does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules?

[Rob72]

At 18--you can vote, join the military, enter into contracts, die for your country.

A very interesting book on child psychopathology gives a clear summation of why the restriction of rights is a valid concept, but in essence:

Actually, until the age of 25 (average), your logical thinking skills are limited in risk-assessment and cost-value assessment. This is a clinical fact, and one that has been recognized by insurance agencies for many years.

The common experience and frequency of continental wars used to kill off the foolish and psychopathic in sufficient quantity that their overall affect on the "mature" populace was retarded. Since we are "kinder and gentler" now, and do not have wars on the scale we once did, we now have gangs. See how we deal with them and their impact on society and draw your own conclusions. (I can get the title/author tonight, if anyone is interested)

Bottom line, to me, is that we treat our children too much like children, for waaay too long, in the First World. Maturity comes with some pain and suffering from bad decisions, and having to deal with the consequences oneself. Given our modern structure, it is a rare 18y/o that I would trust with a firearm in an open social setting (vs being in combat, hunting, at the range, etc.,), where a forceful, mature authority figure was not closely, intimately, present to restrain the testosterone.

Regarding felons, in the traditional sense of the word(rape, murder, armed robbery, hostage taking), and not many of the BS "ratings" of felony one can be convicted under today, the demonstration of asocial behavior demonstrates that the individual does not wish to participate in society, but feed off it. That is, to me, a personal declaration effectively saying that one does not wish to have the rights of a citizen.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[fordfreek]

Tank:
I am not well versed in the Constitution, but what you are saying is that the states can pretty much disregard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? That is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote it? So, our rights are safe at the federal level but states could completely disregard the bill of rights? Each state could actually outlaw everything? So really what good is it to have a Bill of rights if it doesn't mean squat in your state?
I know we elect our officials for state but couldn't the wrong people get into office and abolish all our rights? Confiscate weapons and abolish the rest of the bill of rights, what recourse would we have then, who could protect us?
I just don't understand how the writers of the constitution would think that is right?? It isn't ok for the federal goverment to do it but the it's ok for the states to do it?

Maybe I just don't get it, but it sounds wrong to me.

[mzmtg]

The analogy that the right to free speech does nto give one the right to yell fire in a theater is irrelevant.

All of these gun laws create posession crimes. Posession of anything should never be a crime. Telling me that I can't own a handgun when I'm 20 years old means that you think I will have NO CHOICE but to use it to violate the rights of others. I certainly do have that choice. Telling me that I can't carry a gun in a federal building means that you think I would have NO CHOICE but to use it to commit a crime against others. I certainly do have that choice.

Making the mere posession of any item or substance into crime is clear illustration that the government does not trust its people at the most basic level.

I think convicted felons SHOULD be allowed to own guns and to vote. Either a person has paid their debt to society or they haven't. If they cannot be trusted to own a gun, then they cannot be trusted to walk among us as "free" man, send them back to prison.

[cmidkiff]

I can't believe what I'm seeing... let me rephrase... I can't believe I'm seeing it HERE. I'd expect to see debates about which 'reasonable' gun control laws we support, if this were taking place on elitist underground!

"I think group 'X' shouldn't own guns." No matter what 'X' is... what makes you think you're better than 'them'? Kids aren't developed enough to be responsible for a weapon before some arbitrary age? I suppose your scientific studies found that _all_ children mature at exactly the same rate, and arrive at 'responsible' the day they turn 25, right? The insurance companies play the odds... that's fine for them, but it's completely unacceptable to restrict our rights based on the same 'lowest common denominator' approch.

I know a 50 year old man who should _never_ have access to anything more dangerous than a butter knife, that doesn't mean the government should prevent it! How about taking rights away from people with an IQ less than some arbitrary level? Poor people are more likely to be criminals, how about banning weapons for people below the poverty level? Blacks outnumber whites in our jails, how about banning them? How can you read this tripe and not think 'Elitist pig'?

If you are a free citizen of the United States of America, you have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, as granted by our creator, and recognized by our constitution. This right is not to be infringed. The fact that we've been living with infringements to this right for the last century doesn't make it right!

You don't think your minor child is capable of safely owning a firearm? Fine with me, don't let your child buy one! That's your business, and I'll stay out of it. If I decide that my 14 year old daughter, who has excellent range manners, is ready for her own .22 pistol... what's it to you?

