pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
The 2A: Constitutional Right or a Governmental Wrong?
#1
The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School has once again thrust the Second Amendment into the spotlight. Supporters of the Amendment claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter that even if that were the case, the federal government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers. To accomplish this, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a "declaratory and restrictive clause" to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its power" to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gov-right-gov-wrong.htm
MikeP, just an old guy that smells of garlic.
Reply
#2
Serious question, not trolling. I have a difficult time countering this argument. The goverment regulates and restricts the 1st amendment. The famous example is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is it ok for the goverment to regulate the 1st, but not the 2nd?
Deal_me_in, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#3
Deal_me_in;76357 Wrote:Serious question, not trolling. I have a difficult time countering this argument. The goverment regulates and restricts the 1st amendment. The famous example is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is it ok for the goverment to regulate the 1st, but not the 2nd?

I think you're taking it a bit too far with your example. The reason the government "restricts speech" in your example is because it can cause the death of people by trampling, etc.

In the same way, the government does already "restrict" guns in the same sense. Criminals cannot buy them. You cannot shoot people with them unless in self defense or war.

So, similar restrictions are ALREADY in place for both Amendments in the sense that if someone can be seriously hurt or killed, then it must be restricted.

Any speech that does not seriously hurt or kill someone should not be restricted (although it already is...just try saying something against a protected group of people, and its hate speech) just as owning a gun without seriously hurting or killing an innocent person should not be restricted.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#4
RugerGirl;76361 Wrote:
Deal_me_in;76357 Wrote:Serious question, not trolling. I have a difficult time countering this argument. The goverment regulates and restricts the 1st amendment. The famous example is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is it ok for the goverment to regulate the 1st, but not the 2nd?

I think you're taking it a bit too far with your example. The reason the government "restricts speech" in your example is because it can cause the death of people by trampling, etc.

In the same way, the government does already "restrict" guns in the same sense. Criminals cannot buy them. You cannot shoot people with them unless in self defense or war.

So, similar restrictions are ALREADY in place for both Amendments in the sense that if someone can be seriously hurt or killed, then it must be restricted.

Any speech that does not seriously hurt or kill someone should not be restricted (although it already is...just try saying something against a protected group of people, and its hate speech) just as owning a gun without seriously hurting or killing an innocent person should not be restricted.

What that comes down to is that we accept that government has the right to regulate firearms, we are just arguing where the line should be drawn. So we can't use the 2A to support our position as we've already conceded that government can regulate firearms without violating the Constitution. Maybe I'm confused, but like I said, I have a tough time with this one for whatever reason.
Deal_me_in, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#5
Deal_me_in;76357 Wrote:Serious question, not trolling. I have a difficult time countering this argument. The goverment regulates and restricts the 1st amendment. The famous example is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is it ok for the goverment to regulate the 1st, but not the 2nd?

You can yell fire in a crowded theater. The government does not restrict you from doing so.
What there is is a consequence if your right infringes others rights. (injuries)

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
The Second Amendment does not GIVE us the right. It tells the gov they can not infringe our right.
[Image: s2b0iw.jpg]
Reply
#6
No restrictions on arms at all. Pretty simple. Hence the short statement.
Soldats ! Faites votre devoir ! Droit au cœur mais épargnez le visage. Feu !
Reply
#7
kadar;76369 Wrote:
Deal_me_in;76357 Wrote:Serious question, not trolling. I have a difficult time countering this argument. The goverment regulates and restricts the 1st amendment. The famous example is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is it ok for the goverment to regulate the 1st, but not the 2nd?

You can yell fire in a crowded theater. The government does not restrict you from doing so.
What there is is a consequence if your right infringes others rights. (injuries)

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

Good point, Thanks.
Deal_me_in, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#8
Deal_me_in;76357 Wrote:Serious question, not trolling. I have a difficult time countering this argument. The goverment regulates and restricts the 1st amendment. The famous example is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is it ok for the goverment to regulate the 1st, but not the 2nd?

SCOTUS has said it is ok for the 2nd amendment to be regulated.
Reply
#9
Deal_me_in;76357 Wrote:Serious question, not trolling. I have a difficult time countering this argument. The goverment regulates and restricts the 1st amendment. The famous example is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is it ok for the goverment to regulate the 1st, but not the 2nd?

The 2nd is the only one that states "Shall not be infringed".
This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. -Ben Franklin
Reply
#10
That's the part they act like is not even there, and which has been utterly ignored by the legislatures and the courts.

It does specifically say SHALL NOT. In legaleze, shall not means "cannot."
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What's wrong with Merrick Garland? gascolator 2 576 03-24-2016, 08:36 AM
Last Post: Mr_Gixxer
  Puerto Rico is now Constitutional Carry jahwarrior72 8 1,449 07-06-2015, 11:41 PM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms
  Ohio Lawmakers Introduce Constitutional Carry Bill dc dalton 3 668 12-18-2013, 08:02 PM
Last Post: Stonewall
  Bloomberg: If You Sell a Gun to Your Son, 'There's Something Wrong in Your Family' Pocketprotector 4 684 04-16-2013, 03:39 PM
Last Post: Dave
  Safe New York Act Mishap: Wrong Guy's Guns Confiscated das 4 765 04-12-2013, 12:03 PM
Last Post: GregorOneEye



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.