it up.
Then compare that to what our Founders intended when they set forth to create a government limited by law to not being allowed to infringe on natural,inalienable rights.
I strongly disagree with your re-branding of "gun control" as "gun regulations".
I have looked for many years,but have yet to find in the Second Amendment where it says that government has the power to regulate arms.
I see where it says gov't doesn't get to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms,but I don't see where any exception is made to allow the "reasonable regulations" that are now being debated.
Also,I think your wholly in error when you claim these "regulations" work.
James Holmes abided by them and they did nothing to protect the lives of the innocent people he assailed.Same with Jared Loughner.
If someone who wants to do something bad wants to do it with a weapon,he'll find a weapon.
An interesting paradox also just occurred to me as well about this here.
The second amendment doesn't particularly say "firearms" does it?
So why all the regulations on just that type of arms?
The liberals would have you believe that its because guns are so easy to kill with.I disagree.Its just as easy to kill people with a sword,in fact hundreds of millions upon thousands of millions of people have died by the sword throughout history.
You could also use the blade to kill lots of unarmed people in one instance of mass murder.Theres no limit to how many times a sword or big knife can cut,stab or slash.
The reason why "gun control" exists isn't to prevent criminal mischief or to regulate one particularly dangerous or deadly form of arms.
Like weapons laws in ancient times in places like feudal China and Japan,and some conquered lands in feudal era Europe,these laws exist to create a class of people that are legally allowed the use of force by ownership of -MODERN WEAPONS-
vs. a class of people who are not,and are thus SUBJECT to the class that has the power.
These laws exist to deny some people the lawful use of modern weapons so that they may be subjected to those that have such power.
THESE LAWS EXIST TO CREATE A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF FORCE.
And I'm sorry,but no matter how you try to legitimize it,by claiming that certain people shouldn't have guns so we need these "laws" or by magically concocting a case for "reasonable regulation" in the highest court itself,this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that our Founders -after fighting off a tyrannical monarchy that sought to subject them by taking their arms,which in fact provoked the first battles of the Revolution at Lexington and Concord- wrote the Second Amendment to prohibit.
The only people that shouldn't have access to weapons -ANY weapons- are those incarcerated for committing crimes against their fellow man.
Otherwise,the entire concept of "gun control" "regulations'" whatever- serve no other purpose then to create a class of elite at the cost of those who are subjected to them,which is the EXACT kind of monarchical tyranny that our Founders escaped by fighting a revolution against.
That we as a people should have unfettered,unrestricted and unregulated right to arms is what the Second Amendment protects,and that there should be no group with a monopoly on the use of force in this nation is what its object principle entails.
It is one of the principles this nation was founded on.
"There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power. . . . An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority."
-Justice Samuel Chase,1798
To sum,I do believe that government has the right to require that people not be armed on its property.I believe government has the power to incarcerate people for violating the rights of others,and I believe it has the DUTY to see to it that they do not release people who will continue to behave in such a way.
I believe that private companies and private businesses and people have the right to ask other people to not be armed on their property.
I believe the government has the right to punish people for the misuse of their private property.
I believe in property rights and personal responsibility.
But I do not believe the government has the right to enact taxes that demand people pay them to own certain types of weapons,nor to I believe that government has the right to enact "gun control" laws that create lists of people who government will not respect the rights of,or arms classified as lawful or unlawful to own.
I believe the Second Amendment applies to all privately obtainable small arms,"arms" being,in fact,the exact word used by the founders in crafting the amendment,and that people have the right to own and carry these arms anywhere they have the right to be that does not infringe on the rights of others when they do so.
I do not place any credence in the argument that "if there were no regulations people would have nuclear weapons" because the last time I checked nukes weren't available at the local stores,making it a straw man argument without any merit because it is not possible,no matter how small they are,for an individual to obtain a nuclear weapon without the help of one nation state or another- which,by the way,SHOULD be regulated in their use of such arms.
Hell,some nations have been trying for quite some time to aquire these arms but haven't been able to.If its hard for an entire nation to do it,thinking that a single person,on his own,could is blatantly ridiculous.
Some gentlemen here even have evidence to suggest that people should be able to own hand grenades and such,but in my opinion the second amendment is and pretty much has always been about "arms" of a "small",or personal,nature.
Therefor,I think arguments about needing government intervention to prevent my neighbor from having a 500lb bomb in his basement are red herrings and have no real merit in a debate about personal ownership of small arms as protected by the 2A.
Ultimately,however,and as I'm fond of saying-
The people get the government they deserve.
Keep arguing for more government regulation as being necessary and lawful,and you'll end up being so regulated that you'll be lucky if you can still have single shot bolt action .22 rifles,break breech single barrel .410 shotguns,and gate loaded 5 round .38 revolvers.
Just don't say you weren't warned when it happens.