Why didn't the Founding Fathers write "reasonable restrictions" into the 2nd amendment?

[Little-Acorn]

As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not for felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons firing grapeshot, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Bill of Rights, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I think the state of firearm development was somewhat less advanced--in the 1770's.

They did set up the Amendment to the Constitution process. And made it a tough one.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think the state of firearm development was somewhat less advanced--in the 1770's.

What's your point?

 

[GenSeneca]

It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

I'm still waiting for Pocket to explain what the 2nd amendment is referring to with the phrase, "shall not be infringed."

 

[Johnny Tremain]

What's your point?

The point--is self-evident.

 

[GenSeneca]

The point--is self-evident.

You could have just as easily said you have no point.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

You could have just as easily said you have no point.

I could have , you are right--and didn't.

 

[Cruella]

Wouldn't the Constitution have to be amended to restrict the type of weapons you could own?

 

[dogtowner]

The point--is self-evident.

its all relative

Back in the 14th century, they invented the crossbow. When Pope Gregory heard about it, he said, this weapon is so terrible, it will surely end war.

 

[dogtowner]

Wouldn't the Constitution have to be amended to restrict the type of weapons you could own?

not according to Scalia though I'm not so sure thats so. sounds like general political fear which was the exact reason for the 2nd.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Wouldn't the Constitution have to be amended to restrict the type of weapons you could own?

Most likely to do it correctly. But, that requires ratification by 3/4 of the states-- http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

 

[TheJPRD]

not according to Scalia though I'm not so sure thats so. sounds like general political fear which was the exact reason for the 2nd.

Scalia's cursory opinion (not legal opinion yet) is that the term "bear arms" may restrict the Right to weapons that can be carried by one person. He apparently hasn't thought-through the questions of shoulder-launched missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, flame throwers, etc. When you begin getting into the details of the 2nd amendment, there are some problematic implications that should be addressed. My personal opinion is that the 2nd amendment originally meant that a citizen could legally possess ANY weapon. In today's world, that intent IS problematic.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Scalia's cursory opinion (not legal opinion yet) is that the term "bear arms" may restrict the Right to weapons that can be carried by one person. He apparently hasn't thought-through the questions of shoulder-launched missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, flame throwers, etc. When you begin getting into the details of the 2nd amendment, there are some problematic implications that should be addressed. My personal opinion is that the 2nd amendment originally meant that a citizen could legally possess ANY weapon. In today's world, that intent IS problematic.

Fortunately, the Atomic Cannon has been dismantled and made into souvenirs.

 

[steveox]

As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not for felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons firing grapeshot, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Bill of Rights, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?

Little Acorn ,,umm you wouldnt understand our founding fathers. In early america was a revolution you wouldnt understand,,Cause these people were not liberal back then. Hell even back in wild west days people werent liberal cause they understood what an eye for an eye means,, Not by making gun control laws. Can you imagine if the left was back in those wild west days Billy The Kid and Jessie James would had tripled the murders back then. Cause the towns people wouldnt be allowed to have guns they would been defenseless.

 

[Cruella]

You couldn't survive in the earlier days of America without a gun. They were used to hunt for food. A lot of my ancestors had moved to parts of Ohio just because of the game. There were a lot of predatory creatures looking for food, including humans, and they also had their fair share of renegade Indians, robbers and rapists