Maybe it is about taking away guns

toomuchbaloney · Dec 22, 2020

33 minutes ago, Kyrshamarks said:

I believe in Constitutional Carry. The governments should not have the right to regulate the carry of weapons, at all.

So basically, if you can afford it you can carry it....no background checks, no limit on type of weapon, and no restriction on where you may take that weapon in that imaginary world? What do you imagine the advantage is in that approach?

Kyrshamarks, BSN, RN · Dec 22, 2020

Not going to get into a debate with you. I will never change your mind as you have shown in other debates and you will not change my mind.

allnurses Guide · Dec 22, 2020

23 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

yes, I am saying that.

But the point was to have means to fight back against tyranny. When the amendment was added, there was a certain parity, certainly with firearms, and having just checked briefly, it turns out a private citizen could legally own a cannon.

I don't believe a private citizen, or even a state militia can legally purchase an attack helicopter or any other current high tech weaponry at the present time. Doesn't it make the point really moot?

guest1163268 · Dec 22, 2020

2 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

I believe in Constitutional Carry. The governments should not have the right to regulate the carry of weapons, at all.

You are so right! The carry of WEAPONS! A gun is a WEAPON!

And like the 18th century a weapon is particularly important because our police is so innefective and our standing army can at any time is likely to be bombarded by microwaves from Cuba rendering them innocuous and the gun carrying public will take their place because the Cuban microwaves are useless against non military people and unlike the nuclear deterrent every gun carrier is particularly honorable and will only seek to have gun battles with similarly armed caliber weapon's carriers and will never have a bigger or more powerful effective weapon. I go so far as to suggest that gun carriers shouldn't have to pay any taxes for their local police or fire services or education depts. Keep a bucket of water handy and educate your children yourselves. After all, you believe in 18th century laws, why shouldn't you live like you are in the 18th century?

MunoRN, RN · Dec 22, 2020

4 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

I believe in Constitutional Carry. The governments should not have the right to regulate the carry of weapons, at all.

The Constitution not only establishes that government can regulate firearms and their possession, but that it's an expectation, so I'm not sure where you're getting that it prohibits firearm regulation.

I'm a supporter of the second amendment, and in my view the biggest threat to gun rights isn't people trying to place responsible rules on firearms, it's those who insist no such rules can exist.

toomuchbaloney · Dec 22, 2020

4 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

Not going to get into a debate with you. I will never change your mind as you have shown in other debates and you will not change my mind.

So basically you want to state your beliefs but you want no discussion of your stated beliefs on this discussion forum? Gosh...seems like you're about to be disappointed.

akulahawkRN, ADN, RN, EMT-P · Dec 22, 2020

On 12/20/2020 at 4:54 PM, nursej22 said:

I thought the subject was the 2nd Amendment , not the whole Bill of Rights. And actually the rights of free speech and a free press do have limits.

My original point was that the framers could not have conceived of the sophistication of weapons that we have today. Plus, the previous poster conveniently omitted the first part of the 2nd Amendment that states that in order to maintain a militia, that citizens should keep and bear arms.

You're right that there are limits on the 1A. There are also limits on the 2A as well. When you state (in summary) that because the framers couldn't have envisioned modern 20th and 21st century weaponry, that the 2A should therefore be limited to 18th century weaponry, that exact same position could be applied to the 1A as well - because the framers couldn't have envisioned modern communications, the 1A should be limited to protect only those means of communications and religions, and such that were known at the time the BOR was written. The point really is that the framers KNEW that there would be changes and advances that they couldn't predict so instead of locking in specific technological restrictions, they instead wrote the Constitution/BOR to deal with ideas along with a means to modify it all. That the 1A and 2A haven't been actually modified by an amendment process should speak volumes. The Courts can interpret those Amendments, but Court interpretation can change, however once the Court has "applied" an amendment to the States, it won't reverse that because doing so would effectively say to the People that a Fundamental Right isn't fundamental any more and therefore ALL of those rights can be taken away generally. The 1A was applied to the States many years ago. Imagine if that was rescinded and the States could individually decide that you no longer had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the ability to petition for redress of grievances, or worship how you choose. Imagine losing the 4th or 5th A protections at the State or Federal levels because the Court decided those no longer protected fundamental rights. AFAIK, the only Amendment that hasn't been dealt with by the Courts in any significant manner is the 3A...

