What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[OODA_Loop]

Naaaaah, it's a normal infantry weapon.

If you "bear" a grenande you usually die.

A grenade is explosive ordance which is not borne by its user.

So what are those grenades we are always seeing soldiers carrying and throwing in war movies?

Explosive ordnance.

 

[Flopper]

How do those states stand up on armed robberies nd other forms of gun violence?

I don't know what the effect gun control has on gun violence in armed robberies. However, only 21% of the murders with firearms are in connection with a felony. Murders during armed robberies are only a small part of the problem.

In these states as in all states, most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other; in the home, in barrooms, or street corners, among family, friends and acquaintances. When heated situations arise, the presence of firearms makes a murder or permanent maiming far more likely.

About 60% of those that die from gun shots are suicide victims. A Harvard study found that a suicide was 17 times more likely in a home with firearms than one without. Other studies have found juvenile suicide is 10 times more likely in a home with firearms.

Another frequent occurrence is when young kids get access to guns, not realizing that they’re actually loaded, they play the typical kids’ "bang-bang" game, where one pretends to shoot the other dead, and actually ends up killing a sibling, relative or friend, because they don’t realize that the gun is actually loaded. Without the guns, these deaths simply would not occur.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gun Control: Why It's Important | MyFDL
The gun toll we?re ignoring: suicide - Ideas - The Boston Globe

What the fuck? Do you think someone dies every time a gun is pulled during a felony?

Drop the fucking fixation you have on murder and look at all the numbers. California has a higher than average crime rate despite the gun laws, and actually trends above the national average for violent crimes. These numbers are easily available, even if it is harder to pull out the crimes that involve firearms. On the other hand, if we look at armed robberies we can assume that they are more likely to walk into a jewelry store with a gun than a knife.

California’s crime rate has been declining since 1980 and is now below the national rate.

Crime Trends in California (PPIC Publication)

 

[eflatminor]

You can buy a drone for about $400. Most people could easily hook up a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to it, and operate that with a radio controled device that you can adapt from a radio controled toy boat or airplane. With a 50 round magazine, you could become a terrorist in your nieghborhood, or you might want to spray the upper floor windows of a secured government building. Until you sent the electronic signal that fired the weapon, you would be a law abiding citizen, and nobody would even have the right to take the damned thing away from you.

Time to ban model airplanes...or maybe all electronic signals.

You know, more people are murdered in America with hands and feet than assault rifles and shotguns. Should we register appendages as well? Oh heck, let's ban toes and fingers. You can't make a fist without fingers.

It's for the children!

 

[Vandalshandle]

You can buy a drone for about $400. Most people could easily hook up a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to it, and operate that with a radio controled device that you can adapt from a radio controled toy boat or airplane. With a 50 round magazine, you could become a terrorist in your nieghborhood, or you might want to spray the upper floor windows of a secured government building. Until you sent the electronic signal that fired the weapon, you would be a law abiding citizen, and nobody would even have the right to take the damned thing away from you.

Time to ban model airplanes...or maybe all electronic signals.

You know, more people are murdered in America with hands and feet than assault rifles and shotguns. Should we register appendages as well? Oh heck, let's ban toes and fingers. You can't make a fist without fingers.

It's for the children!

No, we should do nothing at all. We should just allow the violence to escalate until most of our urban areas resemble Beruit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCFmSFvIZw]NNS (Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. The entire 2nd amendment has been taken out of context. The framers of the Constitution had no fear of a government dictatorship, because they had no concept of this country having a standing army with which to do so.

Article I section 8 says otherwise, as they gave the federal government the power to raise and maintain exactly that.
Thus, your argument is shot down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did you read vandalshandle's post? He said that at the time there was no standing army when the 2nd amendment was installed. The government was, essentially, unarmed!

Yes. He is demonstrably wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess anything you can carry or bear is ok by the constitution?

My understanding is that Scalia is playing with the idea that what one man can carry is what is meant by the Second Amendment.

I don't see that as logical myself, but he has said he's thinking that at least would be one limit, no group weapons like submachine gun nests.

"Submachinegun nests"

 

[JQPublic1]

You can buy a drone for about $400. Most people could easily hook up a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to it, and operate that with a radio controled device that you can adapt from a radio controled toy boat or airplane. With a 50 round magazine, you could become a terrorist in your nieghborhood, or you might want to spray the upper floor windows of a secured government building. Until you sent the electronic signal that fired the weapon, you would be a law abiding citizen, and nobody would even have the right to take the damned thing away from you.

Great post! I think the focus on expanded background checks and such is simply a matter of political expediency. To be truthful, people who commit such atrocities obtain guns from law abiding citizens who bought them legally. Looking at things from that perspective, as long as guns are privately owned they will be stolen, borrowed, lost, and found by anyone lucky enough to find them.

 

[ConHog]

Yesterday there was a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rivkin and Grossman on "Gun Control and the Constitution." I didn't think it was particularly good, but it did remind me that constitutional protections of all kinds have repeatedly been infringed by the government. The authors say of abridging constitutionality that "Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important."

