Does the freedom to bear arms have limits?

[DarkShadow]

I was recently debating a friend of mine on gun rights. A point that he brought up was that the second amendment could be construed in a way to own nuclear weapons and rocket launchers since they are considered arms. Should the second amendment have limitations? And if so, how would we set these limits without putting a breach in the constitution? What are your thoughts on this?

~DarkShadow

[AmazingDomo]

Sept 15, 2013 2:41:21 GMT DarkShadow said:

I was recently debating a friend of mine on gun rights. A point that he brought up was that the second amendment could be construed in a way to own nuclear weapons and rocket launchers since they are considered arms. Should the second amendment have limitations? And if so, how would we set these limits without putting a breach in the constitution? What are your thoughts on this?

~DarkShadow

Yes, obviously you wouldn't want people running around with rocket launchers and machine guns!

[Gipper]

Sept 15, 2013 2:41:21 GMT DarkShadow said:

I was recently debating a friend of mine on gun rights. A point that he brought up was that the second amendment could be construed in a way to own nuclear weapons and rocket launchers since they are considered arms. Should the second amendment have limitations? And if so, how would we set these limits without putting a breach in the constitution? What are your thoughts on this?

~DarkShadow

Constitutionally speaking, it says nothing about the use of rocket launchers and nuclear weapons. I do not think they foresaw those kinds of weapons. However, logically speaking...to best preserve our freedom, it would make sense to match the rights of citizens to bear arms with those of domestic law enforcement(DHS, Police Department, ect.) If we can't own rifles, neither can they.  If they can own machine guns, so should we. The efforts of the 2nd amendment were to protect the people from the government, not to "hunt". So wouldn't it make sense to best preserve the original intent of that amendment, we should make the weapon privileges equal across the board?



 

[John Liberty]

Sept 15, 2013 2:41:21 GMT DarkShadow said:

I was recently debating a friend of mine on gun rights. A point that he brought up was that the second amendment could be construed in a way to own nuclear weapons and rocket launchers since they are considered arms. Should the second amendment have limitations? And if so, how would we set these limits without putting a breach in the constitution? What are your thoughts on this?

~DarkShadow

I thoroughly agree with Gipper on this one, but I feel like that view would be considered "too extreme" by some people. I feel a better approach would be for the citizens of the United States through Referendum, Referenda(this is essentially a law proposed by the legislature which is submitted to a vote of the people), to vote and define the term "arms". They would decide whether arms would be defined as simply rifles, or whether they can be defined as machine guns and rocket launchers. If this idea is rejected, the term should AT LEAST be defined by the states. The Congress/Executive Branch should NOT be able to define the term.

[rserling]

Sept 16, 2013 23:31:56 GMT John Liberty said:

Sept 15, 2013 2:41:21 GMT DarkShadow said:

I was recently debating a friend of mine on gun rights. A point that he brought up was that the second amendment could be construed in a way to own nuclear weapons and rocket launchers since they are considered arms. Should the second amendment have limitations? And if so, how would we set these limits without putting a breach in the constitution? What are your thoughts on this?

~DarkShadow

I thoroughly agree with Gipper on this one, but I feel like that view would be considered "too extreme" by some people. I feel a better approach would be for the citizens of the United States through Referendum, Referenda(this is essentially a law proposed by the legislature which is submitted to a vote of the people), to vote and define the term "arms". They would decide whether arms would be defined as simply rifles, or whether they can be defined as machine guns and rocket launchers. If this idea is rejected, the term should AT LEAST be defined by the states. The Congress/Executive Branch should NOT be able to define the term.

This is indeed tricky legal territory. I agree that what local law enforcement has access to should be accessible to civilians as well.

[prodebater]

Sept 16, 2013 18:18:21 GMT Gipper said:

Sept 15, 2013 2:41:21 GMT DarkShadow said:

I was recently debating a friend of mine on gun rights. A point that he brought up was that the second amendment could be construed in a way to own nuclear weapons and rocket launchers since they are considered arms. Should the second amendment have limitations? And if so, how would we set these limits without putting a breach in the constitution? What are your thoughts on this?

~DarkShadow

Constitutionally speaking, it says nothing about the use of rocket launchers and nuclear weapons. I do not think they foresaw those kinds of weapons. However, logically speaking...to best preserve our freedom, it would make sense to match the rights of citizens to bear arms with those of domestic law enforcement(DHS, Police Department, ect.) If we can't own rifles, neither can they.  If they can own machine guns, so should we. The efforts of the 2nd amendment were to protect the people from the government, not to "hunt". So wouldn't it make sense to best preserve the original intent of that amendment, we should make the weapon privileges equal across the board?



 

The second amendment should be reformed. Citizens have no reason to own guns! They don't need them to hunt since they can go to the grocery store to get food. and with more strict laws, there would be no reason for self defense . We need to trust our government to protect us. More innocent children will continue to die until this madness about the right to bear arms is eliminated! Maybe that's just so logical it goes over you libertarians heads!
No guns = less crime

[John Liberty]

Sept 21, 2013 3:40:02 GMT prodebater said:

Sept 16, 2013 18:18:21 GMT Gipper said:

Constitutionally speaking, it says nothing about the use of rocket launchers and nuclear weapons. I do not think they foresaw those kinds of weapons. However, logically speaking...to best preserve our freedom, it would make sense to match the rights of citizens to bear arms with those of domestic law enforcement(DHS, Police Department, ect.) If we can't own rifles, neither can they.  If they can own machine guns, so should we. The efforts of the 2nd amendment were to protect the people from the government, not to "hunt". So wouldn't it make sense to best preserve the original intent of that amendment, we should make the weapon privileges equal across the board?



 

The second amendment should be reformed. Citizens have no reason to own guns! They don't need them to hunt since they can go to the grocery store to get food. and with more strict laws, there would be no reason for self defense . We need to trust our government to protect us. More innocent children will continue to die until this madness about the right to bear arms is eliminated! Maybe that's just so logical it goes over you libertarians heads!
No guns = less crime

Wow...first off MORE guns= less crime. Why is it that places with stricter gun laws has more crime than places with loose or non-existant gun laws. New Hampshire barely has any crime. Same with Texas. Same with Virginia. All these "terrible shootings" happened in gun-free zones.