Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Second Amendment, FWIW,

by Steven Haninger / February 6, 2013 7:03 AM PST

as interpreted by the various states.


It appears that the majority of states already reserve the right to regulate gun ownership and use and some define what can and cannot be prohibited. It would seem some reining in of anyone who thinks gun ownership is a "free for all" right, is already being done.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Second Amendment, FWIW,
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Second Amendment, FWIW,
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Huh, I wonder when they will
by James Denison / February 6, 2013 7:27 AM PST

also start regulating the First Amendment too?

Collapse -
Even Wayne LaPierre......
by Josh K / February 6, 2013 8:16 AM PST

.....supported background checks back in '99. I don't know what made him go to the deep end of the extremist pool. We shouldn't have them because criminals will find a way around them? By that logic we should just abolish all laws and declare anarchy.

Collapse -
And when we don't enforce laws vigorously
by Steven Haninger / February 6, 2013 8:39 AM PST

and give marshmallow powered wrist slaps instead, we create de facto anarchy. We're up to our ears in laws that no few obey. You can witness the disrespect for law every day. In fact, you can't miss it.

Collapse -
Remember Hitler and his thinking?
by TONI H / February 6, 2013 9:58 PM PST

Confiscate the guns and you control the people.

Law-abiding gun owners required to register every firearm they own.......huge 300M gun database all given to a Federal government who wants to eventually eliminate those guns completely anyhow.....now they know where you live, what guns you own, and how many and the knock one day comes on your door. Now the only ones WITH the guns are the criminals who didn't obey the law and register THEIRS and law enforcement and special 'body guards' for movie stars because you just KNOW that there will be a ton of waivers given out. And all gun dealers have to register their inventory so those guns can be tracked as well.....and law enforcement and private investigators........and every gun confiscated in a criminal act.

The camel's nose is creeping into the tent...........

Collapse -
That Hitler business isn't true, Toni
by Josh K / February 7, 2013 2:01 AM PST

LaPierre himself has made that reference and it's a lie.


Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone's guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler's, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition," Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

Collapse -
"Mostly bogus"
by TONI H / February 7, 2013 6:59 PM PST

but not entirely.......

There was a large coalition of Partisans who not only hid their weapons because they were being confiscated, but also collected good and damaged weapons from battles and repaired them in order to keep fighting. Because Hitler had managed to convince so many of his own people that they were the superior race, he exempted 'true' Germans from those laws because he needed them to fight against the 'inferiors' and wipe them out. Your last paragraph doesn't mention that,

I did a search for Partisans against Hitler and found many hits that mentioned various factions, including Jews, so didn't post those links because there were so many of them to pick from.

Collapse -
OK, so it's "mostly" bogus
by Josh K / February 7, 2013 9:46 PM PST
In reply to: "Mostly bogus"

Is that sufficient for you to stop making the claim?

Collapse -
by TONI H / February 8, 2013 4:31 AM PST

because although he didn't confiscate the guns from his own countrymen who were 'true' Germans, he DID confiscate the guns from the OCCUPIED countries......and THOSE were the Partisans who hid the guns and repaired the rest in order to fight back.

Collapse -
well taking arms away from conquered
by Roger NC / February 8, 2013 8:48 AM PST
In reply to: No.....

is historically normal.

The Confederacy was certainly unarmed after it was conquered.

After various wars, the victors disarmed the defeated nation to various degrees. Germany and Japan both were severely restricted in armnament for decades.

No invader and occupier would leave weapons uncontrolled to the defeated enemy.

confisticating guns from occupied lands doesn't raise an eyebrow anywhere. It's when you disarm specific groups within your own country/nation/community the debate begins is it for good reasons or to make sure your opposition can't move against you when you stage a coup or manipulate the rules to become a tyrant.

Collapse -
Historical Revision?
by James Denison / February 8, 2013 10:49 AM PST

"The Confederacy was certainly unarmed after it was conquered."

You sure about that?

