There've been a lot of discussions here over the years, and I am constantly surprised at what people choose to endorse.  Lots of folks here on a pro-2A forum voice support for things that sure seem, IMHO, to infringe on this basic right. 

This isn't about specifics.

This isn't about specifics.

This isn't about specifics.

I'm not looking for a point-for-point debate, finger-pointing, or name-calling (although I shall doubtless get all three,) just a statement of philosophy.  To what degree do you embrace this simple clause, "shall not be infringed?"  And, equally as important, why?

Good question, Tom_G.  I'll start.  I'm interested in other people's thoughts.

My understanding of this right is the following:

- a person's right to bear arms to defend themselves, families, neighbors, society from aggressors shall not be infringed. Basically, it is a MORAL right to life and bearing arms is a way to ensure the ability to protect one's life.  No, the police is not the answer.

- a person's right to bear arms to protect themselves, families, neighbors, society from an oppressive government shall also not be infringed. This is a check and balance against the powers of the government which has a natural tendency to continue accumulating more powers against individual liberties.  Having arms give the citizens a fighting chance against the government (including against police or other government agencies -- think about Hitler's gestapo) when the government loses the MORAL right to be in power and becomes tyrannical against its own citizens.

- a person who bears arms to initiate a crime against another loses this MORAL right to bear arms and therefore the LEGAL right to bear arms.  Then government has the MORAL/LEGAL power and obligation to strip the right to bear arms from an individual AFTER that person has committed a crime, not before. Innocent until proven guilty. It should be hard for government to imprison someone and strip someone of their rights because of the unequal amount of power and resources that government has over an individual.

- the 2nd amendment LEGALLY guards a persons MORAL right to bear arms.

Does Hawaii's laws infringe on our rights to bear arms?  Yes but i think only towards citizens that have not lost their MORAL right to bear arms.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about this too.  I'm sure I'm missing some things here about hunting, sports shooting, etc.

Here we go.....

I agree with Jl808.
I'm a " Well, I mean, there's infringement, and there's common sense..."

Violent Felons. Right infringed upon.
Just got released from Kaneohe for violent act, right infringed upon.
Told psychiatrist you have thoughts/fantasies about shooting up a mall/theater/school. Right infringed upon.
Unfortunately, these would require background checks.

Absolute no infringement would be scary.

Unfortunately common sense is not so common, so where does the line get drawn. Hence the dilemma.

Great topic Tom G. 

Guess I agree with everyone so far. I clicked the common sense option since there are many times that people feel their rights were infringed upon, but really they were not. For example, all the people who open carry next to a playground in the middle of a city in Oregon. Open carry is completely legal and they are not breaking the law. But when police show up because people are calling in some guy walking around with a big scary gun, and then the police ask them what they are doing and for ID’s, where are they going, when will they be done….. and the whole time these guys are saying their rights are being violated. Ummm, no? The police are only asking so they can tell all the callers what is up and when it will finish.

But a lot of guns laws (at least here in Hawaii) make no sense to me and are infringing my right to have a weapon for myself defense. IMO

I have to admit, despite being the one who designed the poll, I had a hard time answering it. 

Up to a certain line, I am a "Shall not means shall not" type of guy.  But there is a line.  I would not, for example, support including weaponized anthrax on a comprehensive list of approved arms. 

I believe that an armed society is a polite society.  However, I don't want to live in a society where being armed is a requirement for politeness. 

I don't believe that guns are a problem.  However, I recognize that as a country with more guns than most, we shoot more people than most other countries. 

I believe that citizens can lose the ability to practice their rights.  Violent offenders, mentally incompetent, etc.  I don't have a ready answer for how we enforce that without infringing on the rights of others, though.

I see the value of an armed civilian militia.  We should be there in times of need, and we should serve as a serious dissuasion to the abuse of political power.

I believe that, this side of my imaginary line, "shall not be infringed" should be absolute.  Free carry, open or concealed, everywhere.  Full-auto, short barrel, sound suppressors, butterfly knives, real mace, whatever.  If people raise an eye at what you're carrying, it should be because you're an idiot tacticool ninja and they're laughing silently at you, not just because you're carrying.

