Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

2nd Amendment....shall not be infringed???

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by AGAF, May 24, 2011.

  1. AGAF

    AGAF On a Journey

    Oct 2, 2006
    Likes Received:
    I just don't get it. If the 2nd amendment is clear on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, and then it goes on to say that this right shall not be infringed, then why are there so many limitations in laws across states?

    For example, as a licensed CCW holder in Texas, there are laws that keep me from "legally" carrying my pistol to certain places. Examples would be government buildings, schools, anywhere that displays a 30.06 notification, places of worship, etc.

    My question is how can you tell a citizen that yes, you have the right to carry a firearm (keep and bear arms), but we are going to limit that right as we see fit?

    This just doesn't seem to fit with the latter part of the 2nd amendment where it states that these rights shall not be infringed.

    Just venting I guess.....Maybe I just don't understand the constitution or how this amendment was intended. Maybe someone who is better informed can elaborate.
  2. Jerry

    Jerry Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    Likes Received:
    Because “WE” let them. There just isn’t a large enough group of people willing to stand up and say “NO!” you CAN NOT infringe on our right.

    We only have those rights we are willing to fight for and there aren’t enough people WILLING to fight.

    These days WE ALLOW the gumment to infringe on every one of our rights. Say the wrong thing and you can be arrested for “HATE” speech. No knock warrants allow police to kick in the wrong door’s and kill people. But you’d better not shoot back. We allow them to seize private property of those “suspected” of breaking the law. I could go on and on but the bottom line is… WE ALLOW THEM TO DO IT. :steamed:
    Last edited: May 25, 2011

  3. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    Jun 20, 2002
    Likes Received:
    +1 For far to long We the People let the Minority Anti -gun crowd set the rules! Now We the people need to tell them what the laws should be!:supergrin:
  4. zysus


    Feb 7, 2010
    Likes Received:
    New Hampshire
    Unfortunately we all have become too lazy and tolerant of gov't screw ups. And their attempts to fix it just make it worse.

    If you vote for an incumbent... well... look where we are now.
  5. Glock940


    Apr 10, 2009
    Likes Received:
    There is a large number that will stand up, but they are all afraid of being arrested.
  6. MGD45


    Sep 27, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Because we have also allowed our Judges at the US Supreme Court to make rulings based on "interpretations" of the Constitution instead of simply going by the written word......this same court has concluded that there are about 9 "exceptions" to the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search & seizure.....

    Think about that......go read the 4th........they came up with 9 reasons to violate it....
    Last edited: May 27, 2011
  7. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    Mar 24, 1999
    Likes Received:
    Haven't you guys heard the names "Heller" and "McDonald"?

    They settled the question of the meaning of the 2AM. It provides for the individual right to keep arms in the home.

    At the moment it is restricted to "in the home" simply because that was the nature of both cases. The cases themselves simply did not address "To Bear" on the other side of your front door.

    41 of the 50 States have already seen the handwriting on the wall and have enacted "shall issue" CCW laws which settles the "to Bear" question so far as they are concerned.

    In the other 9 anti-CCW states that have Discriminatory or No CCW laws the "to Bear" question will be settled in the courts.

    I have read of cases already filed in Illinois (2 suits, filed in Federal court), New Jersey, and California.

    I predict that ultimately, the "to Bear" cases will result in 50-state shall issue CCW and nationwide reciprocity; just like drivers licenses today.

    Once it has been universally establised that we have the Right to Keep and Bear arms both inside and outside the home, the next to be addressed will be the "Infringed" part of the 2AM.

    In other words, just what are the limits of the Fed.Gov's authority to dictate just what sort of "Arms" we have the Right to Keep and Bear? It is impossible to deny a law abiding citizen the ability to acquire a military-style firearm without it being an Infringement of his RtK&BA.

    In other words, I predict that the 1986 Machine Gun "Ban" will be overturned. Machine gun production will resume.

    And while the NFA review process will remain in place, it will be effectively "shall issue" as regards machine guns and other NFA items, and the $200 transfer "tax" will be dropped (you cannot tax that which is a right to possess. In theory, if you have no money to pay the tax (setting aside the contradiction that you do have money to buy the MG) the "Right" is denied you. The NFA tax will be scrapped just as Poll Taxes were declared unconstitutional)

    Contrary to the above nay-saying comments, I believe the pro-gun situation today is better than it has been since GCA 1968 was passed and is going to continue to improve.
  8. Ruggles


    Jun 13, 2005
    Likes Received:
    I guess you could ask the same question about the 1st A as well. I think society interprets things like this all the time. The battle lies in that interpretation IMO. I think society has a right to place limits on "freedoms" as long as there is a clear and accessible way for the society to adjust or remove those limits as time progresses.

    The issue with the 2nd A is that is is very open to interpretation due to it's limited text.

    "Arms" = ?
    "Keep & Bear" = ?

    That is the debate that has raged and will continue too in the future IMO. Throw in the fact that the great magazine capacity debate is over something that is not a "Arm" by definition and thus is open to debate by opponents. Things are looking up lately though so I think the founders trust in society was well placed. :)
    Last edited: May 30, 2011