Where do YOU draw the line on the second amendment?

Question

The second amendment states; "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."

When it was written it was referring to the arms of the times; rifles, artillery, pistols. Nowadays arms comprises a very long list including nuclear bombs, biological weapons, (including infectious agents and neurotoxins) as well as automatic and semi-automatic weapons, grenades etc., etc.,

The right of people to bear arms HAS already been infringed because individuals cannot own particularly lethal weapons such as nukes and biological agents. The question is where should we draw the line that both respects the intent of the second amendment and protects the public safety? Where would YOU draw the line?

Please no nonsensical rants. Give me reasoned arguments. Thanks.

Answer 1

A safe approach is to draw the line at arms that fire projectiles, nobody can honestly claim the writers of the 2nd weren't thinking that way. Plus knives and other such old tech weapons that can be easily used by the individual. Maybe a limitation on caliber, because cannons should not be legal.

But high tech weapons like tazers...hmmm I don't know, it might be possible to electronically restrict the usage and ownership of anything with a microprocessor in it.

I'll be reading the other responses. Good question.

Answer 2

The Second Amendment is fine just the way it is. Extrapolation by saying, "well, such-and-such weapon wasn't invented when the amendment was written" doesn't hold water for the simple reason that the Founding Fathers were not trying to say whay TYPE of firearm you could or could not own; they were saying that you have the INALIENABLE RIGHT TO OWN a firearm. They left the clarification of types of weapons right where it should be - in the Congress.

The Firearms Act of 1934 is also fine just the way it is. This law sets sensible limitations on what kind of weapons the average citizen can own, and I think no other legislation - such as the inane laws outlawing "high capacity magazines" and "assault weapons" - are necessary. Realistically, such "feel good" legislation does absolutely nothing to secure public safety, despite what Slick Willy Clinton, Billary Clinton, and Sarah Brady may say. All this kind of legislation does is prevent the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN from exercising his/her rights and protecting themselves. After all, do you really think that the criminal is gonna care that he can't use a 15 round magazine in his stolen handgun when he robs you on the street? I mean, please.....

I agree with the concept of a national Concealed Carry law. I also think that such a law should be accompanied by a requirement to attend and succesfully complete a firearms training course before the permit is issued. I have a CWP (concealed weapons permit) and am here to tell you that having one saved my life in 1996 when two young punks tried to rob me at knifepoint late at night in a mall parking lot in Virginia. One look at my pistol, and the robbery attempt was over, the knife was lying on the ground, and the two gang-bangers were running for their lives.

I am a FIRM believer in the 2nd Amendment, a member of the National Rifle Association, and an American citizen who will vote against ANYONE who I think will infringe upon my rights.

ESPECIALLY BILLARY CLINTON!

Answer 3

"Shall not be infringed". Period.

When the Second Amendment was written, it was expected that the right to keep and bear arms would be most important in a scenario where the aggressor was the United States government itself. Most of the founders actually expected a revolution every 20 years or so. In order to preserve the security of a FREE state, the people at large needed be armed at least as well as the government, if not better.

In a way, it is the final measure in a system of checks and balances on the power of government. Such a right allows the people, in a worst-case scenario, to remove an oppressive government by force as well as (hopefully) providing deterrence to would-be tyrants.

Answer 4

I believe in the 18th century there was a very different need for a person to own a weapon. There were many settlements that were totally dependent on their own defense from marauding Indians and highwaymen. There was much more importance for a town militia in that day. The idea of the government taking arms away from militias was probably scary for more reasons than one.
Given the peaceful nature of the countryside today, if the 2nd amendment was written in these times, it might say the right to have a car may not be infringed upon.

Answer 5

The line is perfectly fine where we have it. Rifles of substantial power and capacity are already legal, and should stay. But machine guns and bazookas have been highly restricted since the Firearms Act of 1934. No new restrictions are needed.

We do, however, need a national concealed carry law. Anyone in possession of a concealed-carry license from any of the 50 states should be able to excercise it in the other 49, much like the reciprocity of driver's licenses.

Answer 6

I think a person should be armed to the point where he can defend his family and his property on an individual level. A group of people should be able to defend themselves from the government. It is not likely we will ever have nukes, but we see how insurgents are taking down military aircraft all the time.

The likelihood that our government would use nukes on its own people (despite Nazi Pelosi) is slim. If that would happen, no amount of arms would help.

I ranted a little, my meds are still being adjusted.

Answer 7

Since the 1934 law went into effect, all the crimes committed using automatic weapons have used arms illegally purchased or altered . The Swiss safely keep an assault rifle in most houses, and I think we could relax that law a bit without undue harm.
If my neighbors had a 155mm howitzer in their yard, I'd want the local noise ordinances enforced, but they're welcome to their cannon.
Thermonuclear devices and biologics aren't really "arms" at all, and the argument just doesn't apply.

Answer 8

the 2d modification covers numerous issues in its short quantity of area one concern it covers is we ought to continuously be aloud to hold weapons for self defence specially as secure practices against our government if the jews might have had this freedom in germany perhaps wwII could have been prevented the 2d modification additionally states we shouldnt have a status military it particularly is going to be in simple terms the reserves our fore fathers have been paranoid against government and we ought to continuously be besides if we live around the corner to an extremist with diverse stockpiled weapons i see no situation with that this u . s . became equipped by using extremists seem weapons avert diverse crime if everybody carried weapons we ought to have prevented columbine 911 and greater than a number of alternative rape crimes unwell permit you already know the place we draw the line however we draw the line at automatic weapons and explosives als we shouldnt enable voters to hold wmd's

Answer 9

personally, i don't. do i believe in booby traps? certainly. care to test the waters of my homeland security? come past the "no tresspassing" signs and watch me excercise the 2nd amendment.