How the Second Amendment Was Restored

[Chris]

Wrong again. The Second Amendment covers personal weapons and the Constitution forbids strategic weapons even to the States. The only strategic weapons in the 1700's would be the Naval Vessels and States are forbidden to man and maintain their own Navy.

Are we a better society because 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960?

Has that made us a better society???

 

[Father Time]

Damned right, Kevin.

FREEDOM for all.

Freedom to do what ever you want regardless of outcome.

No one is arguing freedom to do anything regardless of the outcome. The outcome of you buying an AK-47 is simply, you have less cash and an ak-47.
If you were to threaten someone, shoot someone, or vandalize something with the AK-47 then you'd get arrested, simple as that. Everyone is in favor of not letting people do those things except possibly the anarchists.

No one here wants to see shoot outs with live ammo become the norm.

 

[Skeptik]

Wrong again. The Second Amendment covers personal weapons and the Constitution forbids strategic weapons even to the States. The only strategic weapons in the 1700's would be the Naval Vessels and States are forbidden to man and maintain their own Navy.

Wrong how? The Second Amendment is quite clear:

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.

Now that the Supreme Court has said that the right to bear arms is an individual right, it follows logically that the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That language is quite clear. Therefore, any subsequent law that does, in fact, infringe the right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

You say that the Constitution forbids "strategic weapons"??!! Just where does it say that? It would have to be a Constitutional amendment, and there aren't very many of those. Furthermore, it would have to define the term "strategic weapons". Is a rocket propelled grenade a "strategic weapon"? If not, then I could have all of them I want, even if your phantom Constitutional amendment were real.

 

[brisket]

This case just affirmed murder

 

[mightypeon]

I am not American, however, I do not know wether the reasoning "Navies = strategic weapons", "Founding fathers forbade states from having navies", "Founding fathers therefore intended to forbade everyone from having strategic weapons" would hold true in a court.

A more general question, what criteria does someone who wants to create a "well regulated militia" have to fullfill? Does he actually have to be American?
Could I come over and create "Mightypeons Mighty Marxist Militia"?
If yes, what would stop a sympathisant of Al-Quaida of doing the same thing (although his militia would not be nearly as awesome as mine would)?

On the subject of gun control, I am in favour of completely banning Pistols while (completly) allowing rifles. You wont use Pistols for hunting, and Rifles make for a better defense against Zombies, Burglars, evil Aliens and the gouverment.
On the other hand, Pistols are what criminals use, stick with "no Pistols" long enough and you will see a serious reduction due to a criminal lack of maintance.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Are we a better society because 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960?

Has that made us a better society???

What's your point? The answer to the question doesn't matter.

It's like saying 20 million criminals got off because it was found their 4, 5 or 8th Amendment rights were violated and they subsequently committed 72,000 murders, 8 million burglaries and on and on. So what?

What about, it's a RIGHT don't you understand?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I am not American, however, I do not know wether the reasoning "Navies = strategic weapons", "Founding fathers forbade states from having navies", "Founding fathers therefore intended to forbade everyone from having strategic weapons" would hold true in a court.

A more general question, what criteria does someone who wants to create a "well regulated militia" have to fullfill? Does he actually have to be American?
Could I come over and create "Mightypeons Mighty Marxist Militia"?
If yes, what would stop a sympathisant of Al-Quaida of doing the same thing (although his militia would not be nearly as awesome as mine would)?

On the subject of gun control, I am in favour of completely banning Pistols while (completly) allowing rifles. You wont use Pistols for hunting, and Rifles make for a better defense against Zombies, Burglars, evil Aliens and the gouverment.
On the other hand, Pistols are what criminals use, stick with "no Pistols" long enough and you will see a serious reduction due to a criminal lack of maintance.

Mighty,

You live in Berlin right? I know from your previous posts you were a member of the Bundeswehr. I'm not sure whether you live in an apartment or not, but for the sake of this post, let's so imagine. Late at night, you hear a rattle at the door. You jump out of bed to see what it is. Before you can get there an armed man crashes through the door. Luckily, you are prepared, you have your G3 leaning in your closet. You quickly lock, load and fire your 7.62 x 54 mm ball ammunition at the armed man. (Here we will take another imaginary flight because we know this would never happen). You missed him!

Now, exactly how many walls in the apartment do you suppose that errant bullet will travel? Probably at least into the next apartment, right? Too bad you didn't have a pistol with much lower muzzle velocity. You might have not killed your neighbor with a round out of impact.

