Reason for Right to Bear Arms

[PratchettFan]

What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

Then why is Japan's murder rate by guns so low?

Because swords are more traditional

Actually, swords are banned as well in Japan.

 

[asaratis]

The citizen's gun should be on par with the gun carried by the US infantryman. That is why the right to own and bear semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols should not be infringed...in any way shape or form.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Who told you this?

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

Yes. They did NOT have your irrational fear of guns.

they also owned muskets which took nearly a full minute to reload. not 100 round clips and weapons capable of firing 500 rounds per minute.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

I am aware of the process for an amendment. I was being general rather than specific. In theory, if the people want the amendment then their representatives will initiate it and the various states will ratify it. Personally, I don't want a change to the amendment and I don't see much chance for it. I don't believe people should be restricted from owning any weapon if they use it lawfully, so long as the weapon itself is not inherently dangerous. Such as a 500 pound bomb sitting in my neighbor's garage. However, just because I feel that way does not mean I am just going to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says or that the SC has not interpreted it the way they have. The fact is the SC does not see it as an unlimited right and the states and feds do have the ability to regulate. Like it or not, that is the reality.

Define "inherently dangerous". How is a 500 pound bomb in your neighbor's garage any more "inherently dangerous" than a .22? I love how some folks use these linguistic gymnastics to add drama to words. Such as, "assault weapon". If I hit you in the head with my computer monitor, it's an "assault weapon". And, it's "inherently dangerous"...too. Life is "inherently dangerous". The day you were born, your life was put in peril.

Further, to regulate and "ban"? Two different things. If "assault weapons" are banned, they're not being "regulated". They're being "banned". If 30-round clips are banned? They're not being "regulated". They're being "banned".

If a .22 goes off accidentally it may put a hole in a wall. At worst, if I am extremely unlucky, it might hit me but that would be the purest of chances. However, if a 500 pound bomb goes off accidentally, it will take out my house as well as my neighbors, and likely a couple of other houses as well. Not a matter of chance, it is a certainty. Massive destruction is its purpose. Therefore, it is inherently dangerous in and of itself and there is absolutely no reason it should be allowed in the hands of a private citizen.

That is, presuming the 500 pound bomb doesn't malfunction and works appropriately. So, your analogy is stupid. Anything is "inherently dangerous"...period.

What you are describing is indeed regulation. You are not being banned from keeping and bearing arms, you are being banned from a particular type of arms. As I said, the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. You don't get to have anything you like. Just as the 1st amendment is not unlimited, you don't get to say anything you like. You may not like that, but that does not change the fact that, in our society, the government does have the authority to regulate in that manner. What it cannot do is issue a total ban on all weapons. That is the reality. To change it, you need another amendment.

Oh, so what they can do is allow us to have BB guns and, thus, haven't instituted a "total ban on all weapons" and, this is okay. Sorry, that's not how it works. I think someone else has elaborated quite nicely on what it is the courts have ruled they can ban at this point in time. And, no, it is not "regulation", it is a "ban". For instance, if they ban a .38, say you can't have one whatsoever, that is a "ban". If they make you register the .38, make you take courses in gun safety and use before being allowed to purchase the .38, require that the .38 be modified in some way to change its appearance, capabilities, etc., that's "regulation".

In this country the people who think you should ban everything and the people who think that nothing should be banned are equally wrong.

I don't believe I've said that nothing should be banned. However, banning weapons of which are in common use by the military and police forces of the United States government is unconstitutional.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

What you are describing is indeed regulation. You are not being banned from keeping and bearing arms, you are being banned from a particular type of arms. As I said, the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. You don't get to have anything you like. Just as the 1st amendment is not unlimited, you don't get to say anything you like. You may not like that, but that does not change the fact that, in our society, the government does have the authority to regulate in that manner. What it cannot do is issue a total ban on all weapons. That is the reality. To change it, you need another amendment.

In this country the people who think you should ban everything and the people who think that nothing should be banned are equally wrong.

Your argument is admirably presented and makes perfect sense. But I've highlighted the single premise which always has given me pause: If government has the authority to restrict the type of "arms" I may keep and bear can it not limit my right to keep nothing more lethal than a single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle which I may bear only to and from a government supervised shooting range in a locked container?

The incremental process of gun restrictions began with the banning of the Thompson submachine gun, which limited permissible citizen access to semi-automatic firearms. The present step in the process will limit the capacity of the semi-auto, which will occur as an essentially impotent effort. But I am concerned about the next step, and the next, because the potential for black market distribution of so-called "assault weapons" ensures we haven't seen the last psychopathic homicidal outburst -- and nothing in the way of government constraints will prevent it.

 

[Darkwind]

Regulation is just the first step to outright elimination.

I have an idea.

Lets pass legislation that has government handing out 5 feet of bubble wrap and enough padding to cover the walls of a single room.

Anyone who wants to be absolutely safe, can sign up for this program and then lock themselves away in their nice safe place.

In fact, if you advocate the elimination or restriction of arms, you should be mandated to a room like this.

