10-18-2015, 01:16 PM
I would not like to see the Second Amendment repealed, personally.
I think that the founding fathers had a good reason for specifying that a civilian militia with the right to bear arms is something that should be protected. I also believe that they had very good reason to stipulate that such protection was to go hand in hand with efficient regulation.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment not only applied to designated militias, but also to individuals' rights to bear arms for self-defense. That interpretation was confirmed in a 2010 case ruling as well.
What I would rather see is a clarification of the "well regulated" specification of the amendment, either through a separate Supreme Court case ruling or by amendment to the Second Amendment.
In my view, and it has not been contradicted by any Supreme Court ruling nor by the text within the Second Amendment itself, is binding legal clarification that the constitutional right of civilian militias or individuals to bear arms does not translate to the right of all individuals to bear any types of arms and ammo for any imaginable purposes.
We could achieve a much better balance between the right to bear arms and the right to protect public safety (from those who should not bear arms or certain types of arms) through much better regulation and stricter enforcement of gun laws.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all U.S. citizens. But, it does so with some qualifications as determined by modern day Supreme Court justices. Endangering public safety with words and proclamations that cause chaos or danger is prohibited. Child pornography also is not protected speech. Direct threats to harm or kill others, along with defamation, are also disqualified from free speech protections as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. I'd like to see such appropriate qualifications applied to the Second Amendment's protection of arms-bearing rights.
And, It strikes me as either tremendously ignorant or ironically misinformed when gun enthusiasts suggest that some U.S. Citizens should be denied their clearly specified due process rights and/or their constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure when attempting to argue that stricter gun regulations would be an infringement on their coveted Second Amendment constitutional rights.
I think that the founding fathers had a good reason for specifying that a civilian militia with the right to bear arms is something that should be protected. I also believe that they had very good reason to stipulate that such protection was to go hand in hand with efficient regulation.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment not only applied to designated militias, but also to individuals' rights to bear arms for self-defense. That interpretation was confirmed in a 2010 case ruling as well.
What I would rather see is a clarification of the "well regulated" specification of the amendment, either through a separate Supreme Court case ruling or by amendment to the Second Amendment.
In my view, and it has not been contradicted by any Supreme Court ruling nor by the text within the Second Amendment itself, is binding legal clarification that the constitutional right of civilian militias or individuals to bear arms does not translate to the right of all individuals to bear any types of arms and ammo for any imaginable purposes.
We could achieve a much better balance between the right to bear arms and the right to protect public safety (from those who should not bear arms or certain types of arms) through much better regulation and stricter enforcement of gun laws.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all U.S. citizens. But, it does so with some qualifications as determined by modern day Supreme Court justices. Endangering public safety with words and proclamations that cause chaos or danger is prohibited. Child pornography also is not protected speech. Direct threats to harm or kill others, along with defamation, are also disqualified from free speech protections as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. I'd like to see such appropriate qualifications applied to the Second Amendment's protection of arms-bearing rights.
And, It strikes me as either tremendously ignorant or ironically misinformed when gun enthusiasts suggest that some U.S. Citizens should be denied their clearly specified due process rights and/or their constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure when attempting to argue that stricter gun regulations would be an infringement on their coveted Second Amendment constitutional rights.