Archived: Does the Second Amendment permit any restriction on an individual's right to purchase firearms?

typo

looks good to me.

issue revision:

---

per donovan's revision

---

um, I agree with the suggestion Donovan made 7 months ago

JT - I have no problem debating the 2nd Amendment in specific applications.

but to suggest that those who agree will feel as if their reliance on the second amendment as the foundation for their position will feel the question is slanted against them doesn't give those folks enough credit.

It's not the second amendment as a foundation for a position that concerns me - it's setting up an opposition between gun control and the 2nd amendment in the wording of the question that loads it.

There are those who would say that my interpretation of the second amendment is missing the point...

This is argument for the debate.  Let's hold off on that for now and focus on how to make the most refined question possible.

"Gun Control v. 2nd Amendment" isn't an issue like, "Communism v. Capitalism" where the two are obviously in direct opposition.  People with an entrenched position before entering the debate may see it as such - but that gets us right back into the same terminological quagmire as the "Pro Choice v Pro Life" debate many months ago.

I think for the context of this question [gun control] has to do with an individual's right to purchase firearms, and how to control that in order to reduce the amount of gun violence that occurs in this country.

OK - then let's ask THOSE questions, in the form of a positive question, rather than with an implicit negative complicating things:

Does the 2nd amendment permit any restriction on an individuals right to purchase firearms?

is better than

Is it antithetical to the 2nd amendment to restrict an individuals right to purchase firearms?

Take out some terms and try it out to see what I mean.

"Does X permit restricting Y?"
v.
"Is it against X to restrict Y?"

See the negativity loaded into the second question?

The distinction between "Does X permit" and "Is it against X" does have some logical effect. (Think how nasty double negatives get for interpretative purposes.)

Within the context of my previous post it's pretty clear what I think about this issue, but I don't really believe the question is biased if taken simply on its own. I actually think it's pretty straightforward. Some people will agree, some won't, but to suggest that those who agree will feel as if their reliance on the second amendment as the foundation for their position will feel the question is slanted against them doesn't give those folks enough credit. And for those with no opinion, it seems pretty basic: Read the second amendment and see what you think.

There are those who would say that my interpretation of the second amendment is missing the point, and that its intent really was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. For those folks, gun control is an unwarranted intrusion on rights that predate the Constitution. I would imagine some of them could tap out plenty of sentences backing up that position without feeling defensive about it. So the debate is at least as much about what one thinks the second amendment actually means as it is about the issue of controlling guns. I think to achieve anything substantial on the latter it's necessary to first find some common ground on the former, if that's possible.

As for gun control, I agree that there are many facets to the issue. I think for the context of this question it has to do with an individual's right to purchase firearms, and how to control that in order to reduce the amount of gun violence that occurs in this country. I believe that when you say gun control to most people, that's what they think you're talking about, no matter which side of the debate they fall on. Any discussion that develops from this question would surely cover this territory. So is it necessary to specify this aspect of gun control in the question?

I'm not OK with JT's wording here. Bias is loaded into it by approaching it this way, even though both sides can engage in debate (does the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amend mean anything, of is it just a justification for the prohibition on controls as JT sees

Again (see #6141##comments here#), "gun control" includes everything from safety to product manufacturing to distribution to disposal to criminal penalty multipliers to school safety rules.  And more.

Jacki's initial question - ""do you believe that more stringent gun control policies would violate the second amendment?" mirrors the question "What is your view on gun control laws" question and the answers there -

As I see it, it suffers from a similar defect.  Specific laws may be acceptable or not, based on specific concerns (e.g., the decision that the military will not dump bazookas on the market is a "gun control law" couched as a regulation).

I don't even remember what the original issue was, but I think this version of it really boils things down. I'm for it.

I am ok with the wording of this question.

JT sold me. I think it's a keeper...

Here's what the second amendment says:

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.

My interpretation of this is, back in the day you weren't supplied with a weapon when you joined the militia. You had to bring your own firearms, meaning the second amendment was meant to insure this would continue to be the case, and no government could deprive American citizens of that right in order to prevent them from fighting to defend their country, even against that government, if need be.

I know those who oppose gun control cite the second ammendment as the basis for their beliefs, but I think that's really a diversion. Gun control will not deprive people of their right to keep arms, but instead impose regulations that will make it more difficult to purchase arms, especially if you've shown in the past that your intent is do something unlawful with said arms.

For me, the question should be something more along the lines of: Is gun control antithetical to the second amendment?

The "moderately" option is confusing to me. Gun control, as I imagine it, doesn't prohibit people from owning small arms, so I'm not sure how that differentiates the answer from "loosely." To me, a loose interpretation would be signified by something like "access to firearms should be strictly controlled," and a moderate interpretation would be, "undisruptive gun control regulations are OK." only, a better word than "undisruptive."

Ok, I changed it. Let me know what you think.

I don't think the proposed question can work, because there will be no answer-grouping that is both comprehensive and unbiased.  However, I think it's the right question.  Or close to it.  How do you think the second amendment should be applied today?  Any other question about gun control is just going to be asking-that-without-asking-that.

i think this question is a bit broad.  what about rephrasing it to "do you believe that more stringent gun control policies would violate the second amendment?"  i'm just throwing ideas out here;  i'm not married to my suggestion in any way.