And I believe that people should be responsible in their exercise of this and all rights, and that irresponsible actions should be grounds for limiting or prohibiting their continued exercise of a right.  To misquote Stan Lee, "With great rights come great responsibilities."

To those saying "Shall not, means shall not." 

Do you agree with individuals who have consistently proven they cannot own a firearm, i.e. through shown violent offenses (rape, armed robbery, violent felony level assault), or those individuals who are truly mentally unstable (Schizo, etc.) having firearms?

Because, from what I have seen, that is not a rule that was in effect back in the day.  My buddy made a good point to me about the Hollywood westerns. His question was, "What does the Sheriff do with the bad guy when he released him from his cell to be free."  The answer: give him his gun back.

The train has already left the station sort of speak...our rights and not just the 2nd, have been infringed upon and will continue to erode. There is a fine line between individual's rights, public safety and national security. Too bad common sense doesn't usually prevail with politicians and the separation of powers doesn't always work either, not to mention politically motivated politicians.

I go with option 2...
Do we ( even as law abiding citizens)
 Really need un restricted access to fully automatic weapons or military grade destructive devices (grenade and rocket launchers, explosives, etc.)

I draw the line right around there...  so some level of infringement just makes sense.
Sorry, no matter how competent or stable you are... you probably dont need an RPG, or 5 pounds of composition 4... nor would I want to live next door to you if you did

Now for what I think we should have a right to after some sensable restrictions:

Full auto?  Yes, however... Permitted, Shall issue nationally - with a deep backround check,  and your tax stamp

Supressors - no restrictions
Possesion in a motor vehicle, loaded - legal, however weapon may not be stored in the same place as ID, vehicle docs, etc. also, must declare possession to peace officer if detained for a traffic infraction.
 
SBR - no restrictions
Shotgun barrel length - no restrictions
Magazine capacity - no restrictions
Open carry- permitted, shall issue nationally. Class required.   Periodic skill qualification to maintain permit.
Concealed carry - permitted, shall issue nationally. Class required. Periodic skill qualification to maintain permit ( if you can't hit anything with it... you shouldnt be allowed to carry it, sorry.  And surely you can make time to  go down to the police range once a year or so, rattle off a few rounds on target, and answer a few basic gun safely questions...)
Ammo - restrictions only on military type explosive ammo-  API, HE,  raufoss types, etc.

Age limit- leave as is, acceptable as it stands.

Would like to see a permit to aquire process similar to that used for long guns in HI adopted nationally. one permit good for one year... as many pistols or rifles as you wish. One background check, once a year like HI long gun permit. unless weapon is full auto.  Note this is a permit to purchase, it would be shall issue, and is not a permit to possess, only to buy for a period of one year from date of issue.  Possesion of a leagally obtained firearm will not be  restricted.
Registration of guns with government  after aquisition (local or national) ummmmm,  How bout no...

 

I need a "None of the above", or "Words taken out of context have a variety of meanings. so this is open to interpretation."

What I mean is, when you ask a lawyer what the word "shall" means, he will tell you it is an imperative.  It is much stronger than "may".  Now, if we can go back in time and walk around 1775 America, I bet the way people spoke, and the words people used, were quite different.  I bet many people used "shall" in everyday conversation but with more the connotation of "will", not "must".  Over time, the words "will" and "shall" became synonymous in American conversational English.  It is only because courts defined the legal interpretation of certain words that we believe these terms to hold some absolute meaning. 

While I believe rights are not bestowed by the government, rights must be tempered with a bit of common sense.  You don't give a minor the same rights as an adult.  Usually, a minor lacks the judgement and self control of an adult to act responsibly.  In the same fashion, you don't grant those rights to an adult who has demonstrated the same lack of judgement and self control especially if the individual represents a real danger to himself or others.

I go with option 2...
Do we ( even as law abiding citizens)
 Really need un restricted access to fully automatic weapons or military grade destructive devices (grenade and rocket launchers, explosives, etc.)

Do you really NEED a semi-automatic rifle?  Do you really NEED a 30-rd magazine?  Do you really NEED more than three rounds?

