Why is the 2nd Amendment the ONLY one to be questioned?

While at a barbewue the other day, my liberal cousin (who I thankfully rarely see) happened to se the butt of my .38 peeking out from under my waistband when I reached for something. Of course he asked me why I felt the need to carry a gun at a family barbeque. I told him because I can, I'm a retired cop used to carrying, he'd be really thankful I had it if the shit ever hit the fan, and "the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to if I choose". So then he says the 2nd Amemndment should be repealed, and he's glad states like NY (where I live) have the sense to have stricter gun laws. When I told him of the high gun violence in NY, especially NYC, all perpetrated by criminals, not legal gun owners, he wouldn't be swayed. Then I asked him if he would have a problem with the any other Amendment being repealed? Like "what if the governor of NY outlawed the right of free speech? What would you do then?" What if some judge took away your right NOT to incriminate yourself at a trial, and you were forced to answer? What if a cop no longer needed a search warrant, and could search you or your home at his own discretion? Of course he was against ALL of those scenarios. My question is: If the 2nd Amendment is guarneteed by the Constitution, what gives individual states the right to selectively enforce it? Imagine the uproar if ANY of the other Amendments were challenged? Of course he said "but the Constituion was written a long time ago, and weapons have evolved into mass killing machines", so I said "Well, when the right to free speech was written, we didn't have the internet, faxes, cell phones, etc. Now a hate group can recruit members intent on doing harm to others, and they are protected since they are excercising their right to free speech" Why can a person stand on a street corner calling for the annilhation of Israel, but not carry a handgun to protect themselves?

Ron White said it best when he uttered the phrase "You can't fix stupid!" It amazes me how some people cannot be reasoned with and choose to leave their heads in the sand.
Even though I am in Indiana, I thank you for your years of service and I wish you well in your retirement!
Go Fred Thompson!!!

Conservative Jim wrote:

Go Fred Thompson!!!

Gun Owners of America wrote:

Gun owners should also be aware that Thompson unabashedly favors the odious McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. This legislation, characterized by its proponents as campaign finance reform, severely limits the abilities of groups like GOA to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of politicians already in office. In many cases, it becomes illegal to even mention a politician's name in on-air advertising the month before an election. Thompson -- having voted in favor of the restrictions several times -- thinks doing so is "not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way."3

FREDDY IS IN SOMEONE'S POCKET. CARE TO GUESS WHOSE?

I'm on the edge of my seat Highlander, please tell me who?
PS - Go Fred Thompson!!!

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
FREDDY IS IN SOMEONE'S POCKET. CARE TO GUESS WHOSE?

Highlander! How you doin'? I haven't seen anything from the "Gun Control Debate" forum, where that dp vd shmuck was ranting and raving; has it been taken down? I can't find it anywhere. Can you enlighten me?

Fred Thompson's gonna run? I have no idea where he stands on gun control. Help!

bloodyvisigoths wrote:

<quoted text>
Highlander! How you doin'? I haven't seen anything from the "Gun Control Debate" forum, where that dp vd shmuck was ranting and raving; has it been taken down? I can't find it anywhere. Can you enlighten me?

I'm doing just fine.

If you look on the right side of the page, there is a place to select the topic.

There are quite a few gun topics!

bloodyvisigoths wrote:

Fred Thompson's gonna run? I have no idea where he stands on gun control. Help!

Just go on over to the GOA website, and scroll on down to the presidential candidates section:
http://www.gunowners.org/

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
Just go on over to the GOA website, and scroll on down to the presidential candidates section:
http://www.gunowners.org/

Hi HIGHLANDER
you have been awfully quiet since last night. Are you mad at me for teasing you on the other thread?