Because if you think that the world will ever be 100% safe, then you have mental illness issues. I can guarantee that your room will be a gun free zone.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's interesting that the 2nd amendment clearly states why the FF's included the 2nd amendment and yet the poll did not include that as an option. Do I detect something of an agenda?

So, as clearly stated by the Founding Fathers for anyone who a) bothers to actually read the amendment and b) doesn't ignore what they don't like in it, it was created in order to guarantee the ability of the individual state to maintain a well-regulated militia. Which means, of course, that while the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, it can be regulated.

It was clearly stated if you were familiar with military terminology of the 18th century.
"Well regulated" in the military sense when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written, meant well trained, well equipped and well disciplined,

Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

Yes. They did NOT have your irrational fear of guns.

they also owned muskets which took nearly a full minute to reload. not 100 round clips and weapons capable of firing 500 rounds per minute.

And they were up against others with the same capability. If the intent was to level the playing field, you would need to limit our military to single shot muzzle loaders as well.
Rather stupid in the present, isn't it?

 

[SniperFire]

It's interesting that the 2nd amendment clearly states why the FF's included the 2nd amendment and yet the poll did not include that as an option. Do I detect something of an agenda?

So, as clearly stated by the Founding Fathers for anyone who a) bothers to actually read the amendment and b) doesn't ignore what they don't like in it, it was created in order to guarantee the ability of the individual state to maintain a well-regulated militia. Which means, of course, that while the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, it can be regulated.

Well.... No.

'Well-regulated' is an adjective used to describe the militia, not the right to bear arms. The militia is cited as a reason the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Again, I ask you to read the fucking thing for comprehension. 'Well regulated' applies to the militia, not the actual right.

This is how you are pretending the amendment reads:

'A militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the well regulated right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

This is how it reads:

'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.'

As we all agree none of our inalienable rights are absolute, what we are actually talking about is what the defined limits of the 'right to bear arms' should be.


The best description I heard on this board would be to be any and all such equipment as brandished by a modern day soldier.


But to pretend that the FF tried to tell us the right to bear arms should be regulated is because of the language in the 2nd is intellectually dishonest libtard speak.

 

[PratchettFan]

Define "inherently dangerous". How is a 500 pound bomb in your neighbor's garage any more "inherently dangerous" than a .22? I love how some folks use these linguistic gymnastics to add drama to words. Such as, "assault weapon". If I hit you in the head with my computer monitor, it's an "assault weapon". And, it's "inherently dangerous"...too. Life is "inherently dangerous". The day you were born, your life was put in peril.

Further, to regulate and "ban"? Two different things. If "assault weapons" are banned, they're not being "regulated". They're being "banned". If 30-round clips are banned? They're not being "regulated". They're being "banned".

If a .22 goes off accidentally it may put a hole in a wall. At worst, if I am extremely unlucky, it might hit me but that would be the purest of chances. However, if a 500 pound bomb goes off accidentally, it will take out my house as well as my neighbors, and likely a couple of other houses as well. Not a matter of chance, it is a certainty. Massive destruction is its purpose. Therefore, it is inherently dangerous in and of itself and there is absolutely no reason it should be allowed in the hands of a private citizen.

That is, presuming the 500 pound bomb doesn't malfunction and works appropriately. So, your analogy is stupid. Anything is "inherently dangerous"...period.

What you are describing is indeed regulation. You are not being banned from keeping and bearing arms, you are being banned from a particular type of arms. As I said, the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. You don't get to have anything you like. Just as the 1st amendment is not unlimited, you don't get to say anything you like. You may not like that, but that does not change the fact that, in our society, the government does have the authority to regulate in that manner. What it cannot do is issue a total ban on all weapons. That is the reality. To change it, you need another amendment.

Oh, so what they can do is allow us to have BB guns and, thus, haven't instituted a "total ban on all weapons" and, this is okay. Sorry, that's not how it works. I think someone else has elaborated quite nicely on what it is the courts have ruled they can ban at this point in time. And, no, it is not "regulation", it is a "ban". For instance, if they ban a .38, say you can't have one whatsoever, that is a "ban". If they make you register the .38, make you take courses in gun safety and use before being allowed to purchase the .38, require that the .38 be modified in some way to change its appearance, capabilities, etc., that's "regulation".

In this country the people who think you should ban everything and the people who think that nothing should be banned are equally wrong.

I don't believe I've said that nothing should be banned. However, banning weapons of which are in common use by the military and police forces of the United States government is unconstitutional.

You are entitled to your opinion. Your points make no sense at all to me, but you are entitled to them. It really changes nothing at all. Call it a ban if you like, the government can still do it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure enough the civilian does need infantry weapons, dooshAsaratis.

The citizen's gun should be on par with the gun carried by the US infantryman. That is why the right to own and bear semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols should not be infringed...in any way shape or form.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government has the constitutional right to regulate types of weapons, order registration, monitor who possesses them, and so forth.

The absolutists on either side are flatly wrong. What they think is immaterial.

 

[PratchettFan]

[...]

What you are describing is indeed regulation. You are not being banned from keeping and bearing arms, you are being banned from a particular type of arms. As I said, the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. You don't get to have anything you like. Just as the 1st amendment is not unlimited, you don't get to say anything you like. You may not like that, but that does not change the fact that, in our society, the government does have the authority to regulate in that manner. What it cannot do is issue a total ban on all weapons. That is the reality. To change it, you need another amendment.

