Is the 2nd Amendment battle really about individualism vs communitism?

2016-06-28T07:03:29-04:00

Interesting take on the battle for the second amendment. I like to know your thoughts.

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. I hadn’t, until the other day, when I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun ...

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jun 28 at 2016 7:15 AM

2016-06-28T07:15:32-04:00

Depends on what side of the coin your on. I prefer to have my weapons with me, and locked for my personal safety.

Response by SFC Matthew Mason made Jun 28 at 2016 8:08 AM

2016-06-28T08:08:24-04:00

To be honest, the article is rather vague for a reason. To start debates and for that reason alone was it written. What many on both sides fail to understand is that the second amendment is not about personal safety nor is it about hunting or recreational shooting. It is about protecting ourselves as a people from the very governmental issues that we are beginning to face today. One that has gained too much power for itself and is becoming tyrannical. And that means defending against it's military.

That can throw us into another debate over the so called assault weapons. Which were already well established before the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights were written. So get that out of your head right now.

Next we have the right to carry. You damned right it is indeed covered under the 2A! Keep and BEAR. It was no uncommon thing for anyone to walk around with a rifle on their back and a pistol or two in their waistband. No people were NOT getting shot all the time.

Finally we come to the ability to take one's 2A rights away. The ONLY legal way to strip one of their rights in any situation is by way of due process, period.

Response by PFC Amthony Murray made Jun 28 at 2016 8:14 AM

2016-06-28T08:14:53-04:00

Yes it is. Have you ever known throughout history any dictator or tyrant that did not want to disarm the people? Our Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear where we should be with the entire issue. However, we as citizens have allowed the politicians to erode our Freedoms and our Rights. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty self-explanatory.

Response by SFC Leo McIntyre made Jun 28 at 2016 8:41 AM

2016-06-28T08:41:41-04:00

Michael, being a little bit of a stickler on words and definitions, could you please 'define' "Communitism" as I CANNOT find it anywhere? Then we can have a discussion. Thanks.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 28 at 2016 8:57 AM

2016-06-28T08:57:14-04:00

The 2nd Amendment is quite interesting. It states that individuals have the right to bear arms. What is defined as arms is what is considered in question and states "like NJ and NY" are able to add laws to the existing law. Where one can bear arms is also in question.

I can understand why those who want to ban firearms believe what they do (Citizens wise). It's really because they don't understand. Politicians who do only want what's best for them (to rack up votes). And I can for sure understand those who want to keep them.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Jun 28 at 2016 8:58 AM

2016-06-28T08:58:32-04:00

This is where the author loses me completely:

"That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles. Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting."

Assault rifles have never been defined sufficiently, it's often used inconsistently, and the government has no business defining to me what is appropriate in the amount of rounds I have with my "magazines". The author also uses the word clip, which demonstrates his ignorance of firearm terminology. Clips are generally used to feed the magazine. I note this because he is the one making a plea to have people come to an understanding, and yet he can't take the time to understand the appropriate terms. Regardless, if I feel I need more than 10 rounds to protect myself, that's my business. I've never shot a person before I and I have no idea how well I will react if that day comes where I need to protect myself and my family. What if I miss? What if there are multiple opponents? What if they're armed and I'm trying to conserve rounds in an exchange of gunfire?

"“..conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” might include requiring that everybody who wants to own a gun has to get a permit, and have a background check, conditions and qualifications that already pertain to purchases through gun stores, but not through private gun shows."

It is illegal to sell guns as a business without a permit, even at a gun show. The exception is one-time or minimal sales (i.e. the individual is selling their personal firearms) by people who are not making it their business to sell firearms.

" “…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” That certainly seems to challenge the NRA’s idea that more guns in schools is a good idea."

The government may have the authority to declare gun free zones on government property, but that doesn't always make it right. The NRA is not fighting that authority, they are offering a solution to mitigate the threat our children face when they go to school in a gun free zone. Criminals do not head the rule of law as they ignore the "gun free zone" signs. I'd prefer to keep them guessing and even deter them from their goal.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2016 9:22 AM

2016-06-28T09:22:12-04:00

No. The NRA and the concealed carry and open carry "movements" have created a culture of fear. 30-years-ago NOBODY fought for their so-called right to carry an AR-15 into a Target store, and other than people who regularly carried jewels or large quantities of cash, very few people even wanted to carry a pistol everywhere they went.

Back then, the NRA was mainly about gun safety, shooting sports and education, NOT politics and lobbying.

Response by SFC Michael Madigan made Jun 28 at 2016 10:04 AM

2016-06-28T10:04:01-04:00

all these issue about the 2nd amendment is important to give the ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. look at our current president and as with many of them the extreme abuse of using executive orders/actions to corrode our rights and freedoms. What was the first thing Adolf Hitler was disarm his cizitens first then seized control. Look at all of the those who were and are dictators take control of the guns and you take control of people. Hence they will become sheep.