But, you did hit the armed man on the second attempt and he crumpled harmlessly to the ground. Gut Schiessen!!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Wrong how? The Second Amendment is quite clear:



Now that the Supreme Court has said that the right to bear arms is an individual right, it follows logically that the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That language is quite clear. Therefore, any subsequent law that does, in fact, infringe the right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

You say that the Constitution forbids "strategic weapons"??!! Just where does it say that? It would have to be a Constitutional amendment, and there aren't very many of those. Furthermore, it would have to define the term "strategic weapons". Is a rocket propelled grenade a "strategic weapon"? If not, then I could have all of them I want, even if your phantom Constitutional amendment were real.

I believe the phrase you are groping for here is "reasonable regulation."

While no one would dispute that we have the 1st Amendment right to free speech, that doesn't mean you can say anything at any time. Reasonable regulation of the right has been upheld time and again.

If you listened to the arguments in the Heller case, that was the part the court focused on. The DC statute was not a "reasonable regulation" of the second amendment right. It was unreasonable.

 

[mightypeon]

Mighty,

You live in Berlin right? I know from your previous posts you were a member of the Bundeswehr. I'm not sure whether you live in an apartment or not, but for the sake of this post, let's so imagine. Late at night, you hear a rattle at the door. You jump out of bed to see what it is. Before you can get there an armed man crashes through the door. Luckily, you are prepared, you have your G3 leaning in your closet. You quickly lock, load and fire your 7.62 x 54 mm ball ammunition at the armed man. (Here we will take another imaginary flight because we know this would never happen). You missed him!

Now, exactly how many walls in the apartment do you suppose that errant bullet will travel? Probably at least into the next apartment, right? Too bad you didn't have a pistol with much lower muzzle velocity. You might have not killed your neighbor with a round out of impact.

But, you did hit the armed man on the second attempt and he crumpled harmlessly to the ground. Gut Schiessen!!

Personally, i would propably use the Katana (actually the Wakizachi, doubt I have enough room to swing it in an appartment) I have next to my bed, I can propably apply it much faster than loading a gun, since according to most gun laws I would have to stash the gun and the ammunition in different and locked places. In that situation, it would be dark, and I would know the place so we may have one of the few instances where bringing an (oversized) knife to a gunfight (what is the other guy armed with?) may work.
Besides, I would prefer a G-36 (looks way cooler and is easier to aim with, besides its a good bit shorter) whose 5.56 caliber should not go through that many walls.

However, I have not been in this precise situation (fight for my life yes, but a knife armed opponent is something different from a gun toting one, although beeing unarmed sucks in both cases) so I do not know how I would react.

 

[Goose]

It is easyer to carry a pistol as a defencive weapon (ever try to use a rifle in at a close range?)

 

[pegwinn]

Damned right, Kevin.[/I]

Good Rant Dude

But, if you take the Second Amendment to its logical conclusion, and in the light of the recent decision making the right to bear arms an individual right, it should be perfectly legal to own anthrax spores, bombs, missiles, RPGs, or your very own jet fighter, armed with whatever you want.

Somewhere, the matter of what is practical and pragmatic must be applied to the Second Amendment, or anyone can own any arm any time any place. Not even the NRA would support that.

Regulations are nasty lil things that penalize lawful citizens while giving something for criminals to ignore. You have the right to drink, not to drink and drive. Same Same. If I want a flame thrower, so long as I don't commit arson with it....

[snip] 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960?[snip]

Prove it. And, provide context.

 

[Skeptik]

I believe the phrase you are groping for here is "reasonable regulation."

While no one would dispute that we have the 1st Amendment right to free speech, that doesn't mean you can say anything at any time. Reasonable regulation of the right has been upheld time and again.

If you listened to the arguments in the Heller case, that was the part the court focused on. The DC statute was not a "reasonable regulation" of the second amendment right. It was unreasonable.

Exactly. Somewhere along the way, someone is going to have to decide what is reasonable regulation of arms. Obviously, a literal interpretation of the second Amendment is not practical in this day and age, even if it might have been given the types of arms available when it was written.

The problem is, any regulation can be challenged as infringement.

 

[pegwinn]

Exactly. Somewhere along the way, someone is going to have to decide what is reasonable regulation of arms. Obviously, a literal interpretation of the second Amendment is not practical in this day and age, even if it might have been given the types of arms available when it was written.

The problem is, any regulation can be challenged as infringement.

I must respectfully disagree.

First. Anything other than a literal reading of the Constitution is inherently wrong.

Second: Regulating firearms does nothing to prevent firearm related crime or accidents that I am aware of. It merely makes life tough for those already inclined to be law abiding and responsible.

Third: Out of all the amendments in the bill of rights, the second is the only one to specifically forbid "infringement". Thus reasonable regulation cannot apply here.

