Is New Mexico throwing away the Constitution w Gun Ban?
- Thread starter Katrina
- Start date
The second amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, but does it guarantee us the right to carry it in public, whether openly or concealed? I don’t know, I would think that’s what “bear arms” means, but I guess that’s where politicians choose to interpret things differently.
Based on my interpretation, I would say that it is unconstitutional, but states have typically been given a lot of freedom to decide how aggressive or lax they want to be with gun control.
Based on my interpretation, I would say that it is unconstitutional, but states have typically been given a lot of freedom to decide how aggressive or lax they want to be with gun control.
I look at this from the perspective of a country with extremely strict gun laws and an insignificant gun crime issue. After the Dunblane Massacre in 1996, bowing to public pressure, U.K. leaders took decisive legislative action. By the end of 1997, Parliament had banned private ownership of most handguns, building on measures passed following the Hungerford killings, including a semi-automatic weapons ban and mandatory registration for shotgun owners.
We saw it for what it was. Firearms are dangerous in the wrong hands.
The US, pressured by the NRA, has never seriously made any meaningful attempts to prevent mass shootings. Despite the clear and very obvious signs that allowing assault rifles to be legally owned by the public is f’in stupid, ownership continues and consequently so do mass shootings. Here’s some data: Mass Shootings by Country. Congratulations, 'Murica, it’s another thing you do better than Russia!
Now let’s look at the 2nd Amendment as that’s what this is about:
Let’s break it down:
1) The security of a free State is the goal; and,
2) A well regulated militia is a prerequisite for this; therefore,
3) The right to keep and bear arms is necessary.
The 2nd Amendment makes the security of the state its priority. Of the State, not the individual. It reads that, in order for the State to be secured a well regulated militia is required. And, in order to ensure there is a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep firearms is to be allowed.
There are so many issues with this - firstly consider the historical context. There was significant mistrust of standing armies at the time, such as the one employed by the British to secure the colonies. There were additional concerns around centralised military power. In the founding-era citizen militias existed to provide common defence.
These concerns were entirely understandable and merited. Now, consider if there would be the same concerns if the fledgling United States had been spending than the next ten countries combined: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database.
Those concerns would not be justified. The security of the state is already guaranteed and a ‘well regulated’ militia is not a prerequisite for this security. Therefore it is not necessary to prevent infringement upon the right of the citizen to own a firearm.
Next, let’s look at and compare the firearms of the time the 2nd Amendment was implemented with modern assault rifles.
The 2nd Amendment was written to cover ownership of a musket capable of firing 1 round every twenty seconds in the hands of an experienced and skilled operator. It was not written to cover ownership of assault rifles by angst-ridden teenagers upset over Fortnite who go to their school and murder innocent children.
It was not written to allow for gang warfare to erupt on the streets of American cities.
It was not written to enable almost 50,000 gun deaths in 2021 (of which more than 2500 were children).
Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:
These declarations are not part of the US Constitution and shouldn't be considered so. For those who mayhaps use these as justification for keeping firearms should also bare in mind the restrictions imposed on a standing army. (You can't have it both ways!)
Finally, and then I'll step down from my soap box. The 1776, July 4 Declaration of Independence proclaims:
In the Declaration of Independence, the right to Life is held to be unalienable. The right to Liberty is held to be unalienable. The pursuit of Happiness is an unalienable right. I often feel, as an outsider looking in, that guns have more rights than people in the United States. My kids go to school. There are no metal detectors or bag searches. There are no drills to prepare for a shooting incident. I do not send them to school fearing that they will be murdered and prevented from pursuing happiness, denied their Life, because the rights of gun owners are held more sacred than the rights of school children to not be killed in their place of learning.
Education Week reports that so far in 2023 there have been:
30 school shootings this year that resulted in injuries or deaths.
16 people killed in schools (12 kids).
32 people injured in schools.
According to Wikipedia, as of August 31 2023, at least 545 people have been killed and 1,869 other people have been injured in 466 mass shootings.
Are these lives lost or irrevocably ruined more or less important than the right to bear arms? If you answer less important, your moral compass requires a hard reset.