I draw the line right around there...  so some level of infringement just makes sense.
Sorry, no matter how competent or stable you are... you probably dont need an RPG, or 5 pounds of composition 4... nor would I want to live next door to you if you did

Now for what I think we should have a right to after some sensable restrictions:

Full auto?  Yes, however... Permitted, Shall issue nationally - with a deep backround check,  and your tax stamp

That's strange.  What other Constitutional rights to you want to tax?  Should we reinstate the poll tax?  Maybe you should have to pay a tax in order to be secure in your effects from unreasonable searches and seizures?

Supressors - no restrictions
Possesion in a motor vehicle, loaded - legal, however weapon may not be stored in the same place as ID, vehicle docs, etc. also, must declare possession to peace officer if detained for a traffic infraction.
 
SBR - no restrictions
Shotgun barrel length - no restrictions
Magazine capacity - no restrictions
Open carry- permitted, shall issue nationally. Class required.   Periodic skill qualification to maintain permit.
Concealed carry - permitted, shall issue nationally. Class required. Periodic skill qualification to maintain permit ( if you can't hit anything with it... you shouldnt be allowed to carry it, sorry.  And surely you can make time to  go down to the police range once a year or so, rattle off a few rounds on target, and answer a few basic gun safely questions...)
Ammo - restrictions only on military type explosive ammo-  API, HE,  raufoss types, etc.

Age limit- leave as is, acceptable as it stands.

Would like to see a permit to aquire process similar to that used for long guns in HI adopted nationally. one permit good for one year... as many pistols or rifles as you wish. One background check, once a year like HI long gun permit. unless weapon is full auto.  Note this is a permit to purchase, it would be shall issue, and is not a permit to possess, only to buy for a period of one year from date of issue.  Possesion of a leagally obtained firearm will not be  restricted.
Registration of guns with government  after aquisition (local or national) ummmmm,  How bout no...

You want all these permits to purchase, permits to carry, permits, permits, permits, and then pretend that a registry wouldn't already be in effect?  Your national permit system with annual re-qaul for any type of carry would go over like a pregnant high jumper, to be frank.  Outside the DPRH, that is.

Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

Which is why I say that I ought to be able to own pretty much whatever the hell I want.

To those saying "Shall not, means shall not." 

Do you agree with individuals who have consistently proven they cannot own a firearm, i.e. through shown violent offenses (rape, armed robbery, violent felony level assault), or those individuals who are truly mentally unstable (Schizo, etc.) having firearms?

Because, from what I have seen, that is not a rule that was in effect back in the day.  My buddy made a good point to me about the Hollywood westerns. His question was, "What does the Sheriff do with the bad guy when he released him from his cell to be free."  The answer: give him his gun back.

Part A)  I'm thinking no because they ceased to be part of "the people".

Part B) I'm thinking the bad guys didn't get their guns back and were run out of town.  Also if he did stupid crap they'd shoot him or someone else would eventually and take care of the problem.

Part A)  I'm thinking no because they ceased to be part of "the people".

Part B) I'm thinking the bad guys didn't get their guns back and were run out of town.  Also if he did stupid crap they'd shoot him or someone else would eventually and take care of the problem.

Agreed as to Part A.  "Revoked" is not the same as "Infringed".  We revoke all sorts of rights for various causes, up to and including the right to live in some states via the death penalty.  I think the Founders were likely unanimous in their support of capital punishment.  I do think that once your debt to society is paid, you should have your rights restored, except in cases where due process is specifically afforded for the revocation of the right.  My thinking is that if a convict can't be trusted with a gun, he can't be trusted to be loose in society.  If we're going to say that for some reason he should be released but can't be trusted with a gun, then there should be specific court proceedings to that effect, where the state carries the burden of proving that a person deserves a lifetime revocation of a basic human right.  Lest anyone think that chaos would rein if peoples' rights were restored upon their release from prison, my home state of Montana does this already. 

 

All the compromises, debates, "what ifs," interpretations, common sense, and hand-wringing, took place before 1791. 

Several States were very concerned that certain "unenumerated rights" should have been spelled out specifically and protected by the addition to the Constitution of what is now called the Bill Of Rights (BOR).