Response by SSG John Erny made Jun 28 at 2016 10:07 AM

2016-06-28T10:07:14-04:00

The founding fathers made it pretty clear what the 2A was supposed to mean.

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Response by SFC Dr. Fred Lockard made Jun 28 at 2016 10:26 AM

2016-06-28T10:26:38-04:00

The Founders hated the idea of a standing Army at the beck and call of a centralized federal government. They believed that a corrupt government could call upon the Army to silence critics. This is the reason they established 2A and wrote about a militia. The militia was supposed to be as well armed as ANY potential enemy; including a corrupt government. That is not the case now by a long shot. If the feds decided to confiscate all guns all they would have to do is send an Army Infantry Squad door-to-door to do it. What civilian could match that kind of firepower? So all this talk about "assault weapons" in the hands of civilians misses the point of 2A. The militia is supposed to have access to the best weapons available.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 28 at 2016 11:37 AM

2016-06-28T11:37:46-04:00

Two issues. First, let me respond to the question. The 2nd Amendment battle is really about disarming law-abiding citizens incrementally. It is a time honored strategy of the Left to disarm their opposition. They can't complete the establishment of a tyranny until they do.

Second, the article itself. I feel abandoned. Congress has abandoned We the People. They have been crafting the worst laws seen in the history of any legislative body. They're too busy dialing for dollars to fatten their campaign chests to even read the acts they are voting on. The President has been abandoning US since the Administration of Woodrow Wilson. With the sole exceptions of Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, all of them have been advancing the agenda of the progressive movement to build a more powerful White House. Now, We are abandoned by the Supreme Court. Their Constitutional competency has been diluted with appointments of lightweights such as Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Others are commenting on the idiocy of this latest decision. I'm too depressed to pile on.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2016 12:23 PM

2016-06-28T12:23:41-04:00

The appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society in which they live with an understanding that our constitution intended for the American people to be an armed people. It's not usually a huge issue in rural areas, however in cities where gun violence is a problem... politicians find it easier to attacks guns than address the underlying causes for gun violence.

Addressing a lack of economic opportunity, understaffed police forces and infrastructure in an area is much more expensive a proposition than thinking up a new gun control law.

Response by SSG Martin Reyna made Jun 28 at 2016 1:46 PM

2016-06-28T13:46:38-04:00

In my opinion, the Second Amendment is open for interpretation. I am an NRA life member and totally against any kind of ban. Now, with that said, I do not oppose stricter gun laws. If I commit a crime from domestic violence and drunk driving to rape and murder I should not be allowed to legally purchase a firearm. The law abiding citizens that feel the need to own a gun will not care if the process is tougher.

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Jun 28 at 2016 2:33 PM

2016-06-28T14:33:07-04:00

Neither. The 2nd Amendment, like the other first ten, is about freedom and liberty. Note that not one tells people what they must do; they all tell the branches of government what they CAN'T do ("Congress shall make no law…")

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 28 at 2016 2:41 PM

2016-06-28T14:41:58-04:00

The battle is really about $$$$, because common sense has been thrown out and both sides arguments key issue is money disguised as pro or con guns..

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jun 28 at 2016 6:05 PM

2016-06-28T18:05:13-04:00

The writer totally overlooked the part in Heller where Justice Scalia states the 2nd Amendment protects types of firearms that are in common use by civilians. Since semi-automatic AR's and Ak's ("assault weapons") are the most common rifles used by civilians in this country, they fall under that protection.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Jun 28 at 2016 6:27 PM

2016-06-28T18:27:59-04:00

Article full of anti talking points and incorrect nomenclature proving that those who have no idea about what they are talking about shouldn't be respected and knowledgeable or taken seriously. The 2nd Amendment is about the people not being defenseless against a GOVERNMENT that has forgotten it's duty and has become overly intrusive and restrictive in the Freedoms that this nations has paid a great price for.

Response by Cpl Robert Crockett made Jun 28 at 2016 9:41 PM

2016-06-28T21:41:03-04:00

I could go for the militia. The National Guard was the bait-and-switch to replace the militia around the beginning of the 20th Century. I have nothing against the National Guard, but the are not and have never been a militia. Bring back the militia and give the mercenary police forces the heave-ho. I'd rather have citizens protecting me anytime. Ages 15 to 55 or thereabouts if I recall correctly. I'll do my duty on the local guard. Order and discipline! I can go for that.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Jun 28 at 2016 11:36 PM

2016-06-28T23:36:18-04:00

I honestly think that if I, as a law abiding citizen, want to play with an M-60 machine gun, or even a 60 mm mortar, I should be able to. The government has no business making laws that infringe on the rights of good people. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people, not take them away.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jun 29 at 2016 3:26 AM

2016-06-29T03:26:35-04:00

It's about stripping Americans of their Constitutional means to resist the tyranny of an out of control government that is corrupt and no longer serving the people that elected it.

