What does the 2nd amendment really protect?

[dailydave21]

I just took the Gun Poll at http://www.thegunpoll.com">www.theGunPoll.com and saw that most Americans believe that the 2nd amendment protects rifles, shotguns, and assault weapons. I'm from New York City and I have to say that I just do not believe everyone has a right to a shotgun.

I think that this poll is probably skewed by gun loving Texans (not to single out a single state)... But the poll is very interesting and I recommend everyone to take it -- and maybe we can even skew the results a bit!

(Women are very under-represented in the results... Ladies, please check it out)

http://www.thegunpoll.com">www.theGunPoll.com

[Statistical]

1. Why not a shotgun?

Seems a strange choice.

I don't believe NY law even restricts shotguns more than any other type of firearm.

All rifles are used in about 3% of homicides, all shotguns are used in about 4%.

[atreides1]

2. Skew the results

Isn't that the kind of thing the Redstaters and Repuke lovers do? Maybe you're at the wrong place?

[onehandle]

3. The results are clearly skewed far from the average American.

And the 2nd amendment protects a retail item. I demand the same protection for my iPod.

[Statistical]

8. Really?

Maybe your concept of the "average" American is what is skewed.





51% of Americans favor the same or less gun control.
49% of Americans favor more gun control but I would guess a tiny minority believe there is no right to bear arms at all.

Even among handguns only 29% believe they should be banned. Of that 29% what believe ALL firearms should be banned. Well we don't know except that it is less than 29% but I would guess it is much less, 10%, 5%?



However if you want the same protection for your ipod that is another issue all together.
There is a process to amend the Constitution. It has been done 27 times.

[onehandle]

11. Those polls reflect little about that "unbiased online poll" that the OP links to.

The results of that poll are skewed. I believe those Gallup polls that you posted.

Do you think that 62% of homes have 4 guns or more?

[Statistical]

15. No I don't

I believe about 1/3 of homes have one or more firearms.

The nice thing about that poll is they don't hide it. You can view results of just non gun owners.
You could even take the non-gun owners and the 1-3 owners and weight them 2:1 to get a close approximation of American views.

I do believe "And the 2nd amendment protects a retail item" is out of touch with both the meaning of the second and American public opinion.

[onehandle]

17. What's to stop the Feds from seizing my iPod?

Nothing. I want my damn Amendment!

What does American public opinion have to do with the Second Amendment? I thought that was "settled?"

[Statistical]

19. Then write your legislature.

2/3 vote from both houses and ratification of 3/4 of state govts and your right to enjoy music on a portable device can be protected too.

[zengunfighter]

35. what's to stop the feds from siezing my ipod?

The Fourth Ammendment protects your Ipod from unreasonable seizure...

[X_Digger]

22. Even lower than that..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html

"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."

[fedupinhouston]

40. You already have that protection...

You may have noticed there are no laws restricting your purchase of an iPod other than requiring you actually pay for it...

Would you like to try a different specious comparison?

[Recursion]

4. Why not a shotgun? That makes more sense for a city than a pistol

Shotguns are much better for home defense in a city than pistols or rifles.

I also would suggest that like most of our party you may not actually know what "assault weapon" means...

[baldguy]

5. The 2nd Amendment protects nothing.

Once upon a time it set down a method for the citizenry to defend themselves collectively, without the need for a standing army. The Founders were very suspicious of standing armies - which could always be used to infringe upon the rights of individuals. Instead they determined that the people collectively could provide national defense through locally organized militias.

The 20th century made that notion obsolete.

[Indydem]

6. Wrong. Read some history.

The 2nd amendment protects us from a facsist government.

[baldguy]

14. And what, specifically were the Founders' concerns about fascism?

Just who were the 18th cent brownshirts they feared?


FYI, history guy, fascism is a post-20th century political movement. So unless you're saying Tom Jefferson was clairvoyant, there's no way they could have intended that local militias be the bulwark against fascism. It didn't exist in 1789.

Also, individual gun owners in Italy & Germany in the 1920s & 1930s were - in general - perfectly happy with the rise of fascist govts in those countries. Those were the people that Mussolini & Hitler drew their support from. The only people that had their guns confiscated were the fascists' political enemies - who happened to have everything else they owned confiscated too.

