There are different interpretations of the original second amendment and its establishment of a right the “bear arms” based on the necessity of “militias.” Citizen militias are no longer considered necessary for the security of a free state. Thus, this Constitution provides for the right to own firearms based on the right of self-defense. While this right is affirmed, it does not extend to owning weapons of mass murder or to individuals who may pose a threat to others.
Comments are welcome below. All comments must be respectfully written and not contain misinformation or fallacious reasoning. We welcome thoughtful dialogue of differences.
3 Comments
Brian Niegemann
on December 12, 2022 at 11:45 pm
This section is a reasonable update of the original Second Amendment overall. However I feel that a few of the terms in it are a bit vague or overbroad. What is a “weapon of mass murder”? The Las Vegas shooter killed 68 people using ordinary AR-15 semiautomatic sporting rifles, often referred to as “assault weapons” because they feature military styling. But he could just as easily have used typical hunting rifles.
This may sound a bit technical, but the best way to restrict the destructive power of a given weapon is by limiting two things- its muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Civilians could be allowed to own weapons below a certain muzzle velocity, say half of what military rifles have. And rate of fire simply means no fully automatic or multi-shot bursts. One trigger pull = one bullet.
Another way to limit rate of fire is by restricting magazine capacity, or even prohibiting detachable magazines on civilian rifles. America won WWII using M1 rifles with 8-shot nondetachable magazines and only semiautomatic fire.
The other point I would like to make is about allowing law enforcement to confiscate weapons, or deny permits, based on a person possibly being a danger to themselves or others. This section should stipulate that a warrant and due process are required before firearms are confiscated, or the right to buy them denied. In an emergency, law enforcement should be allowed to take these actions on a temporary basis, as provided by state law; but due process should still be required for a final resolution of an accused’s right of self-defense. Thanks for listening.
This section is a reasonable update of the original Second Amendment overall. However I feel that a few of the terms in it are a bit vague or overbroad. What is a “weapon of mass murder”? The Las Vegas shooter killed 68 people using ordinary AR-15 semiautomatic sporting rifles, often referred to as “assault weapons” because they feature military styling. But he could just as easily have used typical hunting rifles.
This may sound a bit technical, but the best way to restrict the destructive power of a given weapon is by limiting two things- its muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Civilians could be allowed to own weapons below a certain muzzle velocity, say half of what military rifles have. And rate of fire simply means no fully automatic or multi-shot bursts. One trigger pull = one bullet.
Another way to limit rate of fire is by restricting magazine capacity, or even prohibiting detachable magazines on civilian rifles. America won WWII using M1 rifles with 8-shot nondetachable magazines and only semiautomatic fire.
The other point I would like to make is about allowing law enforcement to confiscate weapons, or deny permits, based on a person possibly being a danger to themselves or others. This section should stipulate that a warrant and due process are required before firearms are confiscated, or the right to buy them denied. In an emergency, law enforcement should be allowed to take these actions on a temporary basis, as provided by state law; but due process should still be required for a final resolution of an accused’s right of self-defense. Thanks for listening.
Excellent commentary and valuable ideas. Thanks for adding them.
Thanks for your reply. I find this an interesting site and I’ll keep checking on it periodically for new comments.