Turn on thread page Beta

Importing the 2nd Ammendment watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Just for kicks and giggles I thought it would be interesting to measure feelings on UK gun control laws. Are they overly draconian, about right, or not tight enough?

    Howard
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Just for kicks and giggles I thought it would be interesting to measure feelings on UK gun control laws. Are they overly draconian, about right, or not tight enough?

    Howard
    No guns should be allowed at all. Farmers should have another way of defending themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The second amendment does not actually give you the right to bear guns, it is just interpreted as such.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You are not allowed guns anyway, people still have them. Make the laws tighter, but they are quite tight now, aren't they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    You are not allowed guns anyway, people still have them. Make the laws tighter, but they are quite tight now, aren't they?
    you are actualyl allowed to own guns, the biggest problem with gun crime is actually converted replicas
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    The second amendment does not actually give you the right to bear guns, it is just interpreted as such.
    Amendment II:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


    How does the second amendment not 'actually give you the right to bear guns'??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Second Amendment protects an individual right, but the right can only be exercised by members of a formal state militia, who are bearing arms while actively participating in that militia's activities.

    all right my previous one was worded badly, not give you the right to own a gun
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Amendment II:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


    How does the second amendment not 'actually give you the right to bear guns'??
    in america we dont have that immendment, its part of the bill of rights...

    1 the right to free speech
    2. the right to own and bear arms...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    The Second Amendment protects an individual right, but the right can only be exercised by members of a formal state militia, who are bearing arms while actively participating in that militia's activities.

    all right my previous one was worded badly, not give you the right to own a gun
    It is not a right that can only be exercised by members of a formal state militia. the right of the people to keep and bear arms

    'The people' is everyone, not just members of a particular militia.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    in america we dont have that immendment, its part of the bill of rights...

    1 the right to free speech
    2. the right to own and bear arms...
    We were talking about the second amendment of the American Constitution...

    The UK has no written constitution, so there can't be a 'second amendment' in the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    in america we dont have that immendment, its part of the bill of rights...

    1 the right to free speech
    2. the right to own and bear arms...
    the second amendment is part of your constitution
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    It is not a right that can only be exercised by members of a formal state militia. the right of the people to keep and bear arms

    'The people' is everyone, not just members of a particular militia.
    it is a right that can only be exercised when within a formal militia as otherwise why does it contain a reference to militia. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," the rest is just the second half stating what the milita members are allowed to do within the context of the militia.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Exact wording aside, you do not have to be a member of a militia to own a gun in the US. Obviously, if ever there was any doubt as to the precise meaning of the words this have been overcome by some Supreme Court interpretation at some point in time.

    However, this escapes the thrust of the debate.

    Howard
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Exact wording aside, you do not have to be a member of a militia to own a gun in the US. Obviously, if ever there was any doubt as to the precise meaning of the words this have been overcome by some Supreme Court interpretation at some point in time.

    However, this escapes the thrust of the debate.

    Howard
    no not under current law, but current gun control laws are based on the wording of the II Amendment which is what we were discussing. The supreme court can go back on tiself though. Although IMO it will never happen, at least for a while as bodies like the NRA are too powerful
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    no not under current law, but current gun control laws are based on the wording of the II Amendment which is what we were discussing. The supreme court can go back on tiself though. Although IMO it will never happen, at least for a while as bodies like the NRA are too powerful
    I don't think it can. The Bill of Rights are positive rights which are not readily eroded. The 2nd may at some point have been interpreted, as I suggested above or, it may not. (I honestly don't know the legal history of how gun laws came to be so in the US)

    However, this I think makes no difference since in an entrenched constitution a positive right is a positive right no matter how it was deemed as such (either directly or by constitutional/statutory interpretation)

    If I'm right, then the 2nd would need to be struck out which is not the job of the judiciary, but rather the legislature. However, Congress would find this difficult as to change the constitution in fact requires a plebiscite.



    The best you can really do is to tinker with the interpretation as did the Clinton administration which managed to get some legislation through congress which resulted in a temporary ban (due to come to an end in 2004 I think) on fully automatic rifles.

    Howard
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I don't think it can. The Bill of Rights are positive rights which are not readily eroded. The 2nd may at some point have been interpreted, as I suggested above or, it may not. (I honestly don't know the legal history of how gun laws came to be so in the US)

    However, this I think makes no difference since in an entrenched constitution a positive right is a positive right no matter how it was deemed as such (either directly or by constitutional/statutory interpretation) If I'm right, then the 2nd would need to be struck out which is not the job of the judiciary, but rather the legislature. However, Congress would find this difficult as to change the constitution in fact requires a plebiscite. The best you can really do is to tinker with the interpretation as did the Clinton administration which managed to get some legislation through congress which resulted in a temporary ban (due to come to an end in 2004 I think) on fully automatic rifles.

    Howard
    as our previous argument showed with zizero, it does depend on how you interpret that sentence, which is the Supreme Court's role. The supreme Court therefore could help the government ban private ownership of guns. It is a positive right, but it depends on what the positive right is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    as our previous argument showed with zizero, it does depend on how you interpret that sentence, which is the Supreme Court's role. The supreme Court therefore could help the government ban private ownership of guns. It is a positive right, but it depends on what the positive right is.
    Well, forgetting all about that........UK gun legislation......too tough, about right, too soft?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    the second amendment is part of your constitution
    no i think that the second ammendment would be a bit to old
    that was part of the bill of rights!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, forgetting all about that........UK gun legislation......too tough, about right, too soft?
    about right
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, forgetting all about that........UK gun legislation......too tough, about right, too soft?
    Too soft. For now anyway.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 27, 2003
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.