Regulating use of guns for specific situations?

[Banana]

Another question I sometime wonder about...

First, we all know that second amendment is expressly for defense against either foreign invasion or domestic usurpation, and had absolutely nothing to do with hunting, self-defense against criminals, or even recreational use of gun.

So any laws such as registration, waiting periods, banning specific firearms and so forth should be unconstitutional at federal level. For states, there are more leeway, correct?

Would you be OK, for example, with state regulations about hunting (e.g. bolt action rifle only for shooting deers, with specific ammunition for sake of sportsmanship and humane), provided that government doesn't infringe on the right to buy an assault rifle?

[Dr.3D]

I can see no reason for a state to ban certain types of firearms for use in hunting unless it would be the size of the bullet or killing power of the firearm. Of course one wouldn't want to go deer hunting with a 22 long rifle unless he was darned good and could hit them in the head every time. So I can see prohibiting smaller calibers for deer and such, just to make sure wounded animals are not running around. As for number of shots before reloading, or semiautomatic it would be more humane to shoot the animal twice rather than once and still have it running around wounded.

[Maz2331]

The hunting reglations idea is a bit of a confusion, as that is a regulation of the hunting, which itself requires a license and agreement to the terms thereof, and isn't a regulation the firearm itself. It's sometimes easy to confuse those two.

As for self-defense, the 2nd Amendment does protect arms used for that purpose, at least under the recent court decisions.

Whether or not the 2nd is applicable to states is an open question in legal circles right now, as it has not been officially "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment. However, in most states the state constitutions are much more strictly prohibitive of state involvement in the issue.

[Banana]

One reason I asked was because of government's tendency toward incrementalism... First they ask you to use a specific firearm and a specific ammunition. Then next thing they ask you to register it. Then it's banning sale outright. Several gun control laws came in through this avenue.

I am not sure if a full hands-off approach would be better (consider overhunting due to lack of population control for example), but at same time see it as a slippery slope toward draconian gun control that had squat to do with actual hunting or specific use of guns....

[pcosmar]

Most states already support the Right to keep and bear arm in their constitution. I am sure that hunting on state land could be regulated, however they have no right to say what can be used on private property.
Government has NO rights. Whether State or Federal They have NO rights.
People have Rights, and the government can not infringe on those Rights.
PERIOD. .

[Banana]

Sounds reasonable.

Just one possible misconception I may have...

We all have government to invest in common goods (e.g. defense). Does animal population counts as common good? Where would we draw the line?

[yongrel]

On principle, no. But pragmatically, I would find that an acceptable compromise if legislative wheeling and dealing needed to take place.

[SpamBots Attack!!!]

I dont like it when someone starts a conversation with any statement that says "we all know..." Hey guess what? We all have different opinions. My opinion is this, what part of "....will not be infringed." dont you get? There is no humane way to take an animals life. You go hunting, and come across an animal, chances are one of you is going to become food. In a just world, it would be the hunter. Once again, my opinion, not something "we all know...". As for your limited interpretation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, I would like to point out that during the time it was being written we were in the process of annihilating Indians. We used firearms, the most modern ones of the day. We defended our homes from fellows citizens who seemed to disregard the bibles opinion concerning coveting their neighbors, well anything. Did they dial 911? No, they shot the Perp. Correct me if Im wrong, but when they werent blasting Indians, thieves,or the British, dont you think they found some time to hunt too? What planet are you from? If you dont want to live with firearms, or hunt then make the choice for yourself, not other people. Its that mentality of wanting to regulate other peoples behavior that has created the government we all know and love. I firmly believe that if Davy Crocket were alive today, he would have no problem dropping a deer with an AK47, I also think the whole Alamo thing might of turned out a little different too, but that is my opinion, not something"we all know..."

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

Most states already support the Right to keep and bear arm in their constitution. I am sure that hunting on state land could be regulated, however they have no right to say what can be used on private property.
Government has NO rights. Whether State or Federal They have NO rights.
People have Rights, and the government can not infringe on those Rights.
PERIOD. .

agreed +1

side note... why are national parks regulated? who funds these parks really? i hope we can get that changed here soon

[Banana]

I dont like it when someone starts a conversation with any statement that says "we all know..." Hey guess what? We all have different opinions.

Fair enough.