There has been a lot of silly talk by not-very-bright people of the kind that think it's somehow an argument to call people "idiots" and "bitches" who don't seem to get at any part of the real arguments. I find that frustrating, because this is quite an important issue, but there is little clear thinking about it.

Stupid argument 1: The government can't and doesn't infringe our gun rights ever ever ever ever and if they ever did this would be the end of the world world world!!!!!

Not so: the government has infringed this Constitutional right all along: no grenades, no submachine guns, no sawed off shotguns, no nukes. Could we please dispense with this sort of non-think?

Stupid argument 2: It's a slippery slope greased with Crisco! Butter! No. 30 motor oil!! If they take away Bubba Boy's 14 assault rifles and his 26 100-round high-capacity magazines, or even just make it illegal for the poor guy to buy the other 17 he wants, that means they'll come after the pistol everyone else keeps in their sock drawer for home defense and the burglars will kill us all!!!!!

Not so: weapons confiscation hasn't happened ever, and they banned the assault rifles for ten years already and none of that happened.

The government "infringes" on constitutional liberties all the time: speech and religion as well as the many prohibition on weapons ownership already in place.

So does anyone who is able to talk coherently on this (leaving aside, I hope, the nasty name-callers incapable of thought whom I have already or will soon discard and report, as usual) have any ideas on this difficult issue of how much and why the government is entitled to infringe on the Second Amendment? Or any Constitutional protection? We know it already does infringe, so ---- what else, if anything?

shall not infringe

so actually any and all limits are unconstitutional even though sane people agree that there should be some.

This is why I argue for a new amendment.

 

[eflatminor]

You can buy a drone for about $400. Most people could easily hook up a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to it, and operate that with a radio controled device that you can adapt from a radio controled toy boat or airplane. With a 50 round magazine, you could become a terrorist in your nieghborhood, or you might want to spray the upper floor windows of a secured government building. Until you sent the electronic signal that fired the weapon, you would be a law abiding citizen, and nobody would even have the right to take the damned thing away from you.

Time to ban model airplanes...or maybe all electronic signals.

You know, more people are murdered in America with hands and feet than assault rifles and shotguns. Should we register appendages as well? Oh heck, let's ban toes and fingers. You can't make a fist without fingers.

It's for the children!

No, we should do nothing at all. We should just allow the violence to escalate until most of our urban areas resemble Beruit.

No, no, we should ban fists, that's it!

Beirut? Straw, man.

And let's just overlook the fact that the rate of violence in America is headed down and has been for several years...cuz we're just like Beirut.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You can buy a drone for about $400. Most people could easily hook up a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to it, and operate that with a radio controled device that you can adapt from a radio controled toy boat or airplane. With a 50 round magazine, you could become a terrorist in your nieghborhood, or you might want to spray the upper floor windows of a secured government building. Until you sent the electronic signal that fired the weapon, you would be a law abiding citizen, and nobody would even have the right to take the damned thing away from you.

Link to the $400 drone that will lift a loaded 50rd magazine, a semi-auto pistol, the required steel frame to mount the gun, room in the fuselage to operate the slide and one with sufficient prop torque to counter the recoil.

Thanks.

 

[Circe]

No, we should do nothing at all. We should just allow the violence to escalate until most of our urban areas resemble Beruit.

Yeah, because that's working out so well in Baghdad and Rio and Mexico. That's what we need --- dodging gunfire and explosions whenever we have to go out to get groceries, and otherwise huddling inside our houses, staying carefully away from any windows.

If everybody gets to buy any possible weapon they can think of at Walmart, that's how it'll be.

 

[Circe]

[hall not infringe

so actually any and all limits are unconstitutional even though sane people agree that there should be some.

This is why I argue for a new amendment.

Right and right, but you can't have a new amendment.

To have a new amendment, you'd have to have a Constitutional Convention, which the country couldn't survive, and besides, you certainly won't get the state votes for that! I think 3/4 of the states have to agree. Red states won't.

The USSC will have to rationalize it and tell us why infringing it isn't REALLY infringing.

 

[Intense]

[hall not infringe

so actually any and all limits are unconstitutional even though sane people agree that there should be some.

This is why I argue for a new amendment.

Right and right, but you can't have a new amendment.

To have a new amendment, you'd have to have a Constitutional Convention, which the country couldn't survive, and besides, you certainly won't get the state votes for that! I think 3/4 of the states have to agree. Red states won't.

The USSC will have to rationalize it and tell us why infringing it isn't REALLY infringing.

U.S. Constitution Online, Quick Links:, FAQ, Topics, Forums, Documents, Timeline, Kids, Vermont Constitution, Map, Citation, USConstitution.net
Constitutional Amendments

Amending the United States Constitution is no small task. This page will detail the amendment procedure as spelled out in the Constitution, and will also list some of the Amendments that have not been passed, as well as give a list of some amendments proposed in Congress during several of the past sessions.
The Amendment Process, "Informal Amendment", Popular Amendment, History behind the ratified Amendments, Ratification dates of the ratified Amendments, The Failed Amendments, Some Proposed Amendments

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Flopper]

You can buy a drone for about $400. Most people could easily hook up a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to it, and operate that with a radio controled device that you can adapt from a radio controled toy boat or airplane. With a 50 round magazine, you could become a terrorist in your nieghborhood, or you might want to spray the upper floor windows of a secured government building. Until you sent the electronic signal that fired the weapon, you would be a law abiding citizen, and nobody would even have the right to take the damned thing away from you.

