Comparison Of The 1st And 2nd Amendments

[Woods Walker]

With the current debate about the limiting of certain firearms and their associated accessories, I've read some commenst here and in other places about how the 2 A can be limited and how it compares to the 1st A in regards to "shouting FIRE in a crowded place, or libeling someone".

This, IMO, is not an accurate comparison. Shouting "fire", or making libelous statements are PERSONAL CHOICES that an individual makes in regards to their freedom of speech. Every Ameican was born with the freedom of expression. That cannot be denied. If you use your freedom of expression to harm someone else then you must be held accountable for your actions. As an American you have the right to express yourself verbally, or via the printed word or simply through your actions. The TOOLS that we have at our disposal to express ourselves, whether it be radio, TV, movies, ink, or cyberspace, are just that...tools. The tools have no mind or free will of their own. They only function and say what they say at the behest of the speaker/author. Making only a certain amount of ink or gigabytes (or whatever it is that's in computers that makes the "magic") to an individual as a "sane limit" is ludacris and illlogical.

Our second amendment rights are no different. We are BORN with the right to self defense, and the founding fathers SPECIFICALLY stated that "ARMS" were the tool that we endowed with to achieve that end. The arms are a TOOL, not all that different from the printed word, the radio/TV wave or the gigabyte. It's how we USE that tool that is the important part. If we use it irresponsibly then we should definately be held accountable for it. But to limit us or deny us because of something that we MIGHT do is just plain wrong, illogical and un-Constitutional. Same goes with putting limits on the amount or kind of ammo we use. 7 shots of OK but 10 is not? Because "less innocent people will be killed"? It's NOT OK. If ANY people are killed because of the irresponsible use of ANY tool then the human being operating that tool is the sole owner of that act. It only takes ONE bullet to kill someone. And that one bullet can ONLY kill anything because a human being activated it. No keyboard or microphone can make a libelous statement. That is the sole doing of the person doing the speaking/writing. Firearms are no different.

[Deebz]

Well said. This is the concept that people just don't understand when they decide that the way to stop crazy people from committing acts of violence is to limit or ban inanimate objects.

[bobow]

Well said WW. The problem is for the most part you are preaching to the choir and you make too much sense.

If anyone feels anything that is being proposed as "reasonable" has their head in the sand, IMO.

IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL, PERIOD!

[kellory]

There is no comparison between the first amendment and the second amendment, For without the second, the first doesn't exist. In fact, I would go further with this. You have NO OTHER RIGHTS besides the SECOND AMENDMENT. The rest are really just the Bill of Suggestions, without the Second amendment. Just as a tiger is nothing more than a big pussy cat once the fangs and claws have been removed, the Bill of Rights is a worthless rag without the threat of retribution if it is breached. You can talk about your Rights until you are blue in the face, but without the gun to back it up, it's just noise.

"Same goes with putting limits on the amount or kind of ammo we use. 7 shots of OK but 10 is not? Because "less innocent people will be killed"?" Really? Then great. If I reduce my magazine, from 10 to 7, then magically, 3 people have not died who would have? Then my action is worth 3 lives. If that is so, then their lives belong to me. Do I get to pick them, or will they be assigned from a labor pool? i have lots of grounds work I could put them too, when do they show up, and what forms do I need to claim my magically saved work force? For that matter, I could half load a dozen 10 round mags, and save 60 lives! Think of what I could do with 60 free laborers! My taxes would be reduced, my work output would skyrocket, and I would not even need to get them health care! ... Wait a second!......what if i had 1000. magazines, and I only loaded the 10 round mags half way, I COULD SAVE 5000. lives! I could send them to Congress, and they would outnumber the placeholders nearly 10 to 1! I think I need to get started....anyone got any magazines they want to donate to the cause? (tongue in cheek)

[The_One]

ANYONE who is too lazy to write their congressional representatives and let them know they do not support further gun controls deserves to lose their 2nd amendment rights. Ruger has made it SIMPLE to do that at http://ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html .

Complacency is inexcusable! As absurd as Feinswine's proposed legislation may be, it has a good chance of passing if you remain silent. You may not care about "assault rifles", but this proposed legislation is only the beginning. Your favorite hunting rifle could just as easily be added to her list as could ALL semi-auto firearms.