I'll leave you with the real meaning of the Right to Bear Arms...
We saw it for what it was. Firearms are dangerous in the wrong hands.
The US, pressured by the NRA, has never seriously made any meaningful attempts to prevent mass shootings. Despite the clear and very obvious signs that allowing assault rifles to be legally owned by the public is f’in stupid, ownership continues and consequently so do mass shootings. Here’s some data: Mass Shootings by Country. Congratulations, 'Murica, it’s another thing you do better than Russia!
Now let’s look at the 2nd Amendment as that’s what this is about:
Let’s break it down:
1) The security of a free State is the goal; and,
2) A well regulated militia is a prerequisite for this; therefore,
3) The right to keep and bear arms is necessary.
The 2nd Amendment makes the security of the state its priority. Of the State, not the individual. It reads that, in order for the State to be secured a well regulated militia is required. And, in order to ensure there is a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep firearms is to be allowed.
There are so many issues with this - firstly consider the historical context. There was significant mistrust of standing armies at the time, such as the one employed by the British to secure the colonies. There were additional concerns around centralised military power. In the founding-era citizen militias existed to provide common defence.
These concerns were entirely understandable and merited. Now, consider if there would be the same concerns if the fledgling United States had been spending than the next ten countries combined: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database.
Those concerns would not be justified. The security of the state is already guaranteed and a ‘well regulated’ militia is not a prerequisite for this security. Therefore it is not necessary to prevent infringement upon the right of the citizen to own a firearm.
Next, let’s look at and compare the firearms of the time the 2nd Amendment was implemented with modern assault rifles.The 2nd Amendment was written to cover ownership of a musket capable of firing 1 round every twenty seconds in the hands of an experienced and skilled operator. It was not written to cover ownership of assault rifles by angst-ridden teenagers upset over Fortnite who go to their school and murder innocent children.
It was not written to allow for gang warfare to erupt on the streets of American cities.
It was not written to enable almost 50,000 gun deaths in 2021 (of which more than 2500 were children).
Many people confuse the 2nd Amendment with State declarations. For example, Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 reads:
Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:
These declarations are not part of the US Constitution and shouldn't be considered so. For those who mayhaps use these as justification for keeping firearms should also bare in mind the restrictions imposed on a standing army. (You can't have it both ways!)
Finally, and then I'll step down from my soap box. The 1776, July 4 Declaration of Independence proclaims:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ——
In the Declaration of Independence, the right to Life is held to be unalienable. The right to Liberty is held to be unalienable. The pursuit of Happiness is an unalienable right. I often feel, as an outsider looking in, that guns have more rights than people in the United States. My kids go to school. There are no metal detectors or bag searches. There are no drills to prepare for a shooting incident. I do not send them to school fearing that they will be murdered and prevented from pursuing happiness, denied their Life, because the rights of gun owners are held more sacred than the rights of school children to not be killed in their place of learning.
Education Week reports that so far in 2023 there have been:
30 school shootings this year that resulted in injuries or deaths.
16 people killed in schools (12 kids).
32 people injured in schools.
According to Wikipedia, as of August 31 2023, at least 545 people have been killed and 1,869 other people have been injured in 466 mass shootings.
Are these lives lost or irrevocably ruined more or less important than the right to bear arms? If you answer less important, your moral compass requires a hard reset.
I'll leave you with the real meaning of the Right to Bear Arms...
I'm skipping all posts, and just reposting what I said in another thread...
You explained this way much better than I could and I completely agree with you on this.
As you stated, the UK took action after the Dunblane Massacre and although it took a little while, eventually guns were banned in the UK. As much as we do still have some issues when firearms get smuggled into the country, they are much easier to detect and take down resulting in very few issues with firearms like you see in the US.
The right to bear arms may be a human right and that is often what is always argued but look at all the innocent lives that have been lost when it comes to these firearms getting into the wrong hands because it is your right.
Due to it being a right, anyone and their mother can get their hands on a firearm whether they choose to use it for protection purposes or for the wrong purposes.