My opinion is this, what part of "....will not be infringed." dont you get? There is no humane way to take an animals life. You go hunting, and come across an animal, chances are one of you is going to become food. In a just world, it would be the hunter. Once again, my opinion, not something "we all know...". As for your limited interpretation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, I would like to point out that during the time it was being written we were in the process of annihilating Indians. We used firearms, the most modern ones of the day. We defended our homes from fellows citizens who seemed to disregard the bibles opinion concerning coveting their neighbors, well anything. Did they dial 911? No, they shot the Perp. Correct me if Im wrong, but when they werent blasting Indians, thieves,or the British, dont you think they found some time to hunt too? What planet are you from? If you dont want to live with firearms, or hunt then make the choice for yourself, not other people. Its that mentality of wanting to regulate other peoples behavior that has created the government we all know and love. I firmly believe that if Davy Crocket were alive today, he would have no problem dropping a deer with an AK47, I also think the whole Alamo thing might of turned out a little different too, but that is my opinion, not something"we all know..."

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

I didn't suggest that 2nd amendment isn't for self-defense, hunting or recreational use, only that the main purpose of 2nd amendment was primarily military in nature. If we were to read papers surrounding the development of 2nd amendment, it is obvious that Founding Fathers want us to bear arms not because of Indian attacks or lack of police force but because it is our last line of defense against return of tyranny, whether as King George V or as corrupt politicians in Washington.

I view all other uses of guns as *incidental*, a fringe benefit, if you will. This is why I asked about whether states were in right to regulate such uses.

I personally think that 2nd amendment doesn't allow us to pass a ban on assault rifle sale but it won't necessarily allow us to use a bazooka for deer-hunting. But the bitch is this: This is exactly how we got in this mess because legislators started out with a limited application (e.g. hunting regulations) then went onto to increasing regulations.

I've really never seen a MSM article discussing about gun control issues claim that 2nd amendment is required as a defense against tyranny or usurpation, but always has quoted pro gun activists as "we need to have guns to hunt", "it's our right to have gun!" which instantly destory the credibility and weakens the argument for owning a gun.

[Doktor_Jeep]

If I cannot have a certain gun, why should some people still be allowed to have a certain car? If I don't need a 30 round magazine, then who needs a fast car?

The car is MADE for breaking the speed limit (commiting a moving violation) but the 30 round magazine is still a 30 round magazine.

Of course, you cannot fight tyranny with a car, so the cars get a break. Unless we started to run over politicians then you would see things change overnight.

[Banana]

Unless we started to run over politicians then you would see things change overnight.

Now that's a piece of work! :D

[Doktor_Jeep]

Would it be possible to take Grand Theft Auto and change the model skins to resemble real politicians? Hmmmmm.

[SpamBots Attack!!!]

[QUOTE=Banana;1303472]Another question I sometime wonder about...

First, we all know that second amendment is expressly for defense against either foreign invasion or domestic usurpation, and had absolutely nothing to do with hunting, self-defense against criminals, or even recreational use of gun.

As a matter of fact you did make an implication, and I understood exactly the point youre trying to make. Im just unafraid to call it like I see it. This is the type of leverage those who advocate Civilian Disarmament use to divide and conquer. I think of it this way, I see nothing wrong with hunting deer with a Bazooka. But instead of trying to limit a hunters access to a bazooka, because it has no "legitimate" sporting purpose, just limit the length of time for "Bazooka Deer Season" to 20 minutes. If in 20 minutes a hunter can find a deer and blast it with a bazooka, then Id say two things are apparent, 1) there are way to many deer, or 2) that hunter is really good. To me, that is a balance that does not violate, or infringe upon anyones right to keep and bear arms. In case anyone is wondering, I am not a hunter, and have almost caused accidents by stopping in the middle of the road to assist turtles to get to safety, but I do own several "evil black rifles with those dangerous barrel shrouds" that keep would be Tyrants awake at night. Why? Because I want to, and I dont need anyone else's approval to do it.

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

Now that's a piece of work! :D

Lol grand theft auto

[Merk]

Another question I sometime wonder about...

First, we all know that second amendment is expressly for defense against either foreign invasion or domestic usurpation, and had absolutely nothing to do with hunting, self-defense against criminals, or even recreational use of gun.




Self defense was very high on the list of the founders. Whether against foreign or domestic threats or criminals. The right to "Life." If someone tries to take yours you can take theirs.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."