ruffhaus

Registration and licensing is infringment. Owenrship of weapons is a specific and fundemental right provided for by the Constitution. It is not a privilege like operating an automobile that the state can provide permission for.

If this is true than why are these laws on the books?
National Firearms Act (1934)
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)

And why do most states also have gune registration laws?

Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws. For instance, some US states have created assault weapon bans that are similar to the expired federal assault weapons ban.

The government has historically tried to restrict and/or remove the rights of its citizens.

Randy, I agree that the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent government tyranny (of course it was directed against a central government and not state government, but I think that an analogous argument can be made). The problem is that technology has made it very difficult to maintain a viable ability of the public right to resist tyranny through having access to arms without endangering public safety.. When the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) was written Concord and Lexington were less than 15 years old where muskets wielded by militia units won a victory against soldiers of the central government. So muskets could be used to defeat tyranny then, whereas we would need at least machine guns, RPGs, etc to defend against armed soldiers today. So if you're going to be consistent, we should allow the selling of machine guns and rockets, if the purpose is to defend against government tyranny. Which is it?
If you agree that it would be insane to have ordinary people having access to highly destructive weapons, then you really don't have a Second Amendment right anymore--you have a made-up right to have guns for self-protection and hunting

freeman2 wrote:Randy, I agree that the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent government tyranny (of course it was directed against a central government and not state government, but I think that an analogous argument can be made). The problem is that technology has made it very difficult to maintain a viable ability of the public right to resist tyranny through having access to arms without endangering public safety.. When the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) was written Concord and Lexington were less than 15 years old where muskets wielded by militia units won a victory against soldiers of the central government. So muskets could be used to defeat tyranny then, whereas we would need at least machine guns, RPGs, etc to defend against armed soldiers today. So if you're going to be consistent, we should allow the selling of machine guns and rockets, if the purpose is to defend against government tyranny. Which is it?
If you agree that it would be insane to have ordinary people having access to highly destructive weapons, then you really don't have a Second Amendment right anymore--you have a made-up right to have guns for self-protection and hunting

As a lawyer, can you please illumine us by pointing out other rights specified in the Constitution that are "made up?"

I made a point about the Second Amendment. I have a feeling that Randy will have a well- reasoned response. You do have the "Right to Remain Silent" instead of posting jibes without content.

As DF asked(much more succinctly than I), what other Amendments are "made-up"? I was asking for the difference between the 2nd, and voting rights,

I posted a link to the US Constitution Amendments for convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

freeman2 wrote:I made a point about the Second Amendment. I have a feeling that Randy will have a well- reasoned response. You do have the "Right to Remain Silent" instead of posting jibes without content.

You posted a "jibe" about a "made up right." You said the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid: ". . . then you really don't have a Second Amendment right anymore--you have a made-up right to have guns for self-protection and hunting."

Maybe you should heed your own advice and take the fifth if you simply don't like the Constitution.

It's amazing that liberals don't like "original intent" in the vast majority of cases (and therefore have no problem with "made up rights"--like gay marriage) but claim to know what the Framers intended about the Second Amendment.

If Americans agree with you, they are free to amend the Constitution. That's why we have the amendment process. YOU, personally, are not endowed with the ability to edit the document as YOU see fit.

That's not a jibe; it's the law.

I think what freeman is talking about is a made up interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

danivon wrote:I think what freeman is talking about is a made up interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

"Shall not be infringed" is not very ambiguous.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringe

to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate.

Which leads us to the definition of "Encroach"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/encroach

To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily

Gradually is the case here.

I know what 'infringed' means. But I'm not aware that significant other rights in the Constitution are absolute. This thread started off asking, in the wake of a particular case, whether people with, for example, a higher risk of mental problems, should have the same right as everyone else. We have, for various reasons, abrogated rights for similar reasons of mental faculty.

And I agreed with you that the needs to be similarity with car driving rights. License, proficiency, and ID were named. I also asked what the difference(s) between the 2nd Amendment and voting rights is/are? No answer on that one. Why does ID need to be shown for a legal citizen to prove citizenship and proof of who you are to buy a gun when not needed for voting. I would argue that voting is more important, and more in need of ID.

fate

The government has historically tried to restrict and/or remove the rights of its citizens.

If all the laws I listed are infringements on the 2nd amendment.....
and they are acceptable.
Then more regulation and more laws regulating firearms is equally acceptable.
Now, you gentlemen may individually disagree with the term acceptable.
However since these laws have been in place since 1934 I think that is evidence that the laws are indeed acceptable to society at large.

freeman

I agree that the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent government tyranny

Perhaps when written.. But every single time that American citizens have stood up and violently opposed their governments they have been arrested (or killed) and imprisoned. And those rebellions have never developed past the first confrontation with authority.
It is perhaps a right to hold weapons with this purpose but unless successfull - rebellion or armed insurrection is considered treason. And the people who act on their right are treated as such.
Whats noble in this? Whats worth preserving?

Ok, Brad, Randy and Steve. Would you be so kind as to tell us a) whether in your view the 2nd Amendment confers the right upon the citizen to privately own any and all forms of weaponry and b) whether you personally support this right. Please try to answer the question without reference to cars, voting, kitchen knives, alcohol and other irrelevant fripperies.

rickyp wrote:fate

The government has historically tried to restrict and/or remove the rights of its citizens.

If all the laws I listed are infringements on the 2nd amendment.....
and they are acceptable.
Then more regulation and more laws regulating firearms is equally acceptable.

You don't know that. No one knows until the USSC rules.

Now, you gentlemen may individually disagree with the term acceptable.
However since these laws have been in place since 1934 I think that is evidence that the laws are indeed acceptable to society at large.

Restrictions get overturned all the time, see Heller.

freeman

I agree that the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent government tyranny

Perhaps when written.. But every single time that American citizens have stood up and violently opposed their governments they have been arrested (or killed) and imprisoned. And those rebellions have never developed past the first confrontation with authority.

You are, if possible, even more confused than freeman2.

Having a right to guns does not equate with a right to rebel against the government.