Many whom I have spoken to tend to use the excuse that they need to protect their homes and families. So do we in the UK just as those in the US do but we don't use firearms to do that.
If you change the laws for all, it would be better for everyone and easier to take down those with firearms that should not have them or have them used for the wrong reasons.
Many are going to say it is unconstitutional for New Mexico to ban guns but at the same time, they will have looked at this from all perspectives and over time, many will realize it was the right choice to make.
No one should have to worry about whether they will come home one day because some maniac had a firearm and chose to use it to mass kill, it's not fair that they lose their lives because Americans want to keep their rights to bear arms.
Laugh at me all you want. Disarming the general public at large is not the way to go. If you want a disarmed society, go ahead... live in that country where, one of these days.. someone is gonna come into YOUR home. Your space, you sanctuary, your place of comfort... with a weapon of their choice. Like a knife, an axe, a sword, whatever... what you gonna do.. call Ghostbusters? Whatever.
What... are... you... gonna... do? Let them stab you? Let them beat you up? Like all these leftist expect you to do...?
Get out of here.
What... are... you... gonna... do? Let them stab you? Let them beat you up? Like all these leftist expect you to do...?
Get out of here.
Not all guns are banned in the UK but it's true that we do have some of the strictest control measures in the world.
I have a firearms licence and own a number of rifles which are locked away at a local gun club. I've been target shooting on and off for the last 50+ years. I like our gun laws. They allow me to own and enjoy guns knowing categorically I, the people I care for and pretty much everyone else is never going to be on the receiving end of a bullet.
America has a problem that goes way beyond the 2nd Amendment. There are other countries that have fairly lax gun laws but still manage to keep very low death rates involving firearms e.g. approximately one in ten people living in Norway own a registered firearm. In 2022 three people were killed in cases involving a firearm.
By most metrics America has the highest number of gun deaths per head of population. That's pretty awful but it pales into insignificance compared to another statistic. Guns are the leading cause of death among children in the United States.
It would seem so, absolutely contrary to America's 2nd Amendment. However laws set down here in the UK around the same time classified it illegal to bang or shake a rug or a carpet outdoors in the street after 8am or carry timber, plank, or bar of wood, or any pole, beam, or post along any footway.
Times change and laws needs to adapt. I'd argue that the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant to modern life. Without it it's entirely possible to own firearms and not have them be the leading cause of your children's death.
Nonono. Let me put it this way, would you want a Socialist from another country come into U.K. and destroy YOUR constitution? I know U.K. (where ever you're from, Europe/U.K. - God, your fucking country is a mess with Brexit. I don't even know where to start - "Member States," and all that shit.) Anyway, your country has a constitution. One of them amendments is possibly a written rule enshrined to say, "you have a right to carry arms, so help you god." Its not really a law per se, but a cultural legend to say, in THIS constitution, it says here, a citizen has the right to bear arms.
So, what happens when a piece of shit Socialist despot comes in, and says, "there's no constitution. There's this book i wrote. You better bow down to my greasy fucking foot.."
What you say...?
They DID this in I think Venezuela. There's a documentary on Netflix that talks about this actual true story of a man named Maduro, changed the constitution. Caused inflation, caused massive military instability so much, you look at January 6, and you scoff. That's not a fucking insurrection. That's not a coup. That's CHILD PLAY... BRO.
A La Calle is the documentary on Netflix. Go watch it. Its good.
Last edited:
- It's illegal to enter the House of Parliaments wearing a suit of armour.
- Placing a postage stamp bearing the monarch's head upside down on an envelope is considered as act of treason.
- It is legal to shoot a Scotsman with a crossbow upon seeing one in York, except for on Sundays.
Just as mind-boggling stupid as being legal to own an assault rifle.
The 2nd amendment was written to protect the common man against the government. Removing that right to have a weapon to protect the common man is against the Constitution. You don't have to like the law or try to find other reasons why people shouldn't own guns, but the right should be protected because the government could be the most harmful thing to a country. I believe that's @Carlos X's point...that you remove the guns and suddenly the country can do whatever it wants and you have no choice but to obey.
