POLL: What Does "Shall Not Be Infringed" Mean to You?

[Mr_Gixxer]

Typing the following from memory only, I would expect almost all of you should be able to do this as well. If you don't have this memorized yet, do it now...

A well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The part in bold is what I'm after and with the newest push for more gun laws following the events in Vegas I don't see much discussion about the real reason why we should be fighting against more laws. So, the poll question is, what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

Furthering the discussion, what did the founders want it to mean and why?

[pacodelahoya]

Not just small arms either, you have the green for a destroyer? Have at it.
Letters of marque, private cannon, the equivalent of artillery and private navy was legal and accepted back then.

[Mr_Gixxer]

At first I thought it would be silly asking this question, and it SHOULD be but I realize that not everyone here is on the same page as I am. My choice in the poll should be obvious. The reason why we fight for these rights may not be to some.

Now, to anyone that supports some restrictions, what and why? And what gives you the power to justify these restrictions? Other than a change to the constitution, you have no justification at this point in our country's history.

[allenr]

There is a difference between the infringement of a right and the regulation of the right. Like the right to vote the right to bear arms can be regulated. SCOTUS made that clear in the Heller decision. I accept it.

[WoollyPullover]

C'mon neow you don't need a glock or a AR-47 to hunt. JK

[Coops]

There are restrictions on all our rights. For example:
Ten year olds cannot vote.
You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
You cannot claim that cannibalism is a sacrament in your church.
Police can search your house without a warrant if there is an imminent threat.
All reasonable and nobody complains about them.

Age restrictions, defining prohibited persons through background checks, requiring a license to carry all seem reasonable to me and not so much infringement as regulation.
What I see as infringement is dictating the kind of weapon you can own. "Assault weapons" bans are unconstitutional. Waiting times past a NICS check is infringement. Magazine limits should be illegal.

So I voted "Some restrictions are acceptable"

[Gunsnwater]

There is a difference between the infringement of a right and the regulation of the right. Like the right to vote the right to bear arms can be regulated. SCOTUS made that clear in the Heller decision. I accept it.

Completely wrong in accordance with original intent of the authors. You would trade some measure of liberty for securuty and shall have neither.

[Gunsnwater]

There are restrictions on all our rights. For example:
Ten year olds cannot vote.
You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
You cannot claim that cannibalism is a sacrament in your church.
Police can search your house without a warrant if there is an imminent threat.
All reasonable and nobody complains about them.

Age restrictions, defining prohibited persons through background checks, requiring a license to carry all seem reasonable to me and not so much infringement as regulation.
What I see as infringement is dictating the kind of weapon you can own. "Assault weapons" bans are unconstitutional. Waiting times past a NICS check is infringement. Magazine limits should be illegal.

So I voted "Some restrictions are acceptable"

You sound like a crab in a heating pot of water getting accustomed to the boil.

[Gunsnwater]

Not just small arms either, you have the green for a destroyer? Have at it.
Letters of marque, private cannon, the equivalent of artillery and private navy was legal and accepted back then.

Maybe you need to say it again, they can't seem to hear you.

[GinzoMatic]

Interesting first thread/post to get involved in.

I would be on the side of complete freedom, for sure. To those who are for the 'shotgun blast instant-gratification through legislation' banning the ownership/use of bump-fire stocks as a way of compromise, I say don't give them an inch.