Don't think that violent convicted felons should own weapons? Open your eyes, people THEY HAVE THEM! Regardless of any law we pass, they will continue to get them. The laws that we pass trying to restrict their rights only end up restricting OURS. A violent criminal, by definition, doesn't care what the law says! Just a thought... If a convicted criminal is assumed to be a danger to society, what are they doing out of prison!

Stingers? Get a grip, folks... The constitution is talking about individual arms, not weapons of mass destruction. Commentary by signatures of the constitution make it very clear, the intention is for the people to have access to the same types of weapons as are issued to military personel of the day.

By trying to restrict who should own firearms, or which firearms should be available, we are handing our inalienable rights back to the government because we don't trust ourselves, and saying that we'll accept whatever portions of our right the government decides we should be trusted with. Senator Feinstein would be proud.

Unacceptable.

[denverd0n]

...but 18 is NOT a minor

In some states 18 is still a minor, in others not. The laws are mixed, but basically the point at which you are legally responsible for your own decisions and actions is the point of majority. In a lot of states that is still 21.

[denverd0n]

Just about everything is a shade of grey in real life.

True, but laws have to be written in black and white. That's why I had a problem with the poll.

For example, I believe that kids under 21 should be allowed to own their own firearms. On the other hand, the Second Amendment does not REQUIRE that such be allowed. We can, and do, put restrictions on minors. They do not have the same rights (or responsibilities) as adults. Hence, the Second Amendment does not apply to them in the same way that it does to adults.

Same thing with felons. They do not have the same rights as law-abiding citizens. They cannot vote, for instance, unless a judge restores this right to them (which, nowadays, happens almost automatically). So, the Second Amendment does not apply to them the way it does to you and me.

I would also say that registration and licensing schemes are legal under the Second Amendment, so long as they are of the "shall issue" type. The problem is that we all know that when the antis support licensing and registration it is because they hope to build lists that they can use later to infringe on our rights. Any such infringement would be (IS!!!) contrary to the Second Amendment.

As for the arguments about whether or not the Second Amendment limits the states (or only the federal government), it does. When originally written it didn't, but we now have the 14th Amendment. Whether or not it corresponds to the original intent of the founders, the 14th Amendment is now a part of the Constitution and as such is just as valid and binding as any other part. You have to look at the Constitution as a whole, including all the Amendments. What's more, whether you agree with their rulings or not, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, and so you have to live with the fact that (unless or until overturned by a later Court) their rulings are also just as valid and binding as anything written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

[packinnova]

[QUOTE=Rob72;183777]

A very interesting book on child psychopathology gives a clear summation of why the restriction of rights is a valid concept, but in essence:

Actually, until the age of 25 (average), your logical thinking skills are limited in risk-assessment and cost-value assessment. This is a clinical fact, and one that has been recognized by insurance agencies for many years.

The common experience and frequency of continental wars used to kill off the foolish and psychopathic in sufficient quantity that their overall affect on the "mature" populace was retarded. Since we are "kinder and gentler" now, and do not have wars on the scale we once did, we now have gangs. See how we deal with them and their impact on society and draw your own conclusions. (I can get the title/author tonight, if anyone is interested)

Bottom line, to me, is that we treat our children too much like children, for waaay too long, in the First World. Maturity comes with some pain and suffering from bad decisions, and having to deal with the consequences oneself. Given our modern structure, it is a rare 18y/o that I would trust with a firearm in an open social setting (vs being in combat, hunting, at the range, etc.,), where a forceful, mature authority figure was not closely, intimately, present to restrain the testosterone.

Regarding felons, in the traditional sense of the word(rape, murder, armed robbery, hostage taking), and not many of the BS "ratings" of felony one can be convicted under today, the demonstration of asocial behavior demonstrates that the individual does not wish to participate in society, but feed off it. That is, to me, a personal declaration effectively saying that one does not wish to have the rights of a citizen.

I'll agree with this for the most part - especially your "bottom line". Most problems with "children" and firearms can be resolved at the societal level. A large majority of the problem is that our newer society has deemed a strict age limit to define minors or adults. If I'm not mistaken, historically speaking, many "minors" in the old days were old enough to be married and had children(ie 13 and 14ys). Many of the ancient societies treated one as an adult once they got into sexual maturity.
[p]A child is going to continue to act as they are treated. We treat children as children way too long in our current society. At 18yrs of age, a person should be well mature enough to act as an adult on their own without any outside intervention. To be honest, I'd say at 16 they should be old enough, but we treat them as children anyway so that is all they know how to be.[/p]

[p]Look at the studies of the children found without parents living alone with no outside contact in places such as the old soviet union. Many of them even at 18, 20, 25, and even older...still act as children and never developed a higher maturity level as they were never influenced to. They had a special on those type of people on the discovery channel a few months back. The way I see it, a childs maturity development is directly related to their outside influences.[/p]

[Tubby45]

The first clause of the 2A is the justification and the second is the right granted. Basically it is saying the people have the right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. This is the interpretation of the SCOTUS and scholars alike. This is also why the courts have upheld that the people in and of itself is the militia.