The government in the US is different in that the representatives are supposed to actually represent the will of the people. Not the will of a king or supreme leader. Once the government overreaches too far with their control, it's no longer about the will of the people, so the Constitution should be protected at all costs.
The government in the US is different in that the representatives are supposed to actually represent the will of the people. Not the will of a king or supreme leader. Once the government overreaches too far with their control, it's no longer about the will of the people, so the Constitution should be protected at all costs.
No, it wasn’t. I mean, we’re all entitled to our opinion and no one other than those who wrote it know the exact intent, but tell me:
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.
Where in the above does it say ‘this is to protect the common man against the government?’ It doesn’t.
Not. Anywhere.
A well regulated militia is necessary to secure the state and therefore we will allow you to keep guns. That’s it. One line.
Different to where? Different to who? This is typical US-elitism. The ‘Land of the Free’ where you don’t have that many freedoms. The US ranks 36th on the Democracy Matrix. https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
That means there’s 35 countries more ‘free’ than the ‘Land of the Free’. It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. Many of those listed as being more democratic that the U.S. have an unelected Head of State. A King, a Queen, a nominal figurehead who wields no power. The is no ‘Supreme Leader’ of Denmark. Denmark has very strict gun laws. You don’t see government crack-downs.
It’s a fallacy to think your guns afford you freedoms. They do not. But then, I suppose it depends upon your interpretation of the word ‘freedom’. Are you free to own as many guns as you wish? Yes. Are you free to be assassinated by your own government if suspected of being a terrorist or abettor of terrorism? Yes. Are you free to be indefinitely detained if accused of terrorism? Not convicted, accused. (See also 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment*; indefinite detention is ‘against the constitution’). Yes. Are you free to be surveilled without a warrant? Yes. Are you free to have your financial, communication or associate information turned over to investigators? Also, yes.
Please go on enjoying the freedoms your guns provide you. I will go on enjoying the freedoms I enjoy without the need to resort to owning an AR-15.
____________
*5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
**6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
____________
...and, as a parting gift, and because I'm feeling generous I'll gift you the Eighteenth Amendment:
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Enjoy your beer!
No, it wasn’t. I mean, we’re all entitled to our opinion and no one other than those who wrote it know the exact intent, but tell me:
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.
Where in the above does it say ‘this is to protect the common man against the government?’ It doesn’t.
Not. Anywhere.
A well regulated militia is necessary to secure the state and therefore we will allow you to keep guns. That’s it. One line.
Different to where? Different to who? This is typical US-elitism. The ‘Land of the Free’ where you don’t have that many freedoms. The US ranks 36th on the Democracy Matrix. https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
That means there’s 35 countries more ‘free’ than the ‘Land of the Free’. It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. Many of those listed as being more democratic that the U.S. have an unelected Head of State. A King, a Queen, a nominal figurehead who wields no power. The is no ‘Supreme Leader’ of Denmark. Denmark has very strict gun laws. You don’t see government crack-downs.
It’s a fallacy to think your guns afford you freedoms. They do not. But then, I suppose it depends upon your interpretation of the word ‘freedom’. Are you free to own as many guns as you wish? Yes. Are you free to be assassinated by your own government if suspected of being a terrorist or abettor of terrorism? Yes. Are you free to be indefinitely detained if accused of terrorism? Not convicted, accused. (See also 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment*; indefinite detention is ‘against the constitution’). Yes. Are you free to be surveilled without a warrant? Yes. Are you free to have your financial, communication or associate information turned over to investigators? Also, yes.
Please go on enjoying the freedoms your guns provide you. I will go on enjoying the freedoms I enjoy without the need to resort to owning an AR-15.
____________
*5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
**6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
____________
...and, as a parting gift, and because I'm feeling generous I'll gift you the Eighteenth Amendment:
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Enjoy your beer!
The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy, even though we do have some Democratic processes within it.
I'm just gonna chill and let this guy put a foot in his mouth all day.
