From my cold dead hands: What does the term "infringe" mean to you?

Question

The argument the government uses to justify limiting what arms a person may own is that allowing some arms but not others, within a reasonable limit, is not an infringement of the right to bear arms.

First, do you agree with this assessment, or do you believe that any limitation is an infringement?

For those who are against gun control, is it because you think people should be allowed to own any weapon they please? I could make a crude chlorine bomb, and with a little time and study, I bet my dad and I could make a rocket with a range of about a mile in his garage. Given the materials (which I should be allowed to buy, if it is an infringement of my rights to prohibit arms) I think I could build a crude nuclear device. Will you defend my right to do so?
If not, what's the real argument against gun control? Is your objection with which weapons they allow and which ones they ban? Do you feel you don't have enough say? Should the Constitution be amended to define which arms are in?

For those who are for gun control, is it a violation of the Constitution, or do you think you can ban some weapons and not others without "infringing" this right? And at what point would it be an unconstitutional infringement of civil rights to ban weapons? Which weapons should be allowed or banned, and who should decide? Should it be outlined in the Constitution?

meathook, it doesn't make any difference why I need it. Is my right to own it legally protected, and does that need to change?

gym, that's a good point: how do you define arms? When the Constitution was written, you couldn't take a common, everyday item like a briefcase, and use it to destroy a skyscraper full of people... just like you couldn't shoot ten four-inch-long uranium-tipped bullets in a second. But we haven't changed the rules since then... so the question is, should all these devices be allowed, or is the current legal definition of infringement acceptable, or should we change the rules?

gay lover, the constitution does not specify that the weapons allowed are in any way related to the weapons used by the military. It's more of a rule of thumb, but it has no legal backing. Also, it only MENTIONS militias, so I'm not sure I agree with the SC that you have to be in a militia to own certain weapons... but even so, if I were in an organized militia, would you defend my right to middle-range chemical rockets? I'm not saying they should take away your right to own a gun, but I think we've got too much room for interpretation on the rules and we have to organize a little better.

Answer 1

Infringe is to limit in some way, its not the same as prohibiting. If the government were to prohibit anyone from owning arms it would be a cut and dried case of them violating your rights. That is why the founding fathers used the term infringe. It covers virtually any restrictive act that government imposes on the possession and use of arms. All laws that restrict in any fashion your ability to buy, own, possess and use arms are unconstitutional. And yes arms includes tanks, etc. I would make a distinction about chlorine bombs and nuclear weapons. These are WMD's that cannot be effectively aimed. They kill indiscrimintely therefore may not be considered arms in the classic sense. I don't think anyone has a right to own weapons that kill indiscriminately, not even a government.

As for the Second Amendment giving you the right to "keep and bear arms".... You have it wrong. The Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment does not grant you a right, it merely is a written prohibition against the governments violating that right. Your rights are inherent. They arise from being a sentient intelligent person. The right to own arms, free speech etc. etc. exist whether or not the Bill of Rights was written.

Answer 2

You should be allowed to own whatever the standard weapon of the U.S. military is at the that time. Back in the day it was a musket, today it would be an M16. The Constitution is clear on this! Liberals may claim otherwise, but its not true. Read everything that led up to the Constitution by the signers of the Constitution and you will see they meant the people are to have the right to bear arms. Period.

In the early days of this country gun control meant you HAD to own a gun. Every home had to have a gun. Now because of the left it means something different.

Do not let them take this fundamental right from us!

Answer 3

In a strict sense you are correct when you say any limitation on the guns you can own is an infringment on the right to keep and bear arms. However lets be honest. I cannot see any reason you would need to build a chemical or nuclear device other than to infringe on the rights of others. If the government had become tyrannical and revoked our God given rights then at that point, yes I can see what you would need a small A- bomb for but why would you need that other than to commit a terrorist act?

Answer 4

Say what you want, but he was one of the great actors of his time. Compare him in "The Omega Man" for example to Will Smith playing the same role in "I Am Legend"... wait! there is NO comparison...Heston gets the Oscar. As far as his stance on gun-control...he was simply invoking the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment which (for now) guarantees that we, military and private citizens, can own them. The problem is with guns in the hands of criminals or those who want to use them for ill-gotten gains, not hunters, gun enthusiasts or collectors. The Founding Fathers did not anticipate a society where non-militia men and women would become gun owners and would kill each other off by the thousands... how could they, we're talking around 1787 or so when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted and this era did not compare to the concrete jungle of today's society where in some neighborhoods, it's "kill or be killed!".

Answer 5

No infringement of any type is acceptable.

Keep in mind in colonial/revolutionary times heavy artillery and even warships were privately owned. All types of weapons are protected by the original intent of the Second Amendment, including your proposed chemical & nuclear weapons. Using them is of course a separate matter, just as one cannot argue that the Second Amendment gives them the right to shoot random pedestrians in the name of "bearing arms". Simple possession is unassailable under the plain text and original intent.

The entire purpose of the 2nd is to ensure the people have the same level of armament as the government as the government was seen as the main threat "to the security of a FREE state" (emphasis mine).

Answer 6

First of all, while the US Constitution mentions 'militias', you'll find that the state constitutions do not. Second, there are few weapons you can't have without the proper permit. Properly permitted and licensed, I could own a MiG-29. The only arms that are banned are those that could cause massive destruction, and have no reasonable purpose for a private citizen to own.

Answer 7

At this point in time, I believe any limitation the Government attempts on my right to bear arms is an infringement. These days I believe in the old adage "give them an inch and they will take a mile".

Answer 8

The USSC has ruled that the right to bear arms applies to an organized militia. US vs Miller 1937. They still consider this to be the gold standard for 2nd amendment cases. They dont take wide sweeping 2nd amendment cases anymore.

Answer 9

The constituition was written at a time when guns were necessary, they are no longer necessary in a civilised society the only people who need guns are criminals and saddos who get a hard on from having a gun.

Answer 10

that kind of stuff has nothing to do with the 2nd Adm..you cant have devices like that..unless you have a permit..an old man kill 6 people with his Buick..when he drove it into a open air market place..should we ban cars..come on think..