In this country the people who think you should ban everything and the people who think that nothing should be banned are equally wrong.

Your argument is admirably presented and makes perfect sense. But I've highlighted the single premise which always has given me pause: If government has the authority to restrict the type of "arms" I may keep and bear can it not limit my right to keep nothing more lethal than a single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle which I may bear only to and from a government supervised shooting range in a locked container?

The incremental process of gun restrictions began with the banning of the Thompson submachine gun, which limited permissible citizen access to semi-automatic firearms. The present step in the process will limit the capacity of the semi-auto, which will occur as an essentially impotent effort. But I am concerned about the next step, and the next, because the potential for black market distribution of so-called "assault weapons" ensures we haven't seen the last psychopathic homicidal outburst -- and nothing in the way of government constraints will prevent it.

I would expect the answer is no, they could not. I don't think the SC would accept that degree of restriction. The most recent case made it fairly clear than an outright ban is unconstitutional and what you describe would be tantamount to that.

I would agree we will have another outburst, and another. What we are experiencing is by no means new. What is new is the extent of news coverage and internet discussion. In reaction I expect the government will attempt to appear it is doing something. I doubt it will be effective. It may well end up in the courts and we will have additional case law. That is the nature of a complex society. It is a constant balancing between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. Neither is absolute.

 

[PratchettFan]

It's interesting that the 2nd amendment clearly states why the FF's included the 2nd amendment and yet the poll did not include that as an option. Do I detect something of an agenda?

So, as clearly stated by the Founding Fathers for anyone who a) bothers to actually read the amendment and b) doesn't ignore what they don't like in it, it was created in order to guarantee the ability of the individual state to maintain a well-regulated militia. Which means, of course, that while the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, it can be regulated.

It was clearly stated if you were familiar with military terminology of the 18th century.
"Well regulated" in the military sense when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written, meant well trained, well equipped and well disciplined,

Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Yes. I don't know if you were in the military but when I was in they did not let me carry any weapon I pleased. They provided my weapon and I was forbidden from carrying a private one. Admittedly, there was some winking on that but only to a limited extent. That falls under the category of well disciplined.

It is interesting in reading Federalist 29 that Hamilton also assured everyone that their fellow citizens could be trusted with this. We weren't going to see the militia of say Massachusetts going down to fight the militia of Virginia. It turns out his prognostication was a tad off.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am aware of the process for an amendment. I was being general rather than specific. In theory, if the people want the amendment then their representatives will initiate it and the various states will ratify it. Personally, I don't want a change to the amendment and I don't see much chance for it. I don't believe people should be restricted from owning any weapon if they use it lawfully, so long as the weapon itself is not inherently dangerous. Such as a 500 pound bomb sitting in my neighbor's garage. However, just because I feel that way does not mean I am just going to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says or that the SC has not interpreted it the way they have. The fact is the SC does not see it as an unlimited right and the states and feds do have the ability to regulate. Like it or not, that is the reality.

Define "inherently dangerous". How is a 500 pound bomb in your neighbor's garage any more "inherently dangerous" than a .22? I love how some folks use these linguistic gymnastics to add drama to words. Such as, "assault weapon". If I hit you in the head with my computer monitor, it's an "assault weapon". And, it's "inherently dangerous"...too. Life is "inherently dangerous". The day you were born, your life was put in peril.

Further, to regulate and "ban"? Two different things. If "assault weapons" are banned, they're not being "regulated". They're being "banned". If 30-round clips are banned? They're not being "regulated". They're being "banned".

If a .22 goes off accidentally it may put a hole in a wall. At worst, if I am extremely unlucky, it might hit me but that would be the purest of chances. However, if a 500 pound bomb goes off accidentally, it will take out my house as well as my neighbors, and likely a couple of other houses as well. Not a matter of chance, it is a certainty. Massive destruction is its purpose. Therefore, it is inherently dangerous in and of itself and there is absolutely no reason it should be allowed in the hands of a private citizen.

What you are describing is indeed regulation. You are not being banned from keeping and bearing arms, you are being banned from a particular type of arms. As I said, the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. You don't get to have anything you like. Just as the 1st amendment is not unlimited, you don't get to say anything you like. You may not like that, but that does not change the fact that, in our society, the government does have the authority to regulate in that manner. What it cannot do is issue a total ban on all weapons. That is the reality. To change it, you need another amendment.

In this country the people who think you should ban everything and the people who think that nothing should be banned are equally wrong.

And that’s the proverbial rub: what is the state’s rationale for banning a particular class of weapons in common use.

You are correct that no right is absolute, including the right to self-defense and to own a handgun accordingly. First Amendment jurisprudence is well developed and defined, that’s not the case with regard to the Second.

The great challenge, and danger, is the hyper-partisan and emotional context in which Second Amendment case law must develop.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

Well did the 10 yr. nationwide demonstate an increase in public safety? If not it won't meet that standard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A seventy year study of school shootings, the number of victims in each incident, and the types of weapons in each incident will give the court valuable information.