I Wholeheartedly Support The Second Amendment
June 4th, 2007 | by Jersey McJones |The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
KEEP and BEAR arms.
I think that’s just great.
It says nothing, however, about MAKING, SELLING, TRADING, IMPORTING, EXPORTING, and BUYING arms. Therefore, those activities may be regulated by the States AND the Federal government, as jurisdiction applies.
It’s as simple as that.
Get it?
JMJ
(editted for spelling 4:07pm today)
20 Responses to “I Wholeheartedly Support The Second Amendment”
By SteveIL on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
And what is your point?
By Jersey McJones on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
That regulating MAKING, SELLING, TRADING, IMPORTING, EXPORTING, and BUYING arms is perfectly constitutional.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
Absolutely correct. No doubt about it. About the only thing a government cannot do is forbid the people from keeping and bearing arms. Of course, to do that, there must be making, selling/buying of arms. I have no objections to regulation of said activities, any more than I object to the regulation of the manufacture and sale and public use of automobiles.
By Jersey McJones on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
So then, fellas, you agree that the government is within it’s constitutional purvue to regulate the manufacturing, sales, trading, and shipping of arms?
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know about any other fellas but I do agree. You and I may not agree upon what particular regulations we favor or disfavor, but I don’t have any problem with the regulation of those activities. When the regulation, as in the case of the D. C. restrictions that were recently struck down in court, approaches a de facto disarming of a citizenry, I revolt but that doesn’t at all mean I am antiregulation.
By Jersey McJones on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think the DC law was de facto disarmament. The law prohibited sales of handguns after 1976, and that guns be stored safely and unloaded. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m not sure if it’s unconstitutional. This much I do know - it’s practical. DC is a hell hole, after all. Of course, with Virginia right next door, the gun controls don’t do that much as far as crime is concerned. That’s why I get so pissed off when sleazy morons say that gun controls do not work in certain locations. The guns are simply smuggled in from lax places.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
The law prohibited keeping an assembled gun in the home.
What do you do to protect yourself when someone breaks in? Tell the home-breaker, “Please wait a minute while I assemble, unlock, and load this gun”? Throw the unassembled bits of your gun at him? A gun you cannot use in your own home for self-protection is worthless. It is not a gun. It is an ornament or, at its most useful, a paper-wait. In my opinion, it effectively disarmed the people. Who would live in a hell hole in which one could not defend oneself from the criminals with guns?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
“paper-wait”???? Jeez. Even a spell checker was useless there. Ah well! What can I say?
By Paul Watson on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
Everyone in the UK and Europe?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
You calling the UK and Europe a hell hole?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
If people don’t want to own guns, they don’t have to. I don’t, myself, but then I don’t live in a hell-hole where only criminals are allowed to carry guns, where carrying guns, de jure, makes one a criminal. I live in a peaceful rural town in a state where people can own and carry concealed weapons with a license. Not a problem.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
As for whether the laws in D. C. constituted de facto disarmament, there is this, quoted from the ruling Parker v. District of Columbia:
“[P]revent[s] a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his or her home”?????
So in what sense is one not functionally disarmed?
Anyway, I understand that this is not a clear-cut issue and that plenty of reasonable, rational people disagree with me. I’m just saying what I think.
By Jersey McJones on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
“What do you do to protect yourself when someone breaks in?”
You’d have to be pretty dumb to protect yourself with a handgun. I’d say, “Get a shotgun, dude!” But I digress…
Look, I understand what you are saying. I agree that there is a reasonable argument in this particular case, beyond even the fact that interstate smuggling pretty much negates gun regulation efforts by states and municipalities. Personally, I can’t sleep without my baseball bat (my Slugger has been with me for many, many years as I have lived in a few pretty scary places in my life). Just the same, you’re more likely to be shot with your own handgun than protect yourself with it. Or worse yet, you’re more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one with it. So the practicality of the law remains.
“If people don’t want to own guns, they don’t have to. I don’t, myself, but then I don’t live in a hell-hole where only criminals are allowed to carry guns”
You shouldn’t make comments like this. The law does not allow criminals to carry guns. You know better than that.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Yes, bad wording on my part. Say, rather, “I don’t live in a hell-hole where only criminals carry guns”. Even that’s not quite right since law enforcement agents also carry guns but the problem is that the police can’t be everywhere they are needed just when they are needed. When the law makes a criminal of anyone who is not a law enforcement-agent carrying a gun, only criminals and police carry guns. In my mind, one whose only intention is to defend himself and others against unlawful attack should not ever be made a criminal for carrying a gun.
Using a gun is an entirely different matter. One licensed to carry should be thoroughly versed in the law of when lethal force may lawfully be used, should be thoroughly trained in the safe use of firearms, should know his own ability. One of the reasons I don’t take advantage of my right to own and carry concealed weapons is that my eyesight isn’t all that good. I’ll never be a sharp-shooter. I could never be confident that I would hit what I was aiming at.
I don’t have any objection to laws that require licensing for carrying a concealed weapon or laws that do serious, thorough background checks for purchase of firearms, laws that place common-sense restrictions on who may buy and carry a firearm and laws that require thorough and ongoing education, training and practice with said firearms.
By steve on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
You are one paradoxical dude…
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Not sure if you mean Jersey or I. If I, I think that’s the first time I’ve been called paradoxical. I like it, though. It’s right up there with quixotic, which I’ve always liked the look sound and meaning of. Maybe it’s the ‘x’. :^)
By Paul Watson on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
I was taking the proverbial a little, but parts of Europe and the UK would probably count as hellholes, yes.
By Kavar on Jun 6, 2007 | Reply
“In my mind, one whose only intention is to defend himself and others against unlawful attack should not ever be made a criminal for carrying a gun.”
And that’s exactly how it should be. People have a right to their firearms, but also need to be able to use them responsibly. I think that most people can be responsible, though I also support training and education about safety.
The problem is that unless people have a criminal record, there’s no way to know their intentions. I’ve known several people who abuse their girlfriends, people who have bad anger management problems, people who become very angry drunks…and who own handguns. In one case, just leaves it sitting out on the endtable next to his favorite chair, loaded.
I don’t have a problem with handguns, and I think that most people are capable of using them responsibly. But there’s always people, and possibly more than we’d normally think, who are potentially dangerous with their handguns.
People are what scare me.
By Jersey McJones on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply
And American people, for a variety of understandable reasons, are particularly scary. But the second amendment is the second amendment and that’s that. What we can regulate is the SALE, MANUFACTURE, and TRADE of arms. The second amendment says nothing about that, therefore regulation of those activities is constitutional.
JMJ
By Liberal Jarhead on Jun 9, 2007 | Reply
The government does regulate those things. And saying you support the right to keep and bear arms and then challenging the right to make, sell, or trade them is a disingenuous tactic; it implies that it’s possible to possess something without acquiring it or without someone making it. That’s absurd.
And that’s all I’m going to say about this - the same rants over and over, immune to logic, are starting to make this sound like talk radio. If we want to do something useful, let’s work on rebuilding the mental health system Reagan dynamited.