A question on the 2nd Amendment

  • News
  • Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date
  • #1
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13

Main Question or Discussion Point

First, let me state the 2nd Amendment in full:

[QUOTE="The US Constitution]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]

Now, that gives us the right to bear arms. What gives us the right to shoot those arms?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Jasongreat
First, let me state the 2nd Amendment in full:



Now, that gives us the right to bear arms. What gives us the right to shoot those arms?
Are you saying that we have the right to own guns, but no right to use them? Are you serious with this topic?
 
  • #3
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
Are you saying that we have the right to own guns, but no right to use them? Are you serious with this topic?
I'm not saying we don't have the right. Obviously we do, or it would have been taken away. I'm asking where it is.
 
  • #4
Jasongreat
I figure its implicit in the right to bear arms. What good is a right if we cant use it?
 
  • #5
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
Ah, I see. I was thinking it was implicit in the 10th amendment. Since it's not listed, we implicitly have it, right?
 
  • #6
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
I don't understand this question either. That's like saying you have the freedom of speech but you can't say anything.
 
  • #7
Jasongreat
The tenth ammendment covers those rights not listed, wouldnt the right to bear arms mean we can use those arms we have a right to bear?
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
I'm not sure we do have a right to use them in the same sense that we have a right to own them. For example, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the city, except in cases of self-defense [or at designated shooting ranges, if any exist], but your right to carry or own a weapon is still intact.

However, without having thought about it for more than a few seconds, my gut reaction would be to argue that "being necessary to the security of a free State", requires that a person have the right to practice and use a weapon as is necessary to be competent in using it.

On the other hand, I don't think we have a Constitutional right to hunt, for example.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Jasongreat
I'm not sure we do have a right to use them in the same sense that we have a right to own them. For example, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the city, except in cases of self-defense, but your right to carry or own a weapon is still intact.

However, without having thought about it for more than a few seconds, my gut reaction would be to argue that "being necessary to the security of a free State", requires that a person have the right to practice and use a weapon as is necessary to be competent in using it.

On the other hand, I don't think we have a Constitutional right to hunt, for example.
We dont have a right to provide food for ourselves?
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
We dont have a right to provide food for ourselves?
It is already established that hunting practices can be controlled. At times, the hunting season is closed altogether.

You have a right to grow food and raise cattle, if you wish.
 
  • #11
Jasongreat
It is already established that hunting practices can be controlled. At times, the hunting season is closed altogether.

You have a right to grow food and raise cattle, if you wish.
I also have the right to kill deer, elk, pheasant, geese, duck, grouse, chucker, rabbit, and on and on, when in season. I would also argue that I have the right to kill food when not in season if it is a mtter of life or death if I dont. Not everyone has to go to the market, or can go to the market for food.
 
  • #12
918
16
It is legal to fire a gun (depending of course on where it is aimed at the time you fire it). What is the difference between being legally allowed to do something and having the right to do it? It seems like word play to me.
 
  • #13
russ_watters
Mentor
19,319
5,355
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
19,319
5,355
I'm not sure we do have a right to use them in the same sense that we have a right to own them.
That's flawed logic: all rights have limits, naturally including the right to own them.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
bear: "22. to have and use; exercise"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

I would consder it explicit.
I considered that and looked it up but considered the argument too flimsy. In fact, many sources, including the Webster's 1828, do not include the word "use". And in your link it comes under the 22nd definition.

Do you have a source showing this is a legal definition?
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
That's flawed logic: all rights have limits, naturally including the right to own them.
You quoted one sentence and responded to the other.

If I yell fire in a crowded theater, I put everyone in immediate jeopardy. If I'm shooting my gun in my basement, I put no one at risk, but it is still illegal in most cities. The two situations are clearly not equivalent.
 
  • #17
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
I also have the right to kill deer, elk, pheasant, geese, duck, grouse, chucker, rabbit, and on and on, when in season. I would also argue that I have the right to kill food when not in season if it is a mtter of life or death if I dont. Not everyone has to go to the market, or can go to the market for food.
Where in the Constitution is that "right" expressed?

The fact that we have hunting seasons subject to closure shows that hunting is not a right. In fact, you have to pay for the privilege. And nowhere in the tag limits is the need for food considered.

By your logic, we could limit free speech to the months of September through January, and only for a finite number of words.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
drankin
I'm with Ivan. Hunting is not a Constitutional right. It is fair game (doh) to complete regulation. And IS completely regulated. Not many situations in America to where someone can say that if he did not hunt he could not feed his family.
 
  • #19
russ_watters
Mentor
19,319
5,355
Locked upon request.
 

Related Threads for: A question on the 2nd Amendment

  • Last Post
4
Replies
92
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
180
Views
16K
Replies
31
Views
9K
  • Last Post
12
Replies
278
Views
24K
Top