Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

Hi DevilsAdvocate, I can't find the amendment to the constitution that the states radified giving the federal government the authority to regulate anything about my gun ownership.If you know where it is maybe you could point it out to me.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT, The constitution doesn't say anything about your right to own a gun, it gives you the right to bear arms. The federal government regulates guns because they are a weapon.They are regulated through these acts:National Firearms Act (1934)
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act (1968)
Firearms Owner's Protection Act (1986)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994 - 2004) (now defunct)Like I told Hyro, which he never responded to: If they made manufacturing guns illegal and shut down every gun manufacturer, IN NO WAY is the 2nd amendment violated. You still have the right to bear arms. source

quote:

---

The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.

---

You have the right to weapons not guns.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

did you really just say one of the most stupid things I have ever read on the net???You: wants guns to protect my home and familyRAZD: but stats show that in reality, having guns causes more damage to home and familyYou: ah, but cars kill people do I really have to spell out to you the utter fallacy of this? Cars by their very nature do not exacerbate the problem they are trying to solve. RAZD is claiming that the possession of guns exacerbates the problem they are trying to solve. THIS is what you have to refute. Try again.

Not all federal or state laws and regulations require a constitutional amendment. No one is taking away the right to bear arms guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. Therefore no constitutional amendment is needed. Amendments are only required when the US Constitution itself or other Constitutional Amendments needs to be modified.Regulation is required for gun control otherwise every joe blow could own a bazooka or a sub-machine gun if they wanted to. I don't think the framers of the US Constitution had these weapons in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Regulation and registration of weapons is not a removal of rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendement. If you think it is, show me how.Do we not regulate other rights and freedoms granted in the US Constitution i.e. free speach, freedom of religion, freedom of press, etc? One cannot sacrifice animals to Baal on Time Square or give a 30 minute monologue in the national or state capitol rotundum. It is by the will of the people through elected representatives that we determine how much regulation aka restrictions need to be in place. The same is true for gun rights.Furthermore the US Constitution states the following in Article VI, Clause 2:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."Thus granting the federal government the power to govern (including regulation of various mandates and rights).This power is supplemented with the 10th Amendment which grants powers to the states which are not explicitely outlined in the US Constitution or granted to the federal government.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Please Hyroglyphx, perhaps when you get back you can stick to the issues. Maybe one at a time ... No, I am deconflating two different things - a militia and the British army, which were conflated by Penn and Teller in their amusing, but unfortunately (for you) inaccurate, Youtube skit.Let's review the definition of militia again: Please note and acknowledge that this definition cannot be applied to the British forces, and thus that Penn & Teller were pulling a fast one on you when they implied that it was plain citizens fighting a militia, or there is no point in discussing things with you, as you appear unwilling to acknowledge false information as false information.It's very simple: they were wrong. Admit it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

The same can be said about murder. There are federal laws against murder. Do you think they are invalid?Also, you really need to understand reality before you make a lame argument. Gun control laws are rarely at the federal level, AWB is a notable exception. The radical right constantly harps for states rights and local determination, But as soon as states or localities make a law they do not agree with they go straight to the federal level.The Washington D.C. ban was a local law, not federal. The law in Chicago area is a local law, not federal. So what is it? Are gun rights a federal or local issue?Or do you want it in what ever way helps your argument at that moment?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I see this as the crux of the issue Hyro has with other debaters.He cannot conceive that someone can be pro-gun rights, but willing to call for gun control. For him it is an either/or dilemma. He is making a false dichotomy and reaches for spurious quotes and reasoning in order to back up this false dichotomy.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi DA, I take it then there is no amendment to the constitution that invalidates the second amendment.If there is no amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states no one has any authority to restrict the provisions of the second amendment.Which the Supreme Court has upheld.To change the provision of the second amendment the Constitution would have to be amended and the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Theo, Is there an amendment to the Constitution that says I have the right to commit murder?If not your argument is a strawman. The question is a Constitutional one.The Constitution gives individuals the right to have, and bear arms.The only way that can be infringed is for the Constitution to be amended voiding the second amendment. The only ones who has that authority is the states and it takes 3/4's of the states to amend the Constitution.The federal government can not change the Constitution.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

What does it take to count as an "infringement"?Not any and all regulation is an infringenment, no?

Sorry Oni,Guns are weapons just are Abrams tanks, F-16s and nuclear bombs.The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms which SCOTUS interprets to be handguns as well as long guns while allowing reasonable restriction on all arms and outright bans on unusual arms like tanks, fighter jets and H-bombs.See specifically Parker v District of Columbia, which SCOTUS affirmed in Heller, and United States v Miller a SCOTUS opinion.Edited by AZPaul3, : Clarification on citations.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Hi CS, According to the Constitution any attempted control would be an infrigenment unless the Constitution is amended, with the amendment being ratified by 3/4's of the states.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

United States v Miller, District of Columbia v HellerPlenty of restrictions on the Second Amendment."In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I'm not so sure this is true. I'm remember a past discussion where it was shown that the Supreme Court ruled that the term "arms" specifically meant firearms, as in guns. Assuming I'm correct, we would have the right to guns, not just weapons in general.I'll have to do some digging and I'll edit this with what I find.

Specifically in Heller:As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family, would fail constitutional muster.It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.