[Deebz]

I did write my legislators... Here's the response I got:

"Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciate your thoughts regarding the Second Amendment rights of all Illinois residents.

Hunting is an important tradition across the state and in my native Southern Illinois, and as a former prosecutor and as Lt. Governor, I am committed to protecting our constitutional rights. But we also need to consider the effects of gun violence. Our efforts should focus on protecting both our constitutional rights and our safety.
My goal is to support measures that both reduce gun violence and protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. As firearms legislation moves through the General Assembly, I expect that there will be a robust debate on these issues. I will continue to be involved in discussions that involve the safety of our citizens.

Thank you once again for your thoughts. It is important for me to maintain an active engagement with the public on all matters that affect our state. Please contact my office again at any time.

Sincerely,

Sheila Simon

SS/dac"

[kellory]

An answer of no comment, would have said as much.

[mnslayer]

the one
your post the ruger link is an excellent resource and merits a post of it's own. i do not wish to hijack your post suggestion so i am asking that you post this for all to see and thank you for sharing it.

[Big Horse]

Your spot on WW.

I believe the term used in Heller was "Reasonable Regulation"

I believe after Heller the debate on Gun "Control" (Rights) is likely to boil down to the definition of "Reasonable Regulation"

IMHO "Reasonable Regulation" = Reasonable Consequences"

As you pointed out, many often argued that rights do not come with out limitations, and yelling "Fire" in a theater is the favorite argument to support that position. But we don't gag people before allowing them to enter a theater do we? Of course not. If a person is inclined to yell "Fire" in a theater they can do so, however, doing so may have consequences.

The same argument can be made for Gun Rights. We don't infringe upon People's rights because of what they might or have the potential to do, but we must impose Reasonable (consequences) Regulation on those that chose to exercise their rights in a manner that endangers others.

We need to change the debate from one of "control" to one of "rights".

This is where I disagree with Kellory. While I understand the position that the 2nd guarantees all others, the reality is that rights simply can not be taken they can only be infringed. And no matter how much they are infringed upon they always exist. That's because rights are not granted by government or any other entity they are endowed by the Creator. You have them simply because you exist, and you retain them until you take your last breath.

While we're on the topic of Constitutional Amendments, on its face it seems that the banning or limitation of arms by the government is in its simplest form in conflict with the words “shall not be infringed”, but I would suggest that gun control is not only a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but is also a violation of the 4th, 6th, and 14th Amendments in that it goes against the very core of our laws of due process and flies in the face of the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Then let us not forget the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment reserves to the People and the States all powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Fed, as well as those not prohibited from the States. What the SCOTUS told us in Heller is that the guarantees of the 2nd Amendment are held by the individual. A limitation on the government. What the SCOTUS told us in McDonald is that those same limitations apply to the State through incorporation of the 14th Amendment. If the enumerated limitation of the 2nd applies to the State ( "nor prohibited by the States") then it cannot be a "power" retained by the State as per the 10th. Shall not be infringed is an absolute.

Most recently, here in Illinois the Federal Appeals Court ruled that the right to keep "possess", not only applies to ones home, but applies when the individual chooses to bear "carry" upon one's person. We here in the Land of Lincoln (Obama) may soon join the rest of the nation in freely exercising our rights.

[kellory]

Big Horse, well said sir, however...I would argue the point. If they Infringe our Rights to the point they become meaningless, they win.
Case in point. If we retain the Right to bare arms, but it is no longer legal to remove them from the gun safe, then the right to own them is moot. The infringements we allow to exist, (and grow, such as the banned list, or gun free zones) weaken the Right, as it is used. You and I have the right to open carry. but as more and more public venues are closed as "gun free zones", the right loses it's function, and could possibly reach the point of ALL public areas being off limits. This could even mean public hunting areas, (public lands) streets, Or on water. You could even be restricted to exercise your right only on private land. It all depends on how far we will allow our rights to be infringed. Give 'em an inch, they will take a mile, and they will be back for another inch in a week.