He has NO... IDEA what a constitution is. He's from a known Karl Marx country.
George Washington didn't die in United States to control the masses. He died FIGHTING for what he believed would come to the land that he found... so he wrote the constitution in 1789. Ratified is more like it. But he is our first known president of United States.
Don't like those facts? Ok. Fine.
Don't come here.
I think he is here to annoy people with his garbage. But, its not my board.
He has NO... IDEA what a constitution is. He's from a known Karl Marx country.
George Washington didn't die in United States to control the masses. He died FIGHTING for what he believed would come to the land that he found... so he wrote the constitution in 1789. Ratified is more like it. But he is our first known president of United States.
Don't like those facts? Ok. Fine.
Don't come here.
I think he is here to annoy people with his garbage. But, its not my board.
Uncrowned Guard
Resident
I think people are incorrectly turning this into a debate about gun rights. The issue at hand is if a governor of a state can overturn a part of the federal constitution.
And the answer should be a resounding no.
This is the largest issue with guns and other hot topic issues, the issue at hand has zero to do with the gun ownership debate, it is setting a standard on how states can follow the constitution. Allowing this because you disagree with guns, is also allowing states to remove the freedom of speech, voting rights, and all other parts of our federal government that make us who we are at will
And the answer should be a resounding no.
This is the largest issue with guns and other hot topic issues, the issue at hand has zero to do with the gun ownership debate, it is setting a standard on how states can follow the constitution. Allowing this because you disagree with guns, is also allowing states to remove the freedom of speech, voting rights, and all other parts of our federal government that make us who we are at will
You're correct, but this is Democrats' first step to expanding it to other states. This is just one Democrat with balls to remove the constitution, at the state level. Gavin Newsom is doing something similar, but at the small laws. Inch closer, and closer to what they want to do. Gavin is just this dumbass that doesn't know how to encourage his superior to do "x." And he can't get support to do what he want. They gave him emergency powers during COVID19. Sooo... what's he waiting for? The people are gonna wake up and try overthrow his government. That's what's going on in California. They tried to recall him, and is recoiling from making drastic changes.
Every pushback results in recoiling by dems. But New Mexico is a little under the radar, and I think SHE thinks she can get away with her totalitarian attitude. She's gonna learn the hard way eventually.
Same thing is also happening in New York...
Its not just a guns issue. You give them an inch, they move the chess board a bit. Its basically chess, but you're messing with people's lives.
Last edited:
Absolutely correct!!
I think that part of the reason people allow this to happen is because they forget our US history of WHY we needed a Constitution in the first place.
NBK*Twitch
Seasoned Veteran
To my understanding this is a ban on open carry, within Bernalillo County, and for 30 days... It has also been challenged in court and last I heard the ban has been blocked.. so there is that too.
So unless something new has come up... I don't know where people are getting this complete gun ban thing.
Do I think this is constitutional? No, I do not. If they wanna remove Open Carry it needs to be done the right way.
As for the overall Gun Debate... that should be it's own separate topic. I feel that we can certainly do alot better than we currently are. You can compare USA to most other countries with open Gun Laws and you will find that the other countries have a-lot less gun related deaths.
So unless something new has come up... I don't know where people are getting this complete gun ban thing.
Do I think this is constitutional? No, I do not. If they wanna remove Open Carry it needs to be done the right way.
As for the overall Gun Debate... that should be it's own separate topic. I feel that we can certainly do alot better than we currently are. You can compare USA to most other countries with open Gun Laws and you will find that the other countries have a-lot less gun related deaths.
Society can ban guns and it's a good idea is some circumstances as with criminals or mentally ill people. Anyway, though, how can that be worked into 2nd amendment rights? Does the government can never ban guns, no matter who has them?
Yes, I do.
Quick question......the criminals don't obey the laws you've got now, what makes you think they're going to obey a gun ban?
If you ban guns, you're only taking guns away from the law abiding citizens who aren't doing anything. The only people who have guns will be the people who are causing all the problems to begin with so I don't really think you're accomplishing anything here. Glad I don't live in New Mexico.
Affiliates