Finally, even if a full-blown fascist dictatorship gained power in America, your pea-shooter would be no match for a modern 21st century military force. The ONLY WAY to defend ourselves from such a dictatorship is to stop it from gaining power. Do that by participating in your govt - voting, writing letters to your representatives & your local news media, and turning out to protest when necessary. And remember - the "gun rights" groups like the NRA supported George Bush and his policies which were the greatest threat to freedom America has seen in its entire history.

[Statistical]

18. Facism is the wrong word .... tyrany would be what the founding fathers used.

Your beliefs are backed up by no historical documents, no quotes, and now not even by the Supreme Court.

Here are some quotes from some gun nuts. It is absolutely clear they intended the PEOPLE as individuals to have the right to own firearms. They had that right under British common law and the tyrant George took it away. His troops (under orders of the PA governor began rounding up arms). He knew without arms the colonists couldn't resist.

Your belief that it would be "ineffective" doesn't matter. It is inneffective for a single man to protest the governments actions but he can. It is still a right. The founding father's weren't stupid. Of COURSE throwing off a tyranical govt is hard, they almost lost to King George. If the 2nd was used against the govermental tyranny it is possible it would fail. Just because of the possibility of failure the right doesn't vanish. Is it harder now with modern technology? Hell yeah but look at Iraq. Most Iraqi had no training with firearms. There are 20 million hunters in the United States. It is also possible many state governors would be patriots and no give control of National Guard to a tyranical federal govt. Many soldiers would desert and take their superior arms with them. Some would shoot their officers as all soldiers have a duty and loyalty ONLY to the Constitution not the Congress. Despite all that it is possible a resistance would fail. You may be right.

The protests on the Iraq war failed. Do we forfeit our right to assemble? If you want it to not exist then amend the Constitution. The right exists and you look like a idiot to cling to the debunked collective rights belief. A relic of the past.

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


hereas, 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; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. ... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all? ---Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying convention, June 2, 1788

hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. ---George Mason, Virginia Ratifying convention, June 2, 1788

The whole of that Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...it establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. -- Roger Sherman, debate on Militia Bill in the House of Representatives, 1790

[baldguy]

20. Change what Indydem posted, redefine it & then post a laundry list to support your position.

I guess that takes care of that point. :eyes:


But the idea of an armed citizenry keeping tyranny at bay is a myth that has been disproved by history. Gun owners in Europe in the beginning of the 20th century weren't fighting the fascists - they were the fascists. And there was no general confiscation of firearms from the populace in Italy & Germany prior to the end of WWII. Since then - in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s - when gun ownership has been restricted there has been no outbreak of dictatorships in those countries. In fact, countries with strict gun laws tend to be free, liberal democracies.

[Statistical]

21. I didn't say any of that.

OUR country did have weapons confiscated.
Confiscated by a tyrannical government (King George).

Weapons that they had a right to under British Bill of Right 1688:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

The right to bear arms by individual citizens was recognized as an EXISTING right by the colonist.
King George tried to disarm them and after winning a bloody war they made sure no govt would try to do that again.

You may think firearms in defense of a tyrannical govt is stupid but that doesn't change the fact that the right existed and is codified by the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution.

The quotes (of which that is just a tiny fraction) completely destroy any credibility you may have in trying to push the meme that the founders never intended:

* for an individual right to own weapons to be protected
* that pro-gun is a new concept today and distortion of history.
* the founders never believed that weapons could be used in defense of tyranny.

Once again the track record isn't relevant.
The track record for petitioning the govt or seeking redress of grievances is pretty bad lately.
The right to a jury trial doesn't guarantee you will be found innocent it simply gives you the opportunity.

The 2nd doesn't guarantee that defense of tyranny will be successful but it does give citizens that option. IF they take that option or not doesn't matter the right exists.

[Euromutt]

23. Re-check your history

And there was no general confiscation of firearms from the populace in Italy & Germany prior to the end of WWII.

Actually, Germany passed laws regulating private ownership of firearms in 1919-1920, 1928 and 1938. The initial two acts in 1919 and 1920 were meant to eliminate all firearms in Germany except those allowed the government under the term of the Treaty of Versailles. The 1928 Waffen- und Munitionsgesetz repealed the total prohibition on private firearms ownership, and replaced it with a strict licensing and registration system. The 1938 law nominally relaxed the regulations somewhat, but restricted ownership of firearms to "persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit." Needless to say, though the law did not say so, socialists, communists, trade unionists and Jews were not considered "trustworthy."