Just as the scope of the 1A is generally well understood now, the scope of the 2A is just getting started hasn't been dealt with much since about 2010, so that's still slow-going. The Miller, Heller, and McDonald decisions by the Supreme Court are about the only BIG decisions on the subject in the last 70 years or so. There will be more, in time.

nursej22, MSN, RN · Dec 22, 2020

Thank you, akulahawkRN for such a thoughtful reply, instead of the usual, taken-out-of-context quotes one usually sees on this subject.

Yes, there have been many interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, as weaponry has evolved and societal norms have shifted. It does seem ironic to me that a right in the eyes of many, established to resist tyranny, is embraced by tyrants.

guest1163268 · Dec 22, 2020

I sort of wonder why is it that no other industrialized country's citizens feel this desire to own guns or carry them in public, with the aim of protecting themselves from each other, except of course for the criminal areas where protection is probably needed? Maybe, Americans are special?

I also wonder why the majority of mass shootings occur here? Another thing that bothers me is why would the gun manufacturers have NO interest in selling their guns because of their lack of desire to make a profit, unless they actually have lobbyists that actually do that. I must be wrong, gun manufacturers are fine, moral, upstanding entities who would never make weapons, meant to kill. Just make loud noises and flashes.

Most importantly why is it that in no other industrialized country, gun makers cannot advertise? Maybe it's because those populations are more susceptible to lead poisoning or it could be an allergy to dying?

chare · Dec 22, 2020

3 hours ago, Curious1997 said:

[...]

Most importantly why is it that in no other industrialized country, gun makers cannot advertise? ...

Which nations are you including in this list of "industrialized countries?"

And after you provide this list of "industrialized countries" please provide sources to verify that advertising, in all forms, is not allowed.

guest1163268 · Dec 22, 2020

53 minutes ago, chare said:

Which nations are you including in this list of "industrialized countries?"

And after you provide this list of "industrialized countries" please provide sources to verify that advertising, in all forms, is not allowed.

I suggest you look it up if you are interested. I have no interest in substantiating my statements. It either makes sense to you or it doesn't. If you need facts to rationalize whether you should be armed in congress or church or the hairdressers, then I absolutely doubt that any of my statements will make any sense to you.

Discussing whether you should have a gun, like it's the wild west? Honestly! It's an affront to so many decency rules and normal behavior that I don't even have words.

chare · Dec 22, 2020

2 hours ago, Curious1997 said:

I suggest you look it up if you are interested. I have no interest in substantiating my statements. ...

You make a “statement of fact” and expect the reader to verify its veracity? Really? That’s not the way it works.

2 hours ago, Curious1997 said:

... It either makes sense to you or it doesn't. ...

What exactly are you referring to here? You've raised so many points, not all of which seen to connect, that it's difficult to follow this.

2 hours ago, Curious1997 said:

... If you need facts to rationalize whether you should be armed in congress or church or the hairdressers, then I absolutely doubt that any of my statements will make any sense to you.

[...]

First, don’t presume that you have any idea what I am capable of understanding. And please note that I haven’t questioned any of the posters questioning either this incident in particular, or whether the 2nd Amendment provides for unfettered ownership of firearms without any limitation as to type of weapon or where they can or cannot be carried.

2 hours ago, Curious1997 said:

[...]

Discussing whether you should have a gun, like it's the wild west? Honestly! It's an affront to so many decency rules and normal behavior that I don't even have words.

Are you suggesting that owning firearms should not be allowed under any circumstances? If so, this suggests that the OP might be correct in her or his assumption, and there really isn’t any need to discuss this issue any further.