The Second Amendment only specifies the right to keep and bear arms. There's no mention of the right to acquire arms. In the absence of specifically mentioning the right to get arms, is it a right or something that should be regulated by the government/ATF? In other words, can or should the government legally regulate if law abiding citizens get guns or certain guns or gun parts? We know certain firearms/weapons can't be legally owned by individuals or things can change over time. We know the government can legally or illegally do things just like an individual can.
What was the intent of the Second Amendment at the time it was written, codified and passed as law? How can we be sure what the intent was or is of our founding fathers? Why wasn't other supporting documents or writings specifically on the Second Amendment by our founding fathers include more words explicitly stated in the Second Amendment to try to attempt to avoid lawsuits. Not that the Second Amendment is about lawsuits but in reality that's where legal determinations are made. Was the Second Amendment broadly or narrowly focused?
In some ways the Second Amendment might be too short and concise that leaves it open for people to interpret or debate the intent and have varying opinions. Perhaps, more wasn't written because it would have had the opposite effect because it would be picked apart and therefore more confusion would ensue.
Who are all the gun laws protecting? The government, other countries, law abiding citizens, criminals or a all of the above?
For the legal scholars or very opinionated, what's your thoughts on the Second Amendment regarding getting arms not just keeping and bearing arms? It's difficult enough to just keep what guns or rights we already have because it's constantly being chipped away.
P.S. Please keep things cordial. I'm as passionate about guns and the Second Amendment as anyone that believes in "freedom" which can be a misnomer in itself but you know what I'm saying. I want this to be an educational dialogue. In other words, I don't want the mods to shut this thread down because it goes south because adults can't behave themselves.
What was the intent of the Second Amendment at the time it was written, codified and passed as law? How can we be sure what the intent was or is of our founding fathers? Why wasn't other supporting documents or writings specifically on the Second Amendment by our founding fathers include more words explicitly stated in the Second Amendment to try to attempt to avoid lawsuits. Not that the Second Amendment is about lawsuits but in reality that's where legal determinations are made. Was the Second Amendment broadly or narrowly focused?
In some ways the Second Amendment might be too short and concise that leaves it open for people to interpret or debate the intent and have varying opinions. Perhaps, more wasn't written because it would have had the opposite effect because it would be picked apart and therefore more confusion would ensue.
Who are all the gun laws protecting? The government, other countries, law abiding citizens, criminals or a all of the above?
For the legal scholars or very opinionated, what's your thoughts on the Second Amendment regarding getting arms not just keeping and bearing arms? It's difficult enough to just keep what guns or rights we already have because it's constantly being chipped away.
P.S. Please keep things cordial. I'm as passionate about guns and the Second Amendment as anyone that believes in "freedom" which can be a misnomer in itself but you know what I'm saying. I want this to be an educational dialogue. In other words, I don't want the mods to shut this thread down because it goes south because adults can't behave themselves.