Time to ban model airplanes...or maybe all electronic signals.

You know, more people are murdered in America with hands and feet than assault rifles and shotguns. Should we register appendages as well? Oh heck, let's ban toes and fingers. You can't make a fist without fingers.

It's for the children!

Just because no one has wiped out a school yet with an assault rifle doesn't mean they should be allowed. There has been no mass murders in the US with surface to air missiles so we should deregulated them so everyone can have the opportunity to use them??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. The entire 2nd amendment has been taken out of context. The framers of the Constitution had no fear of a government dictatorship, because they had no concept of this country having a standing army with which to do so. The government used militias for emergencies...to fight Indians, French, and British. then, they were sent home. These militias were our only defense, and service in them was mandatory. Each militia man furnished his own gun. therefore, the framers were saying that the government was not going to ban arms, because who the hell was going to furnish them, the next time that the government was forced to call out the militia? yet, Washington had barely taken office as our first president, when he had to call out the militia, and their own private guns, in order to put down the Whiskey rebellion. In short, the very first time the government took up arms against anyone was against their own citizens. yet, nobody then, nor now, had any objection to this "tyranny" of the federal government.

The entire concept behind the second amendment became moot, once this country adopted a standing army, and militias were no longer depended upon for defense of the republic.

Strange, can you explain how that works when the founders themselves said that the reason they did not fear a tyrannical government is because the people were armed?

Did you read vandalshandle's post? He said that at the time there was no standing army when the 2nd amendment was installed. The government was, essentially, unarmed! In that context, the founder's "fear of a tyrannical government" is a contemporaneous phrase that has long since become obsolete!

Did you read my post where I said you have to be both totally ignorant of history and not have read the thread to believe that? Do you think that is going to suddenly change just because you point out somebody else failed to do both?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Awww I just thought I would jump in here a drop my 2 cents worth!

Of course the US Government buys guns from private manufacturers since there are no government manufacturers that I know of. But don't play dumb and suggest that you aren't aware that most other foreign governments prohibit or restrict gun sales to private citizens while simultaneously arming their military factions. Perhaps a little reading is overdue on your part Hmmmmm!

Most other governments buy their weapons from US manufacturers.

Welll. I don't know... there are a helluva lot of RPGs and AK 47s out there not t mention arms manufactured in europe.

Is Europe the entire world? Or even most of it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no limit on the second ammendment but it does ask that weapons suitable for use by the military infantryman be protected so the (reserve) militia can be called upon to report for duty armed with the same weapon carried by the military.

As it stands, now, we cannot do that due to the fact that full auto weapons, rocket propelled grenades and hand grenades are controlled through a "tax" stamp that one must have before purchasing any class III weapons. Those who go through the process and pay the tax can buy, own and operate class III weapons but for most of us those weapons will be forever out of reach.

I have never heard of anyone "owning and operating" grenades and machine guns and so on --- who would that be? How are they "operating" them?

Sigh.

They usually operate them by pulling the trigger.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I doubt if the Continental Congress had any thing BUT single shot muskets in mind when they promulgated and included the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It might be noteworthy to consider that as personal weapons evolved, subsequent amendments should have been initiated to allow for each technological change! Under the present 2nd amendment only black powder muskets and flintlocks should be in the hands of the citizenry. There is no constitutional right to own anything else. The fore fathers who made the law were incapable of seeing what was to come.

I am sure you are right -- how could the FFs have predicted the future of weaponry? Impossible.

However, the legal Supreme Court decision Miller did legitimitize modern weapons, not just muskets. The Miller decision is because all the Constitutional protections apply to modern conditions: we don't have any Amendments in formaldehyde sitting on a shelf.

The question is simply ---- what modern weapons? What limits and why? That has never been rationalized. There are a few piecemeal laws against this and that, but so far no real body of law dealing with the problems of the Second Amendment that have led to all these madmen mass murders.

The founders were aware of history. They understood the power of weapons in the hands of individuals, they saw the power of a government that denied its subjects the right to own weapons unless they were part of the Army. Any argument that they did not understand modern weapons, while technically accurate, ignores the fact that they understood the difference between being a subject and a citizen. They had recently fought a war to be citizens instead of subjects.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can buy a drone for about $400. Most people could easily hook up a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to it, and operate that with a radio controled device that you can adapt from a radio controled toy boat or airplane. With a 50 round magazine, you could become a terrorist in your nieghborhood, or you might want to spray the upper floor windows of a secured government building. Until you sent the electronic signal that fired the weapon, you would be a law abiding citizen, and nobody would even have the right to take the damned thing away from you.


FPV RC Helicopter Quadcopter Drone w/ HD Video Camera Controlled by Smartphone on eBay!

Is there a point in that rambling statement somewhere? Are you going to ban toys?