"Antebellum era

The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was one of the polarizing decisions that led to the civil war. One minor issue was whether blacks had the citizenship right to bear arms. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) the Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote for the majority: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

The debate in the Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War also concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves. One particular concern was the disarming of former slaves.

The Second Amendment attracted serious judicial attention with the Reconstruction era case of United States v. Cruikshank which ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not cause the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to limit the powers of the State governments, stating that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

There were some guns gathered at the surrender, but far as I recall all the other southern armies took both their horse and guns back home with them. As you can see the right to keep and bear arms was still a protected right following the war, even more than it probably is now.

Collapse -
ok, the former government and leaders
by Roger NC / February 8, 2013 10:58 AM PST
In reply to: Historical Revision?

tho I do recall that Lee got Grant to let his men take their guns home because they had to hunt to provide food.

Ok, bad point, bad example, but Germany and Japan were restricted as to the size and deployment of their national forces after WW2 were they not?

Surely you don't deny it's a general practice to disarm a conquered people? at least temporarily anyway, except for the ones that can convince the conquerors they're willing to support the occupiers for their own benefit.

Collapse -
Yes, typical practice
by James Denison / February 8, 2013 3:48 PM PST

My idea is if you really want to insure a long lasting defeat, bomb them back to the stone age and then make sure every family, no matter what the political faction, has an easily concealed handgun and at least 100 rounds of ammo, then leave, let them work it out among themselves.

Collapse -
(NT) advocating genocide to protect yourself?
by Roger NC / February 8, 2013 8:29 PM PST
In reply to: Yes, typical practice
Collapse -
I don't live there
by James Denison / February 9, 2013 2:16 AM PST

Advocating all people have the ability to defend themselves.

Collapse -
not the first time you've suggested arming
by Roger NC / February 9, 2013 2:42 AM PST

several groups with all they need to eliminate each other and leave them to it.

Also not the first time you've recommended bombing someone back to the stone age.

It leads to an appearance the recommended solution is to help them wipe each other out.

Eventually I suppose the hope is "your kind" will be all that is left, or that is left in large enogh numbers to count.

Collapse -
by James Denison / February 9, 2013 3:05 AM PST

Mutually Assured Destruction. Worked for the world in general. Probably lead to them seeking peace among neighbors and establish boundaries and rules that benefit all. The alternative is MAD.

Collapse -
I don't think the second amendment would affect
by Roger NC / February 6, 2013 9:47 AM PST

state rights to regulate it.

After all, the first ten amendments were to prevent the new federal government from taking those rights away from the states to control, a bribe to get the state representatives to sign, not the individual guys back home

Application of those amendments to state law has happen through judicial review, interpretation, expansion and limiting of the effect of amendments and laws.

Collapse -
I saw at least one state that forbade gun registration
by Steven Haninger / February 6, 2013 6:03 PM PST

as being a requirement. I didn't read them all but I could see a national policy being at odds with what a few states already have written into their own laws.

Collapse -
If there is a national law, unless it is ruled
by Roger NC / February 7, 2013 7:06 AM PST

unconstitutional it trumps state law.

Established over and over again, federal law trumps state unless you can get it declared unconstitutional in totality, partially in some areas, or set aside by court order in specific cases or instances.

Plenty of lawsuits filed I'm sure if stricter and broader federal laws do come out.

Collapse -
court has expanded second amendment to states
by Roger NC / February 8, 2013 8:53 AM PST

McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 tied the second amendment and th 14th amendment together by the Supreme Court to apply to states. The term local governments is also mentioned so it may extend to cities/towns also.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 51,224 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,453 discussions
Laptops 20,090 discussions
Security 30,722 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,937 discussions
Windows 10 1,295 discussions
Phones 16,252 discussions
Windows 7 7,684 discussions
Networking & Wireless 15,215 discussions

CNET's Oh, Snap! Sweepstakes

Enter for a chance to win* a 360-degree camera

Do you Snapchat? We want you to snap for this sweepstakes and give you the chance to get your hands on the Theta S so you can make your very own 360-degree videos.