KBM wrote:

While at a barbewue the other day, my liberal cousin (who I thankfully rarely see) happened to se the butt of my .38 peeking out from under my waistband when I reached for something. Of course he asked me why I felt the need to carry a gun at a family barbeque. I told him because I can, I'm a retired cop used to carrying, he'd be really thankful I had it if the shit ever hit the fan, and "the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to if I choose". So then he says the 2nd Amemndment should be repealed, and he's glad states like NY (where I live) have the sense to have stricter gun laws. When I told him of the high gun violence in NY, especially NYC, all perpetrated by criminals, not legal gun owners, he wouldn't be swayed. Then I asked him if he would have a problem with the any other Amendment being repealed? Like "what if the governor of NY outlawed the right of free speech? What would you do then?" What if some judge took away your right NOT to incriminate yourself at a trial, and you were forced to answer? What if a cop no longer needed a search warrant, and could search you or your home at his own discretion? Of course he was against ALL of those scenarios. My question is: If the 2nd Amendment is guarneteed by the Constitution, what gives individual states the right to selectively enforce it? Imagine the uproar if ANY of the other Amendments were challenged? Of course he said "but the Constituion was written a long time ago, and weapons have evolved into mass killing machines", so I said "Well, when the right to free speech was written, we didn't have the internet, faxes, cell phones, etc. Now a hate group can recruit members intent on doing harm to others, and they are protected since they are excercising their right to free speech" Why can a person stand on a street corner calling for the annilhation of Israel, but not carry a handgun to protect themselves?

Great Post- I want to hear it answered. If one of the amendments were wrong then might all be?

It reminds me of when people want to dissect the bible or Jesus himself. He was either a liar or the one and only sovereign Lord. The Bible is either truth in its whole or a COMPLETE fraud.

People are uncomfortable with black and white these days. Standing hard and strong on your beliefs have been traded for "hey if it feels good to me and I want to do that to you - well why not"

If you don't stand up for something you will fall for ANYTHING.

mother of 5 teens wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi HIGHLANDER
you have been awfully quiet since last night. Are you mad at me for teasing you on the other thread?

Me mad? Heavens no! Not even angry!
I usually respond only as necessary to keep the traffic down, and maintain relevance.

mother of 5 teens wrote:

<quoted text>
Great Post- I want to hear it answered. If one of the amendments were wrong then might all be?
It reminds me of when people want to dissect the bible or Jesus himself. He was either a liar or the one and only sovereign Lord. The Bible is either truth in its whole or a COMPLETE fraud.
People are uncomfortable with black and white these days. Standing hard and strong on your beliefs have been traded for "hey if it feels good to me and I want to do that to you - well why not"
If you don't stand up for something you will fall for ANYTHING.

I, for one, am not trying to prove for say any Amendment is wrong. Only that there are nuances.... shades... not all is black and white. There are probably many references if one uses a search engine. Here is one excerpt:

"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking."

Charlee wrote:

<quoted text>
I, for one, am not trying to prove for say any Amendment is wrong. Only that there are nuances.... shades... not all is black and white. There are probably many references if one uses a search engine. Here is one excerpt:
"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking."

I'm calling BS on that one. It's lawyer talk. The ONLY restrictions placed on the First Amendment is when it jeapordizes someone's life. When the Klan marches, tey say whatever they want. Enough retrictions are already placed on gun ownership. NY simply does NOT have the right to strip someone of the right to carry a weapon if they are otherwise qualified (no criminal history, psych history, etc)

KBM wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm calling BS on that one. It's lawyer talk. The ONLY restrictions placed on the First Amendment is when it jeapordizes someone's life. When the Klan marches, tey say whatever they want. Enough retrictions are already placed on gun ownership. NY simply does NOT have the right to strip someone of the right to carry a weapon if they are otherwise qualified (no criminal history, psych history, etc)

Agreed that it is 'lawyer talk.'
A better term would have been 'intellectual dishonesty.'

My only disagreement with your statement above is in regards to limitations placed upon anyone. If they are to be seen as unfit, then they must be kept from the rest of us.

Any excuse that might be used against =SOMEONE=, is an excuse that can be used against =EVERYONE=.

Remember: If you say that someone is unfit, but release them into the general population, and then proclaim a law which detracts from the rights of the rest of the citizens, then what you have done is nothing less than make the citizens criminals before hand: Prove you're not guilty.