Response by SPC Rob Robinson made Jun 29 at 2016 12:37 PM

2016-06-29T12:37:31-04:00

The language of the article is thin and confusing but seems to be making the case that the fight over guns [as they call them] boils down to collectivism versus individuality. It has the effect of further Balkanizing our society, in this case gun owners versus gun-grabbers.

I, like most of my friends, am a gun owner/operator and yet have room in my life for people who would rather not own weapons. Unfortunately, those who don't like even the idea of private ownership of firearms are not satisfied with simply not owning a weapon. They want to take ours away. It's as if I was am an alcoholic and see problems with my drinking so I decree that you too have to stop. We tried that. It was called Prohibition, didn't work. The same human instinct that killed prohibition will kill this ban too.

That a gun ban will never come to pass is proven by China's experience. Soon after Mao took over in 1949 he forbade private ownership of firearms, punishable by death. He then confiscated all firearms. Every year since then, even though the punishment is death, the Chinese government has found thousands of weapons every year since 1949.

The nation needs to be educated that the problem is not with the inanimate object, it is with the person holding it.

We need to identify, clearly and accurately, those people who would do no good if armed.

Response by HN Chris Robinette made Jun 29 at 2016 1:44 PM

2016-06-29T13:44:41-04:00

The second amendment is a protections against a government that has become a dictatorship against it's citizens in the extreme case or failing to protect the US Constitution against foreign and/or domestic enemies.

Response by SPC George Leibengood made Jun 29 at 2016 5:14 PM

2016-06-29T17:14:32-04:00

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" is clear language and their is only one interpretation. Our politicians, took an oath when they took office, as I took an oath when I joined the Army. If they cannot believe nor support the constitution, then they need to resign or be placed in jail for dereliction of duty. I am a life member of the NRA and I agree that terrorists should never be allowed to buy guns much less use them. If our politicians would just shore up our LEO's and fund them to do their job, and then give them the support required to do their job, I feel you would have less shootings here in America. Maybe when a homegrown terrorist attacks another nightclub, church Christmas party or whatever, we should eliminate the organization the are giving their allegiance to instead of trying to eliminate our constitutionally guaranteed rights as law abiding citizens.

Response by SPC Boyd McFail made Jun 30 at 2016 9:09 PM

2016-06-30T21:09:37-04:00

All I can say is: A Man under arms, is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

Response by SGT Charles W. made Jul 5 at 2016 12:57 AM

2016-07-05T00:57:14-04:00

I think it's for the same reason it was when it was first developed, for self-defense and defense against tyranny! I can't believe they want to take away the gun rights of people with PTSD. That would be most of us and other service members. So what, it was ok when we were fighting "their" battles, but we come home and all of a sudden we have our weapons taken away? What exactly changed from the time people were overseas to the time they transitioned out? Not a damn thing. I think honestly they are worried because the American people will at some time, reach their breaking point and there will be another American Revolution (and I'm not crazy, and I'm not the only one that thinks this). The government was never meant to be a career choice, and they have their heads so far in others pocketbooks/wallets/asses, they never come up for air and ask what "their people" want. You know, the ones that voted them into office. Enough is getting to be enough. America is not the worlds peacekeepers or bailout aid packages. We have people starving here too, as well as violence, terrorism, human trafficking, etc. etc. Why can't we work on our own damn country before going off to fight for a few cents less on oil prices? And now, please tell me again what we are fighting for? No one wants to fight for their country except us and a few others. If the Afgans/Iraqis can't man up, well, I'm sorry, but it's their country, and just like us, freedom isn't free, someone has to fight for it (just like our 2nd amendment). We fought for our rights. I'm tired of seeing good men and women die and I don't even know what for anymore. ISIS? There's always going to be an ISIS, Al Queda, Hamas, etc. etc. When they come to America, then we'll talk. We can't even defend or enforce our own borders. Drugs, weapons, human slaves, etc. are all being smuggled in under our noses, but I guess that's off limits to us to defend our own country, we have to go off to defend someone else's because they are too chickenshit to stand up and take charge of their own land. RANT OVER! Live free or die!

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Jul 21 at 2016 12:12 PM

2016-07-21T12:12:21-04:00

I really liked the "Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10." What an uninformed writer! 100 rounds of .45 ACP would be several feet long and certainly usual. Bullets, really?

Response by HN Chris Robinette made Sep 9 at 2016 1:14 AM

2016-09-09T01:14:59-04:00

Based on the definition of "communitism" talking about one's relationship with a community. Be it basic as a family unit, block unit, city unit, state or national unit it is (to me) BS to confuse the main issue as to the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms against a dictatorship.