Meanwhile, in Italy, the Mussolini government introduced the Public Safety Act in 1931. This was not merely gun control legislation, this was legislation restricting all weapons, and was primarily aimed at disarming leftist elements.

[Xenotime]

47. Where does "facsist government" appear in the Constitution?

[Statistical]

10. Wow. you are so far out of mainstream.

Sure you wouldn't be more at home in a fascist state?

Anyways the whole collective rights nonsense has been so thoroughly debunked that clinging to it just weakens your argument for any type of control.

It would be like the difference between a racist making a coherent argument against affirmative action or one who claims all blacks are property so the issue is moot.

You come off as kind of a loon. Maybe it is a good thing you don't own guns.

[Xenotime]

46. Very well put.

[PavePusher]

48. Then why are so many "Progressives" so terrified...

of the resurgence of "militias"?

Obsolete, my pale, hirsute buttocks.

[doc03]

7. Why all the gun threads today? It appears to me by this poll

the anti gun crowd is clearly on the losing side of this issue. What's wrong with shotguns? The shotgun is the most popular target and hunting weapon of all. All this proves is you anti guns nuts real agenda, you don't care about assault weapons you want (all guns).

[katandmoon]

9. Because hunting and killing animals for sport is just SO attractive to everyone -- NOT

[benEzra]

13. Only 20% of gun owners hunt. 80% of us don't, including my wife and I. (n/t)

[fedupinhouston]

38. I find hunting to be distasteful

Killing people is ALSO quite distasteful. However, if the only way to prevent another human being from killing me or my loved ones is to kill him, then so be it. I want to ensure I have the best tool for the job if it comes down to that. Currently, the best tool for that job is a firearm.

[Euromutt]

24. How about hunting and killing for food?

Once you have the rifle and the other equipment (including a large freezer), the price of a game tag and ammunition will get you several months' worth of venison, depending on the size of your household.

I don't hunt myself, but I don't have a problem with hunters, as long as they eat what they kill. Or donate it to the wolf sanctuary I volunteer at. See, because I work with wolves, even though I like deer, I do tend to regard them as walking wolf chow (and cougar chow). And they'd better be, because if ungulate populations can grow unchecked by predators, you're looking at overgrazing and consequent deforestation.

Though, for what it's worth, I don't think hunting firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

[Callisto32]

25. What about those of us that do it to eat, or to protect crops. (same thing, really)

I find the killing distasteful, personally, but I have done it to reduce the populations of rodents that were destroying the food that my family and friends raise.

[benEzra]

12. The right of law-abiding adults with clean records to choose to own rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

Most of the country is very pro-gun, outside of a few urban enclaves where gun ownership by the "little people" is frowned upon.

[Statistical]

16. and ownership by the state, public officals and wealth (via security guards) is acceptable.

Such a non-progressive idea.

Self protection in such a regime is something that can be bought and only the wealth can afford it.

[Boni]

26. Guns.

You know what the Iraqi protesters needed? Guns.

[jody]

27. SCOTUS addressed your question in Heller and defined arms, see quote below. Note that all rifles and

muskets if the 18th century could have wading over the powder followed by shot and an over-shot wad and function as a shotgun.

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Note that "arms" includes many tools for self-defense other than firearms.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lk2550]

29. The right to culling

[rd_kent]

32. Huh? make some sense there, will ya?

[slackmaster]

30. The personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms

Like all other rights, that is subject to reasonable regulation through due process.

I'm from New York City and I have to say that I just do not believe everyone has a right to a shotgun.

Then don't buy one, but you have no business telling me I can't have one.

[rd_kent]

31. A gun is a gun is a gun

Handgun, shotgun, rifle.....all protected by the 2nd amendment and infringed upon by the State.

[struggle4progress]

42. Your theory is citizens may own any projectile weapon with hollow, tubular barrel & closed breech?

[vind1xth3avenger]

33. i'm pagan, a women and an NRA member

it protects the right to defend our selves from an over reaching government:


from things like this there adding to the health care bill


Since the “journalists” haven’t read the 1,000 plus page long Health Care bill you may not know about the following atrocities in the Bill:




Pg 58 - Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 lines 21-24- Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer


PG 502 Section 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. - Hello Big Brother - Literally.