As far as the Federal law regarding who is the militia goes, read the clause where it says it doesn't grant you any more or less rights than another citizen. And the one about the militia being comprised of more than just the ones listed.

Also, the Constitution doesn't apply to children under the age of 18, like it or not.

[Rob72]

Kids aren't developed enough to be responsible for a weapon before some arbitrary age? I suppose your scientific studies found that _all_ children mature at exactly the same rate, and arrive at 'responsible' the day they turn 25, right? The insurance companies play the odds... that's fine for them, but it's completely unacceptable to restrict our rights based on the same 'lowest common denominator' approch.

Let me rephrase what I said: If carry were allowed in all 50 states, and "Just Cause" constituted any moron who thought he had something to prove (aka, I can shoot the little ******* puffing his chest and flashing his gun with no-fault, no-foul) I would have no problem with unrestricted carry. Again, there is historical precedent. How many "Gunslingers" got clubbed senseless by seasoned Sherriffs, or were shot when they pushed too far too fast?

I said, this is an "AVERAGE", and unless and until we have a radical social change, and universal adoption of "Personal Responsibility", there have to be restrictions. We do not live in Eutopia. Until it is abundantly clear that stupidity kills with immediacy, we will have "Y'uts" establishing their Manhood/Individuality/Rebelliousness/Whatever in inappropriate and dangerous ways.

The formation of the descision-model isn't a matter of debate- its the reason most violent crime is committed by the 18-25 year olds, why they die in greater proportion in alcohol/drug and motorvehicle related incidents. Its also why 16-20 yos charge beaches, jump out of planes, etc.. If you live to 25 in a dangerous occupation- you are a veteran, and you are capable of balencing your ability against the challenge. Before you reach that point, you are running on the belief in your own invincibility. It is not true of every individual, but it is true of the majority. Cops, EMS and similar, feel free to chime in here- we've all seen it. Do you have more confidence in the decision making of the 30yo Sergeant, or the 18 yo private? Yes, there are exceptions, but play the odds, with your life......

Violent felons, above the age of 35, are no less dangerous, but statistically, are less likely to commit the random, erratic acts of their sons (and occassionally daughters). Whether judgement, a sense of mortality, or just fatigue sets in, the pattern is present.

If we had a medium which allowed the dangerous high-risk takers to expend their energies and/or get killed off, I would have no problem with universal, unrestricted carry. Until the Great Pandemic wipes 80% of the population out, that won't happen.

[AceRider]

I suppose your scientific studies found that _all_ children mature at exactly the same rate, and arrive at 'responsible' the day they turn 25, right? The insurance companies play the odds... that's fine for them, but it's completely unacceptable to restrict our rights based on the same 'lowest common denominator' approch.

Wait a second - isn't the whole concealed carry concept based on the lowest common denominator approach? You (read, one, not YOU) carry a weapon despite an overwhelming majority of people in America never having the need of it in their entire lives, but given the premise of "you never know when you may need it," you carry. You are protecting agains a slim, slim, slim set of odds.

The odds are that not every adult can handle the responsibility of a weapon in easy reach at any given time. Why not assume this unless proven otherwise? Carrying protects against a small odd of need; regulation would protect against that (small?) portion of the population which shouldn't be carrying.

There's plenty of nuts out there (people who can't control their tempers, timid people, drunks, drug users, etc.) who I absolutely would not want walking around with weapons.

Is there a foolproof way to find out whose qualified to carry? No. Should the attempt to qualify people be made? I think so.

I would guess that the founding fathers would not have said arm every citizen without question. But there is no way to set in simple words the right to bear arms, so they left it at that. The constitution is a guideline, not an abolute, follow to the T set of instructions for every possibility and circumstance.

[TN_Mike]

I don't believe the Federal Government should be able to tell me how to do one single damn this. From carry / own a gun to how I live my life.

The one thing I know is this: the older I get, my carry permit is less a source of pride and more of a thorn in my side.

I should not need to carry a small piece of platic with my name and photo on it so that I can exercise a God given right.

