Where do YOU draw the line on the second amendment?
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.
Revoking Constitutional rights of convicted felons?
I have asked a similar question like this in the past. I still do not know how the government can strip a felon of his right to bear arms. The second amendment, nor any part of the Constitution does not say a felon can't own a weapon. And before the argument starts, DC vs. Heller has stated that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, so enough with that militia only garbage. That being said, my question is, why can we strip a felon of his/her 2nd amendment rights for life, even if the crime was unrelated to violence? Such as bank fraud, or embezzlement. It is a right, not a privilege. Secondly, and more importantly, if we can strip a person of their second amendment rights, well then why not their first amendment rights? Why can't we tell a convicted felon to shut up? Why can't we take away their right to peacefully assemble, or practice religion, or even basic free speech? Why can't we strip convicted felons of their 4th amendment rights, and give police the power to pat any convicted felon down, warrant or not? If you have a logical answer as to why their 2nd amendment rights can be stripped away, I hope you have a logical answer as to why their other rights CANNOT be stripped away.
Does the Second Amendment to the US Constitution allow private citizens to own cannon? If not, should it?
Yes, it traditionally has, and indeed was fully intended under the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, when the Constitution authorizes “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” those are authorization from the government for civilians to take their private warships out into open waters and use their private cannons to blast the warships of enemy countries and seize the ships and goods of their merchants at gun point.It would have been pretty difficult historically for civilians to utilize the legal ability to privately wage war on the high seas against enemy nations without cannons (An ability that was heavily utilized in the War of 1812, for example). So not only was the private ownership of cannons fully allowed and intended, but instead that civilians would own cannons is literally presumed, as it is a necessary component of letters of marque.Whether the courts will choose to read this in historical terms going into the future is always more sketchy. While the Constitution indisputably intended for and presumed the private ownership of cannons, the courts are not always great fans of the US Constitution, and reflect this in their rulings sometimes. So it is possible that the anti-Constitutional wing of the Supreme Court or lower courts could rule against it eventually, but like most 2nd Amendment issues, it hasn’t really been adjudicated fully yet.
Where should we draw the line when it comes to gun laws in the US?
Try applying an analogue of whatever law is in place to any of the other amendments on the bill of rights. If it would be infringing on that other right, the line has been crossed.Here are some analogous examples:Imagine laws that limited you to only 10 words of free speech per conversation.Or said you must have a state-specific license in order to talk in public.Some states could just tell you that outside of your house, you may not speak at all.Some states respect other states’ license to publicly speak, but not all. Each state must sign an agreement of reciprocity in order to allow it.What if you had to be 21 years old in order to practice free speech?How about background checks being required in order earn the ability to use certain words or phrases.Felons lose their right to free speech for at least 5 years after their conviction. Sometimes permanently.Being dishonorably discharged from the military may cause your right to free speech to be revoked.Speaking faster than a certain speed, or without taking a noticeable break between words, is prohibited.If you want to speak in California you are only allowed to use specific words in specific ways, with a maximum of 10 words per sentence. Then you must pause for at least 15 seconds between sentences to make sure the people listening to you have time to walk away if they want.Books full of words are only for military purposes because there’s no reason any regular citizen needs that many words.Do any of those make sense? No, they do not. Every one of those laws, when applied to the 2nd, infringes on it. That list is by no means exhaustive when compared to the absurd restrictions placed on the 2nd, and every one of the items I listed does exist in the “2nd amendment” world.I think a hard line should have been drawn when the original legislation of the early 1900s was passed. Once that small ground was taken, it’s been more and more and more ground lost. The “slippery slope” is real, and the current restrictions prove it.To any naysayers who want to rebut this by claiming that words or speech aren’t dangerous: You’d better think long and hard before making that claim, use a bit of common sense and self-awareness, and I would also suggest you visit your local library and study a bit of history. (This almost makes me want to launch into a diatribe about the revisionist history being pushed by the current educational institution, but I digress…)