Why didn't the Founding Fathers write "reasonable restrictions" into the 2nd amendmt?

[Little-Acorn]

As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not for felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons firing grapeshot, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Bill of Rights, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?

[CSM]

As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not for felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons firing grapeshot, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.

In other parts of the Bill of Rights, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from the 2nd amendment.

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?

Well, given the Founding Father's recent experience fighting the Revolutionary War (along with the logitics nightmare that they had to deal with in doing so), I can understand why there are no restrictions in the 2d Amendment. A bunch of untrained "militia" facing off against what, at the time, was the most fearsome, best trained, superbly equipped fighting force in the world had to have impacted their thinking. I'm not talking about ground forces either.

[gabosaurus]

In the time of the American Revolution, there were not many personal weapons to speak of.
Plus, the founding fathers lived in a time where much of our country was still a wilderness. They had to deal with the British in addition to whatever Native Americans who might want to quarrel with them.
I don't see how some "reasonable restrictions" would offend any. Like gun registration. You can still obtain and own all the weapons you want. You just have to register them.
I would like a waiting period as well. If you have a blood feud going on with a neighbor and an argument escalates, do you like the fact that he can run down to Wal-Mart (or wherever) and come back with a gun an hour later?

[Missileman]

In the time of the American Revolution, there were not many personal weapons to speak of.
Plus, the founding fathers lived in a time where much of our country was still a wilderness. They had to deal with the British in addition to whatever Native Americans who might want to quarrel with them.
I don't see how some "reasonable restrictions" would offend any. Like gun registration. You can still obtain and own all the weapons you want. You just have to register them.
I would like a waiting period as well. If you have a blood feud going on with a neighbor and an argument escalates, do you like the fact that he can run down to Wal-Mart (or wherever) and come back with a gun an hour later?

In colonial America, the MAJORITY of weapons were personal weapons that served not only as the military rifle, but hunting(AKA food providing) rifle.

While I have no strong objections to the "restrictions" you just listed, I'd like you to explain how either of those might have prevented the Aurora shooting, for example.

[Little-Acorn]

In the time of the American Revolution, there were not many personal weapons to speak of.


When little gabby starts a post with a blatant lie like this, I don't bother to read the rest.

Back to the subject:
When the Founding Fathers put phrases like "except by due process of law" and "reasonable searches" into several amendments in the Bill of Rights, why did they refuse to put that phrasing into the 2nd amendment?

Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?

[CSM]

When little gabby starts a post with a flagrant lie like this, I don't bother to read the rest.

Hmmm, you have to wonder how the heck the Founding Fathers managed to equip all those soldiers that found themselves fighting the British. I'm sure there was a huge defense budget (which was naturally cut regularly to fund "colonial welfare" and other handouts) and I I am sure there was plenty of oversite provided by the huge government beauraucracy ... right???

[Abbey Marie]

In the time of the American Revolution, there were not many personal weapons to speak of.
Plus, the founding fathers lived in a time where much of our country was still a wilderness. They had to deal with the British in addition to whatever Native Americans who might want to quarrel with them.
I don't see how some "reasonable restrictions" would offend any. Like gun registration. You can still obtain and own all the weapons you want. You just have to register them.
I would like a waiting period as well. If you have a blood feud going on with a neighbor and an argument escalates, do you like the fact that he can run down to Wal-Mart (or wherever) and come back with a gun an hour later?

The problem with reasonable restrictions is that they have a nasty habit of turning into full-blown prohibitions. Which is why the left opposes any reasonable restrictions on abortion, including a 24 hour waiting period (akin to the firearm waiting period), and even partial birth abortion. One could also argue that having to produce a picture ID to vote is a reasonable restriction, yet it is vehemently opposed by the Dems.

[Little-Acorn]

Why didn't the Founding Fathers write "reasonable restrictions" into the 2nd amendment?



The people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights were careful to NOT put any exceptions into the 2nd amendment. Even though they had put such exceptions into other amendments that accompanied it.

Even with the possibility of horrors such as we have seen in the last several weeks in Colorado and Wisconsin, could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?