Sunday, January 3, 2010

Second Amendment IMHO

On a forum the question was asked:"How far will you go with "shall not be infringed"? Not in a what will you do, but what should we have done legislatively. Below is my response.
Shall not be infringed:
I will try to cover most bases but I am sure I will miss a few.
Everyone who is a US citizen, and walking on the outside (not incarcerated) should have the right to bear arms in my opinion. Self defense is a basic right of all living beings, including plants and animals. It is the natural way.
Types of arms: For lack of a better term “the cat is out of the bag.” If there is a chance, however slight, that I may come up against a threat with any weapon imaginable (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Conventional or Explosive) I believe I have the right to defend as I see fit within my means. This does not mean I am owed a chem. suit, Barrett 50 cal, and an M16 by birthright, but if I can provide these tools for myself and family I should have that right. If I think, and can provide, claymores and defensive charges on my property that should be my right. You want them on yours, cool we can talk placement and compare and contrast our options. But what about “public safety”? Fine legislate that I must post if NBC, or explosives defenses or weapons are in the area, but do not infringe my right to have them. In regards to firearms in particular, arms of a military origin should be the norm if desired for tactics and defense. This was their sole purpose in design, to allow you to kill instead of being killed. Legislate an ownership requirement such as the cards required in Illinois and DC, or a registration list? Violations in my opinion. No public safety claim can be legitimized under these, similar to “3 million jobs created or saved.” Not a legitimate statistic or verifiable claim through an actual study of facts.
Felons, if they have “paid their debt” should be allowed ALL of the natural, “unalienable”, and Constitutional rights. If they cannot be trusted with the basic right of self defense, or they have done a crime so heinous we as a society choose to remove that right, remove the person. Death is not required, banishment, imprisonment and death are all options. Just as any other defensive action…remove the threat, not the rights and abilities of the threatened. Removing the 2A from some one “charged or accused” of any crime is a definite violation, “innocent until proven guilty” should not be a catch phrase, but a culture.
Class III should be a third level training class, not a government classification.
If you act improperly with the above rights, we as your neighbors and fellow citizens have an opportunity and in-fact in obligation to respond with force. This is where a jurisdictional police force, posse, and a very limited federal government could come into play. This is where legislation comes in again. The idea of legislating what I “might do” is another breach of the innocent until proven guilty culture. If I want to run around naked and anally rape dogs, the elderly and everything else with less than 6 legs, no law will stop me, nor should it pretend to. Now if you want to legislate that anyone doing the previous, individually or as a whole, are sentenced to the punishments listed under the felons subject that would be allowed and “fair.” It would not prevent the illegal activity, but would outline the “what if” that a potential criminal can weigh out as pros/cons. Crimes happen, just like accidents and we should all have the ability to defend and react to both. The ATF, FFL, 4473 and such are not directly allowed under the specific Amendment but subsequent legislation that I believe should be repealed. I understand I am on the “extremist minority” with this, and am willing to accept some of the above mentioned violations to keep the peace with the majority. You did however ask for opinions and this is mine, “shall not be infringed” is an intentionally simple and plainly worded statement.

Rant over, thanks…


idahobob said...

Very good Jason.

I would like to add a slight addendum:

Any citizen should be able to go to their favorite weapons emporium, plunk down the cash for whatever weaponry that they desire, ANYTHING from a .22 Chipmunk to an MI Abrams, without any restrictions.

I am old enough to remember how it was before the 1968 "Gun Control" act.

You could purchase just about anything that yer little heart desired via the mail.


PolyKahr said...


I think if we met, we would agree on most things. The only thing I would disagree with here is that Claymore mines probably are beyond the pale of arms that can not be infringed. You have to be able to identify your target and know that you are only going to destroy that target. With Claymores, rigged as suggested, you never know who or what will trigger them; a deer, a kid cutting across your property, the neighbor's child running to your place for help. Otherwise, I agree.

Living a mostly urban life, I have never felt a need for more than a handgun, but that does not mean that I should be able to decide for you. My neighbor who hunts with rifles should not be able to decide for someone else that he shouldn't have a fully automatice M 16. Like Bob above, I think the NFA and CGA68 and the like should be repealed. Like him, I can remember when you could get a very nice rifle from the Sears catalog. How far we have come from the Founders' Republic.


Jay21 said...

Agree with you both. FYI Poly, the claymore was added for that exact reason though, I believe their mere possesion should be completly legal. Their use and the users responsibility regulated. Thanks for reading and commenting.