They felt that unless these specific rights were not included in writing to the Constitution, the Federal Government would usurp these rights.  The Preamble to the Bill of Rights points this out in no uncertain terms, as shown below in boldface:

Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The text of the Ten Amendments follow this Preamble.  (Note this is not the Preamble to the Constitution itself, but to the Bill Of Rights alone.)

These guys were no antiquated dummies in powdered wigs.  They were very astute and well aware of the progress of power and politics in history.  One of their main concerns was about a "standing army" and took great pains to balance the necessity for a standing army by further checks and balances --to wit, by limiting any standing army with Congress' power of the purse, and by having the President be the civilian  Commander in Chief of the military.

And... and this is important... by adding  the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

We have all seen the erosion of not only the Second Amendment, but of other fundamental civil rights spelled out in the Bill Of Rights in recent decades, and if we are not acutely aware of, and ready to defend our rights, they will be dissolved by the rushing waters of "progress" like the rocks in the middle of a slow stream.

Let's face it.  In reality, we got along pretty well with almost no infringements until the crime sprees due to Prohibition resulted in the National Firearms Act of 1934.

And if you're thinking that we are due for a constitutional challenge to the Second Amendment, think again about the consequences.  The same kind of self-righteous and emotional thinking that went into the Prohibition Amendment led to an increase in crime, not a decrease.  Unintended consequences.

Let's not make that mistake again.

Shall not means shall not, dammit.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it, like it or not.

Terry, 230RN

Agreed as to Part A.  "Revoked" is not the same as "Infringed".  We revoke all sorts of rights for various causes, up to and including the right to live in some states via the death penalty.  I think the Founders were likely unanimous in their support of capital punishment.  I do think that once your debt to society is paid, you should have your rights restored, except in cases where due process is specifically afforded for the revocation of the right.  My thinking is that if a convict can't be trusted with a gun, he can't be trusted to be loose in society.  If we're going to say that for some reason he should be released but can't be trusted with a gun, then there should be specific court proceedings to that effect, where the state carries the burden of proving that a person deserves a lifetime revocation of a basic human right.  Lest anyone think that chaos would rein if peoples' rights were restored upon their release from prison, my home state of Montana does this already.

Yes, but at what point are the rights revoked? Why should they be?  Why is it we start with Lautenberg, and now add DUI's, harassment, and a variety of other things that are "just so horrible" that we must revoke those rights!  Also, where is the historical basis for this revocation? Don't felons still deserve a right to defend themselves?

Yes, but at what point are the rights revoked? Why should they be?  Why is it we start with Lautenberg, and now add DUI's, harassment, and a variety of other things that are "just so horrible" that we must revoke those rights!  Also, where is the historical basis for this revocation? Don't felons still deserve a right to defend themselves?

Rights are revoked after due process of law, of course.  Like I said, the United States has always reserved the power to revoke a person's rights, it's right in the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.  To me, that means that for each revocation of a right, there needs to be due process of law.  Blanket laws that say, "If X, then Y" are not due process.  For example, do I have a problem with smacking a guy who shot two clerks while robbing a liquor store with a lifetime ban on firearms?  Of course  not.  (Not that he should ever leave prison, but you get what I mean.)  I would absolutely cast my vote for that if I were on his jury.  But let's say that Christopher Deedy, for example, is found not guilty of murder, but is convicted on some lesser felony like aggravated assault or something.  Does he deserve a lifetime ban on gun ownership?  Probably not.  Then again, maybe he does.  The right way to determine that is for the state to shoulder the burden of proving to a jury of his peers specifically whether or not that is the case.  It should be hard to revoke a right for life; right now you can have your right revoked for life for the high crime of selling unpastuerized milk across state lines.   

Not all crimes and perpetrators are the same.  Killing a man in cold blood is not the same as writing a bunch of bad checks, but both are felonies and carry the same lifetime ban on firearms ownership?  That's malarkey!

414 views and 39 votes ? 

414 views and 39 votes ? 

What?  I didn't realize there was a poll.

Am checking this site using Tapatalk and the poll does not show.