Strict Constitutionalist vs Revisionist

[wjh2657]

Please read all of the posts in the below thread first:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/conc...-stop-carrying-so-they-dont-ruin-rest-us.html

Now make a decision based on your own current thoughts, before reading replies below.

There is no gray area here. Either you believe everybody can carry a gun or you believe there must be some rules applied. Any rules at all that restrict gun carry are in the revisionist camp. this is not a challenge. There is nothing inately or morally wrong with being in either camp. The poll is strictly to see what percentage are in each camp.

 

[Treo]

The Second Amendment was never intended as blanket permission for anyone to carry a gun; it was intended to restrict the ability of the Government to infringe the rights of “the people”.

Under the social construct of the time any crime serious enough to result in a permanent loss of the right to bear arms would likely also result in a loss of life. Similarly anyone too crazy to be allowed to carry a gun was generally confined for life to a mental institution or kept under lock and key by the family. Either way both were removed from “The People”.

With that understanding I believe that the Second Amendment as written enumerates the right of a law abiding citizen to own and carry firearms at his or her discretion.

 

[disneyr]

The 2nd Amendment IS the gun permit. Let's face it convicted felons and the insane don't obey laws that restrict them from keeping or bearing arms. Any laws or regulations infringing on the keeping and bearing of arms are only followed by sane law-abiding citizens by definition. It is ridiculous that the reaction to violent violations of law involving guns usually result in further restriction of those who followed the law and continue to do so.

 

[Fisck]

Crap I screwed up my click, can I change my vote?

Ok I can't believe I'm saying this but I'm going with the revisionist. I understand criminals and the mentally unstable do not follow the law but we still should not allow them to buy through legal means. It’s not an effective means but it still stops some of the lazier ones from getting their hands on them.

The best way I can state my view is that the government should not restrict the right to bear arms, but if you commit a violent crime or are a career criminal you have restricted your own rights.

 

[BRTCP88]

I don't think there should be any restrictions on weapons. If you want to and can afford it, I think you should be able to own a bazooka. Also, as I've said on here before I believe, get rid of laws against carrying concealed weapons without a license.

 

[BC1]

Prison overcrowding and financial issues force society to release some very dangerous people back on society. Should they be allowed to carry a gun legally? Should we let everyone know that once you do this crime you will lose the right? You now commit your crime knowing you have voluntarily surrendered your right for the future. Dangerous people should never be released. But the reality is that they are released and many go on to offend again.

Anyone can obtain a firearm to commit a crime. Abraham Lincoln once said "“I long ago made up my mind that if anyone wants to kill me, he will do it. There are a thousand ways of getting at a man if it is desirable that he should be killed.”

But I'm surely not going to give him a firearm. I would rather he carry it illegally so I may have just grounds to put a dangerous man back behind bars where he belongs. Anyone who has had a close family member murdered will probably agree.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You have to remember the Constitution and bill of rights were written by a band of criminals who had recently committed high treason and just completed an overthrow of their government by force.

 

[BC1]

You have to remember the Constitution and bill of rights were written by a band of criminals who had recently committed high treason and just completed an overthrow of their government by force.

Today they would call us terrorists. But the king of England learned that all freedom exists at the end of a gun.

 

[JSDinTexas]

I am not so concerned with only the 2nd as I am with the entire Constitution - should any part of it be attacked and successfully defeated, the Constitution as a whole is defeated. And thus this country ceases to exist as a "Constitutional Democracy."
This is why I must and did vote Strict Constitutionalist.

 

[disneyr]

You have to remember the Constitution and bill of rights were written by a band of criminals who had recently committed high treason and just completed an overthrow of their government by force.

Good point and the British troops were on there way to seize guns when "the shot heard round the world" was fired. I am for keeping people who have committed violent crime and lunatics from having guns. The problem is that the laws and regulations are not followed by violent criminals or the insane.

Another problem is that when gun rights are infringed then the government can just declare someone insane (I mean someone who supports individual liberties must be insane right?) and negate their ability to legally buy or own a gun.

The Founding Fathers must have been insane to fight the greatest power of the time for something as trivial as freedom right? Now if they were fighting for entitlement programs or "social justice" that would have been different. :sarcastic::wacko:

 

[disneyr]

I am not so concerned with only the 2nd as I am with the entire Constitution - should any part of it be attacked and successfully defeated, the Constitution as a whole is defeated. And thus this country ceases to exist as a "Constitutional Democracy."
This is why I must and did vote Strict Constitutionalist.

Please don't take offence but it is a significant difference. I agree with everything you said above except this country would cease to exist as a "Constitutional REPUBLIC".

I think part of the problem is that the U.S. is already slipping or has slipped into being a Constitutional Democracy with the majority starting to vote themselves benefits from the national treasury at the increasing expense of a shrinking minority. Also the slim but growing majority is voting more and more to give up their individual rights and further empower the Federal Government while supporting the weakening of the Constitution which has the purpose of limiting the Federal Government.

 

[JSDinTexas]

Please don't take offence but it is a significant difference. I agree with everything you said above except this country would cease to exist as a "Constitutional REPUBLIC".

I think part of the problem is that the U.S. is already slipping or has slipped into being a Constitutional Democracy with the majority starting to vote themselves benefits from the national treasury at the increasing expense of a shrinking minority. Also the slim but growing majority is voting more and more to give up their individual rights and further empower the Federal Government while supporting the weakening of the Constitution which has the purpose of limiting the Federal Government.

Good points and I probably should have said Republic instead of Democracy. And no offense taken at all.