Regardless of anyone's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I think most of us are aware of the FACT that there were absolutely no AR-15s anywhere on the planet when our 2nd Amendment was written.

I think it's fair then to conclude that none of us really know how the 2nd amendment would have been written if today's weapons had been around.

Whatever the case, if YOU were writing the 2nd Amendment today, where would YOU draw the weapons line for possession by civilians?

For example, would you allow civilians to carry improvised explosive devices like pipebombs? What about rocket launchers, flame throwers, poison gas, nuclear weapons, etc.?

"Arms" of course, can mean any of the above.

[www.naturalnews.com]
The Bill of Rights is not negotiable - SHARE this urgent declaration

...

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington

Why the Bill of Rights extends through all time and innovation

Importantly, the rights described in the Bill of Rights extend through all time and cover all innovations and technological advances. It was not written to cover only those things that existed in 1791, but rather to serve as a template of liberty encompassing innovation, advancement and all future expressions of those rights, regardless of what devices or technologies may come into existence.

The Right to Free Speech, for example, does not merely protect speech written on scrolls or rolled out of a Gutenberg press. It covers all expressions of free speech, including speech expressed through devices that did not exist in the late 1700's: e-books, websites, blogs, television programs, bumper stickers and more. This very website, Natural News is a pure expression of the First Amendment. It would seem foolish and wrongheaded to argue that the First Amendment only applied to the printing press of the day and not to modern-day websites or e-books, yet that is exactly what many misguided people argue today when they say the Second Amendment only applies to "Muskets and bayonets."

The Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear the firearms of your time. What are the firearms of our time? AR-15 rifles. 308 sniper rifles. 50 caliber Barretts. 12-gauge shotguns. Handguns with night sights and high-capacity magazines. Your right to own, carry, buy, sell and transfer these items is as solidly safeguarded as your right to free speech. The Bill of Rights is not negotiable.

Those who oppose the Bill of Rights are enemies of America

Some misguided, if not treasonous, U.S. Senators, lawmakers and public servants in the executive branch of government currently suffer under the dangerous misconception that the Bill of Rights only exists because they allow it to. They foolishly believe that they can selectively pick and choose which rights to nullify via new legislation or by the stroke of an executive pen. This delusion is not merely wrong-headed and arrogant, it poses a grave threat to the Republic and all its future generations.

Enemies of the Bill of Rights are enemies of America. Whether those enemies be found in the media, in Congress, in the Oval Office or on the streets of America, they are unworthy of being called "Americans" at all. Those who despise liberty do not deserve liberty. Those who deliberately and maliciously attack the Bill of Rights do not deserve the protections of the Bill of Rights. Those who despise the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are publicly indicating they would prefer to live as subjects, not Citizens.

I propose that any who attempt to denounce Bill of Rights protections for others must first surrender their own rights and freedoms. Do not speak of taking away my Second Amendment rights while you enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Surrender all your rights and freedoms first, because only then have you achieved the necessary moral consistency from which you can demand others be deprived of their rights.

Relocate to North Korea, in other words, and become a subject of Kim Jong-un and then continue your assaults of the Bill of Rights as a Korean gulag blogger. Because only then will you know how much you have lost, and how much you should have valued the liberties you so carelessly abandoned.

The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. If you oppose it, you betray not only yourself, but all Americans.

There may be a time when a sick person will have access to a technology to create a bomb to wipe out an entire city.

Simply because his girl friend dumps him and everyone else has to pay.

And that will NOT be negotiable because we will all be dead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2018 05:22PM by RawPracticalist.

OK. So with all that stuff about the bill of rights being "non-negotiable", and anyone who attempts to negotiate it is an enemy of America and should move to North Korea and all, somehow the word " arms" got CHANGED in the above interpretation to "firearms", which of course has a completely different and much more restrictive meaning. See ya in North Korea. Oh wait, looks like we can negotiate after all. That's why we have an amendments process written into the constitution, and that's why in fact we have a 2nd amendment.

I agree with rawpracticalist that some things aren't negotiable - like murder. And I think the example given in raw practicalist's post provides a clear scenario where it's not just the person doing the damage. The type of weapon factors in as well.

I respect John Rose's opinion. I think he means we should draw the line by interpreting "arms" to mean "firearms". That was also the opinion of a conservative supreme court on a 5-4 decision. But this also is negotiable, just like for instance the "separate but equal" supreme court ruling pre-civil rights. So does anyone else have an idea of where we should draw the line on arms possession? Background checks OK? What are some of the opinions out there?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2018 05:32PM by suncloud.

The big problem is that arms are becoming easier to produce and more powerful.

So if every one is allowed to have those powerful arms, then even the best law enforcement officers are at a disadvantage because the sick person can hide the bomb in his car and blow himself and every one else away in a busy street.

The best law enforcement officer is powerless if he does not know that the person in that vehicle has a bomb.

[screenrant.com]


The solution is to limit arm possession. There may be few that will have those arms illegally but society as a whole will be safer because the majority will not have them. Society cannot holds itself captive by a law that was written at a time when those types of weapons were not even envisioned.

[www.theatlantic.com]


The idea that everything around us evolves, our thoughts, society, the way we eat, and dress, education, science and technology, everything even our conception of God. But a law about gun ownership is untouchable while the power of the gun itself evolves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2018 06:50PM by RawPracticalist.

I agree with you RawPracticalist.

Are We safe yet more guns than population?


Raw practical right on this quote - The solution is to limit arm possession. There may be few that will have those arms illegally but society as a whole will be safer because the majority will not have them. Society cannot holds itself captive by a law that was written at a time when those types of weapons were not even envisioned.

Miami Herald Lists Nearly 1200 Kids Killed By Gun Violence Since Parkland
By David Barden
Twitter users were quick to comment that the government's inaction on gun control was "the real national emergency."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2019 05:21AM by riverhousebill.