[SixBravo]

First off, I will say that this poll is too..... unjointed? Its a good poll with too many choices.

I think that is perfectly OK for a person under 18 to buy any gun - however, a background check should be done against the owner and their parents - similar to a handgun purchase. Possibly some sort of liability to the parents (signature and copy of drivers lisence or CCW required) would be a neccesity. That is, until a certain age - say 13 or so.

This is more of a case-by-case basis, though. Some kids mature faster and understand firearms at earlier ages than others. That's all I can say. I know some kids that owuld be fine owning a handgun, but other adults that shouldn't own one period.

I think, personally, gun laws are fine like they are. Lieniency should be given in certain cases, but like i said... case-by-case. Maybe have the local Sherrif's Office or PD have the ultimate choice.

But, like I said - too broad. I could go on for a single kind of weapon (an eight year old has no right or reason to own a Class III weapon) but others are easy.

[gotammo]

I personly beleive that some regulation is neccessary but I also believe that most states have gone way to far having said that, if federal law trumps state law and the fed. gov. is goverened by the constitution then how can a state make laws that mean anything if they go against the constitution our inalienable rights?
If everyone has the same rights under the constitutioin then everyone and anyone should be able to carry criminals alike no?
To restrict one group of people no matter how good or bad they are is that not against the right of the people (nothing being said about being in good standings in the community) shall not be infringed part, if its ok to restrict them how can it not be ok to restict others?
If some commits a crime with a gun that is why we have criminal statutes.
The criminals are the only ones that are not limited by the law by the very nature of being a criminal so even if carry for them was legal for them the number of guns in the hands of criminals would probably be the same as they don't seem to a problem getting them now.

[AceRider]

I don't believe the Federal Government should be able to tell me how to do one single damn thing.

Not to obey the speed limit or stop at a stop sign or don't rob someone? Nothing?

If you want that kind of freedom you have to live totally disassociated from the rest of society. Otherwise, there are expected norms to conform to.

You still have your "god given" right to carry, you just have to prove that you are not a criminal and that you have a bare minimum of training first and in order to prove that you've accomplished that, you need to have your license with you. What's wrong with that?

[cmidkiff]

...unless and until we have a radical social change, and universal adoption of "Personal Responsibility", there have to be restrictions. We do not live in Eutopia.

You're right, we don't live in eutopia... if we did, none of us would need to be armed. Until _that_ radical social change happens... I will be armed. I don't understand what 'restrictions' you are arguing for. The only constitutional method of denying someone their rights is as punishment for a criminal act. I stand by my position... if a person is proven to be a danger to society, they should be locked up. Otherwise, they are an American citizen, and should have the same rights as every other American citizen.

I would guess that the founding fathers would not have said arm every citizen without question.

The founding fathers did, in fact, want every citizen to HAVE THE CHOICE to be armed... and they were quite vocal and clear on the subject. That's why the 2nd amendment was written, to ensure that every citizen had the right to be armed. 'We, the people' is inclusive of every citizen of this nation.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
Richard Henry Lee

The great object is that every man be armed.
Patrick Henry

The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
Alexander Hamilton

The 'we' that our founding fathers were talking about is us... the people of this land. All of the people.

Is there a foolproof way to find out whose qualified to carry? No. Should the attempt to qualify people be made? I think so.

The poll tests given to keep blacks from voting was unconstitutional, and was eventually recognised as such. No test is required for me to exercise my right to free speech, freedom of religion, or any other RIGHT protected by our constitution. Any attempt to 'qualify' people for exercising their right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally abhorrent. A free citizen of the united states of america either has the right to keep and bear arms, or he doesn't. If we ourselves believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege that can be controlled and regulated at the governments whim... then we have no rights.

The odds are that not every adult can handle the responsibility of a weapon in easy reach at any given time. Why not assume this unless proven otherwise?

Guilty until proven innocent, is it? Our society is based on the pricipal that all men are created equal, and have basic rights granted to them by their creator (any of this sounding familiar??). There is _no_ basis for assuming someone unworthy of exercising their rights until proven otherwise. What does 'inalienable human rights' mean to you?

Here's one more quote for you...
I don't believe gun owners have rights. The Second Amendment has never been interpreted that way. Now I am not for taking guns away or denying guns to law-abiding citizens, but I don't think it's a constitutional right that they have, and every court case that's ever come down has shown that.
-Sara Brady

PLEASE think about what you are saying... By assuming that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms to ALL OF THE PEOPLE... you're arguing Sara Brady's position!

I say again... UNACCEPTABLE