How robust is your amendment? The people of America want to know.

I trying to follow the new judge on the Supreme Court, which also means following the cases that are up for legislation.  Amongst the fascinating (Really, I’m serious!  They are!) cases is the robustness of the second amendment:

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.

The robustness of the amendment is called into question because the city of Chicago wants to ban handguns…which I consider an awesome move.  This is unconstitutional under the current interpretation of the second amendment.

The robustness of the law, I’m glad, was called into question by one of the judges who said, “We certainly don’t want guns in the courtroom.” which was followed by a flutter of laughter in the crowd.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, but this is not an absolute right to bear any arms anywhere under any circumstances:

  • You do not have the right to bear arms in a courtroom.
  • You do not have the right to bear pipe bombs.
  • You do not have the right to bear unregistered arms.

Just to name a few.  The second amendment is not an absolute mandate and must be interpreted by the supreme court.  It’s  clear that it is not unconstitutional to ban certain types of arms in certain places and circumstances.  The question is what arms are protected by the second amendment and under what circumstances.

The second amendment was written in the time of muskets. Sure, I’ll support your right to bear muskets.  Have you ever tried to load a musket? It’s pretty time-consuming, which is why you have a bayonet at the end. If you miss, you may have to chase them rather than reload. Bayonets would be in the category of Weapons of Minimal Destruction. If I thought that my neighbor was stockpiling muskets, I probably wouldn’t be too worried.

Today’s weaponry is a different story. With the amount of damage that my neighbor can do with a couple of semi-automatic weapons or some nitroglycerin or even a dirty pipe-bomb, I’m leaning towards giving up our right to bear arms…especially with the terrifying amount of instruction that is given on the internet.

So the Supreme Court hasn’t asked my opinion yet, but when they do I will tell them that the second amendment should protect citizen’s right to bear arms that had been invented by 1791.

My interpretation of the second amendment protects your right to bear the following weapons:

  • Sword
  • Claymore
  • Blunderbus
  • Brown Bess
  • Carbine
  • Carronade
  • Musket
  • Cannon
  • Flintlock
  • Jezail
  • Linstock
  • Nock Gun
  • Sabre
  • Bayonet

These are all the weapons that I believe that the second amendment should protect.  If a city or state wants to add to this list to including hunting weapons, pipe bombs, or nuclear bombs, that is their right; but if a city or state wants to ban any weaponry not on this list, that is also their right.

John Roberts, I’m waiting for your call.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to How robust is your amendment? The people of America want to know.

  1. Jennifer says:

    Not to be a little bit concerned about your comments on what the government should allow us to purchase but the one concern I have is Say they out law all wepons not on your list then the criminal down the street is going to buy a semi auto off the street form someone smuggling it in. If it was me I would want the same weapon to fight back. The old saying “Don’t take a knife to a gun fight.” Thats what your proposing.

    • Jason Tyne says:

      Well, there are two parts of your argument that I should address.

      First, you are right that simply making firearms illegal is not the answer. We need to combine the illegalization of more types of firearms and more effectively make it impossible for your friend the criminal to buy a semiautomatic off the street.

      Cracking down on illegal gun trade is something the government should be doing whether or not firearms are made illegal or not. There are several way that the government is failing to handle illegal weapons sales in this country that are too numerous to mention here, but the simplest criticism is that they are taking a “bottom up approach” which focuses on the purchasers and by extension the bottom rung of the food chain (the consumers) as criminals rather than the and not a “top down approach” which would focus on the sellers and by extension the top rung of the food chain (the producers) as criminals. Right now we are focusing on stopping the purchase of illegal firearms and not the ability to purchase illegal firearms.

      That’s a problem we need to address regardless of how one feels about the second amendment and therefore shouldn’t be a part of how robustly to interpret the second amendment.

      Second, is the purpose of these rights. Giving rights to other people is done only to secure your own personal rights…and conversely…giving up a personal right is only done to deny this right to others.

      I’m just saying that I’m willing to give up my right to own a handgun so that it will be illegal for my neighbor to have one. You’re on the other side of the fence where you are willing to fight for the right for your neighbor to own a semiautomatic weapon so that you also have the right to own one.

      Do you own a semiautomatic weapon?

      If you do, I respect your view. You have something and you don’t want the government to take it away. Kudos to you!

      If you don’t, why are you fighting so hard to give others the right? If you don’t have a semiautomatic weapon, what would you be losing if the government said that you couldn’t have one anymore? Why fight so hard to protect the rights of others to have and possibly use firearms against you unless you are exercising your right to do the same?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s