You can't prove a negative.

And =THAT= is exactly what's going on in places like NYC.

Let's explore a suggestion that the First Amendment should be voided, using the same argument used concerning the Second Amendment.

The First Amendment should be voided, because the founding fathers could not have anticipated the development of the telephone, telegraph, radio, television, and the Internet. Obviously, the writers of the Constitution could not have forseen the availability of instant communications, therefore, could not have forseen that technological advancements in communications would make freedom of speech a far more powerful right than they had envisioned.

Sound familiar? I hear the same argument made concerning the Second Amendment, that the writers could not have anticipated improvements in the technology.

Perhaps we should hold the other amendments to the same standard, for purposes of argument.

Charlee wrote:

<quoted text>
I, for one, am not trying to prove for say any Amendment is wrong. Only that there are nuances.... shades... not all is black and white. There are probably many references if one uses a search engine. Here is one excerpt:
"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking."

Daniel wrote:

Let's explore a suggestion that the First Amendment should be voided, using the same argument used concerning the Second Amendment.
(––snip rest for brevity––)

If the antis were to support the Second Art. of Amend. with the same fierce vociferous adamancy they reserve for the First Art. of Amend., then virtually every man, woman and child would be so armed to the teeth, we'd all possess such musculature and arms savvy, that no such things as cops or a standing army would ever be needed.

Precisely.

Thank you for understanding the meaning of my post. I had worried that it would be misunderstood.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
If the antis were to support the Second Art. of Amend. with the same fierce vociferous adamancy they reserve for the First Art. of Amend., then virtually every man, woman and child would be so armed to the teeth, we'd all possess such musculature and arms savvy, that no such things as cops or a standing army would ever be needed.

KBM wrote:

<quoted text>
The ONLY restrictions placed on the First Amendment is when it jeapordizes someone's life.

There are two major differencs between the restrictions placed on the First and the Second Amendments.

If the Second was treated as the First should be I would be okay with that.

The first difference is that the First's restrictions (mostly) fall into the "is this problem and the consequences are so severe that by any measure of logic THIS is the one and only way we can attempt to control it."

A standard example of this is slander/libel. Neither is legal for a good reason. But both are serious impediments to an orderly society. These are not frivilous things.

Another is lying to the authorities during an investigation. The pursuit of justice is a vital portion of the governments appointed tasks and a person willfully hampering it is considered a harm to an orderly society.

An example of this for the Second is obviously keeping guns away from those in the prison system or mental wards.

The second way that the First is treated differently is the concept of "prior restraint."

In both the speech examples I gave above, and in virtually every other example, the citizen can do those things and nothing is stopping them.

The government simply cannot control speech prior to it's happening as unacceptable and prevent people from exercising it. AFTER the fact, and AFTER a conviction, people may be punished for illegal use of speech, but never before.

Compare that to the way the Second is treated.

Virtually all the laws concerning guns have no basis for "this problem and the consequences are so severe that by any measure of logic THIS is the one and only way we can attempt to control it"

If a gun melts at a certain temp in California it is considered a banned gun. What does that have to do with anything?

One gun a month? Waiting period? Magazine limitation? None of these fit this criteria.

And "prior restraint" is the de facto standard for gun laws. Each one of them assumes that the owner/gun is going to do something bad sometime in the future so we control it NOW to prevent that bad thing from happening.

If they followed the concept of prior restraint, again, virtually all the gun laws would disappear.

Unfortunately the First Amendment protections are becoming more like the way we treat the Second than the other way around.

Daniel wrote:

Precisely.
Thank you for understanding the meaning of my post. I had worried that it would be misunderstood.
<quoted text>

Not to worry, Daniel!
Never fear when the Highlander is here!!

Jack Burton wrote:

<quoted text>
There are two major differencs between the restrictions placed on the First and the Second Amendments.
If the Second was treated as the First should be I would be okay with that.(––snip rest for brevity––)

Very well stated, Jack.
Thanks, and hat tip!