PG 502 Line 5-18 Government builds the “Center” to conduct, support, & synthesize research to define our HealthCare Services.

PG 503 Line 13-19 Government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.

PG 503 Line 21-25 Government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the US including your data.

PG 504 Line 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)

PG 506 Line 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data

PG 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean the Government with an $18 mil website?


PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Government certifications will apply to medicaid & CHIP (your kids)

Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforcement purposes, the Secretary of Health & Human Services will give Attorney General access to ALL data.

PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.

PG 935 21-22 Government will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control You!!

PG 936 Government will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards” Tell me what to eat?


PG 1001 The Government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

PG 1003 9-11 National Medical Dev Reg ‘‘(iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities” you WILL be tracked.

PG 1018 States give up some of their State Sovereignty.

PEOPLE, THIS IS IT. YOU CAN NO LONGER IGNORE THIS BLATANT TAKEOVER OF OUR COUNTRY.
This is not about health-care, it is about the POWER OF THE STATE.






I beg you if you’ve never read Animal Farm, 1984 and Atlas Shrugged please, please, do.




I inplure you to vet everything here and tell me where this is inncorect.
useing the evidence from the bill itself.


yes i'm an NRA member

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. It's not delivery...

It's DiGiorno - uh... I mean TOMBSTONE!

[Babykayx]

36. I do belive that everyone has a right to a shotgun

I do believe that everyone has a right to a shotgun because the Bill of Rights Says so. Do I think that everyone should have one? No frackin way.

In any case, you have a right to one, and so do I and everyone else. If you don't think so, start the Constitutional amendment process, let everyone debate, and recognize that along with those who 'just love their guns' and 'want protection', there are still people living in this country the same way, in the same environment, as people did over 200 years ago. Just because your reality doesn't match theirs, your beliefs are not the same, or your principals dictate that everyone doesn't have the right to a shot gun (as opposed to some do? yeah and who and who decides?), doesn't mean that there are others with a legitimate opinion contrary to yours... nor the existence of such de-legitimizes yours.

How about this, gun laws that make sense... work with the NRA as they have a vested interest in making sure that gun laws work so as to keep guns out of criminal and crazy hands (vested interest because every gun murder puts them under fire, not the black market since we have never had success regulating that). Not that the NRA would dictate the laws, but we at least listen to their points of veiw, because as far as I've seen most gun owners I know have better ideas of how to regulate guns (and keeping them out of 'bad hands') than the government does.

EX: New Jersey will allow you to have an 'assault weapon' as long as it doesn't have an (2 of the following:) extendable stock, flash suppressor, or sling that allows you to carry the weapon... and 2 other things I don't remember atm. NOTHING which dictates the fire rate or could reduce the potential damage in the wrong hands. So I can legitimately own a AR-15 (Civilian version of the M-16 which is the gun the military uses), IN New Jersey, as long as I don't use a sling and an extendable stock for my long arms... totally going to reduce gun deaths LOL. (PS: most gun assaults are done by Pistol, not shot guns)

[slackmaster]

37. Actually the poll says nothing at all about "assault weapons"

One of the categories that it asks whether or not people have a right to own is "Assault rifles, military grade".

That is not the same thing as "assault weapons". Current federal law has no definition for "assault weapon", and the one that was in effect from September 1994 to September 2004 covered semiautomatic firearms with certain characteristics. It did not have anything to do with military grade assault rifles, which are capable of automatic fire.

Proponents of the AW ban exploited confusion over the largely superficial similarities between real military weapons and civilian ones that resemble military ones. Machine guns and automatic rifles have been strictly regulated in this country since 1934.

For the record, I answered that the 2A guarantees the right to pistols, rifles, shotguns, and "Assault rifles, military grade". I think some state laws have gone too far in regulations, and would like to see a repeal of the 1986 closure of the National Firearms Act registry for new automatic weapons. (NFA requires a thorough background check and a federal tax stamp for transfers of weapons that it covers.)

[libguy9560]

39. The right for crazy idiots

To cull each other.

[eqfan592]

44. Thanks, freper-lite. Any other tidbits of ignorance to share with us? (nt)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

45. Why is this thread troll bait?

Seems like the most extremes of both sides of this issue come into this one thread, drop trou and piss all over everything, then leave.