 

[Chris]

Good Rant Dude



Regulations are nasty lil things that penalize lawful citizens while giving something for criminals to ignore. You have the right to drink, not to drink and drive. Same Same. If I want a flame thrower, so long as I don't commit arson with it....



Prove it. And, provide context.

Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States - NCIPC

 

[Chris]

The Association Between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide, Peter Cummings, MD, MPH; Thomas D. Koepsell, MD, MPH; et al, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 6, June 1997, pp. 974-978.
This case-control study involving members of a Washington state HMO examines whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide.

Key Facts:


Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase.
These increased risks persisted for more than five years after the purchase.

The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. -- Cummings et al. 87 (6): 974 -- American Journal of Public Health

VPC - Where Did You Get That Statistic? - Firearms Violence - General

 

[Skeptik]

I must respectfully disagree.

First. Anything other than a literal reading of the Constitution is inherently wrong.

Second: Regulating firearms does nothing to prevent firearm related crime or accidents that I am aware of. It merely makes life tough for those already inclined to be law abiding and responsible.

Third: Out of all the amendments in the bill of rights, the second is the only one to specifically forbid "infringement". Thus reasonable regulation cannot apply here.

The Second Amendment does not say "firearms", but "arms". There is a big difference.

"Firearm" is synonymous with "gun".

fire·arm (frärm)
n.
A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

"Arm" is much more broad, including also everything from rockets to tanks, to crossbows to missiles. Arms is synonymous with "weapons".

The literal meaning of the Second Amendment, then, is that the people are allowed to possess any and all weapons, including bombs, rockets, and missiles.

If that's what we want, then the interpretation of that amendment is not necessary, and you and I can have all of the SAMs we want, and keep then next to your favorite airport if we want to.

Maybe, just maybe, that isn't what the founders of the Republic had in mind, not being able to foresee what "arms" might be available in the 21st. century.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Exactly. Somewhere along the way, someone is going to have to decide what is reasonable regulation of arms. Obviously, a literal interpretation of the second Amendment is not practical in this day and age, even if it might have been given the types of arms available when it was written.

The problem is, any regulation can be challenged as infringement.

They had cannons then. It isn't like the same problem didn't exist.

Listen to the Supremes oral argument in that case. I think you'll see the area where they are drawing the balance.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Second Amendment does not say "firearms", but "arms". There is a big difference.

"Firearm" is synonymous with "gun".



"Arm" is much more broad, including also everything from rockets to tanks, to crossbows to missiles. Arms is synonymous with "weapons".

The literal meaning of the Second Amendment, then, is that the people are allowed to possess any and all weapons, including bombs, rockets, and missiles.

If that's what we want, then the interpretation of that amendment is not necessary, and you and I can have all of the SAMs we want, and keep then next to your favorite airport if we want to.

Maybe, just maybe, that isn't what the founders of the Republic had in mind, not being able to foresee what "arms" might be available in the 21st. century.

It is important to understand the framework within which the 2nd Amendment exists and what the concept behind the whole Bill of Rights is.

The Bill of Rights exists as specific limits on governmental power. The 2nd amendment is improperly construed unless viewed at least partially within that context. The 2nd Amendment gives effect to the popular concept at the (see Rousseau and Jefferson) of the people's ultimate right to revolution. It is the final check in the series of checks and balances on the power of government. It is, to be sure, an inchoate check, but if any tyrant found himself in power, it would not be far from his mind that the populace had 80 million firearms. In this fashion, the check is always at work.

Are there additional glosses to be laid on the 2nd, yes, of course, and you can hear the justices speak of them in the oral argument. If the only reason were to have a check on government, then you could have it disassembled and locked up and that would be sufficient to check the government. If you need it for self-protection, then you need more immediate access. This is where the balance is struck for firearms. Reasonably quick access to the firearm for self-defense. (It was quite a discussion that Justice Scalia had with counsel for DC when they were discussion trigger locks and access).

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Association Between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide, Peter Cummings, MD, MPH; Thomas D. Koepsell, MD, MPH; et al, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 6, June 1997, pp. 974-978.
This case-control study involving members of a Washington state HMO examines whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide.

Key Facts:


Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase.
These increased risks persisted for more than five years after the purchase.

The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. -- Cummings et al. 87 (6): 974 -- American Journal of Public Health

VPC - Where Did You Get That Statistic? - Firearms Violence - General

You get a big DUH for that comment. Is it really that hard for you to see how these work together? What you got there son is a Post Hoc ergo Proctor Hoc fallacy.

 

[catzmeow]

Are we a better society because 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960?

Has that made us a better society???

It depends on who got killed, frankly.