What is so hard to understand?

[M14 Shooter]

So, my deer rifle is not covered by the 2nd amendment, but James Holmes's AR15 with 100 round magazine is?

A "deer rifle" is akin to a sniping rifle, which falls under the protection of the 2nd as discussed in Miller. Fact of the matter is that, under Miller, an AR-15 w. 20/30rd USGI magazines is quite possible the very best example of the sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.


Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so.


AR15 = WMD?

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

When the founders wrote the constitution, the weapons of the day were muzzle loading flintlock muskets, not machine guns or rapid fire semiautomatics.

So, you'll then agree that the 1st amendment does not cover cable TV news networks and the 4th amendment does not cover your cell phone conversations.

"Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so."
Lawmakers have been whittling away at just about every right we have. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms.

I was being serious calling a AR15 a WMD.

That being the case, it is very difficult to take you seriously.

It is made for killing and isn't much good for anything else.

An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about.

I don't believe anybody has died from listening to Fox news or CNN or from having their cell phone conversations overheard, so I don't see how that compares.

Not a surprise.
Take a look at the core of the argument.
If it applies to one amendment, it then applies to them all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't want to have to go back and hunt somebody up from other threads etc. So it is just a general observation and my assertion that I have debated this issue with people who think the Second Amendment gives all the power to the people and no power to government to regulate whatever armaments the people wish to have.

You would then say that these people are few and far between and that most people do NOT argue that the 2nd protects whatever armaments the people wish to have - yes?

Radical extremists of all types are relatively uncommon and out of the mainstream. They generally get an extraordinary amount of the attention, however. And the only thing I have argued here is that Constitutional intent was to give the people an unalienable right to self defense, even against unlawful action of their own government should that become necessary; but that does not preclude the ability of government to regulate armaments.

And we are not arguing it does. we are arguing that specific Court decisions establish that semi automatic supposed assault rifles are exactly what is covered by the 2nd.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, my deer rifle is not covered by the 2nd amendment, but James Holmes's AR15 with 100 round magazine is?

A "deer rifle" is akin to a sniping rifle, which falls under the protection of the 2nd as discussed in Miller. Fact of the matter is that, under Miller, an AR-15 w. 20/30rd USGI magazines is quite possible the very best example of the sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.


Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so.


AR15 = WMD?

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

When the founders wrote the constitution, the weapons of the day were muzzle loading flintlock muskets, not machine guns or rapid fire semiautomatics.

So, you'll then agree that the 1st amendment does not cover cable TV news networks and the 4th amendment does not cover your cell phone conversations.

"Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so."

Lawmakers have been whittling away at just about every right we have. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

I was being serious calling a AR15 a WMD. It is made for killing and isn't much good for anything else. Weapons that are even more destructive are available to just about anyone too. Holmes shot over 70 people, killing a dozen. If not for a malfunction, he probably would have killed or injured many more. Why should we entrust non LEO / military people with that kind of firepower?

I don't believe anybody has died from listening to Fox news or CNN or from having their cell phone conversations overheard, so I don't see how that compares.

He did not use the supposed assault rifle as it jammed right away, he used a shotgun and handguns. But don't let facts get in the way of a good lie.

 

[Borillar]

A "deer rifle" is akin to a sniping rifle, which falls under the protection of the 2nd as discussed in Miller. Fact of the matter is that, under Miller, an AR-15 w. 20/30rd USGI magazines is quite possible the very best example of the sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.


Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so.


AR15 = WMD?

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.


So, you'll then agree that the 1st amendment does not cover cable TV news networks and the 4th amendment does not cover your cell phone conversations.

"Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so."
Lawmakers have been whittling away at just about every right we have. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms.


That being the case, it is very difficult to take you seriously.

It is made for killing and isn't much good for anything else.

An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about.

I don't believe anybody has died from listening to Fox news or CNN or from having their cell phone conversations overheard, so I don't see how that compares.

Not a surprise.
Take a look at the core of the argument.
If it applies to one amendment, it then applies to them all.

"We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms."

Then you are against torture, warrantless wiretaps, data-mining, etc? You support a woman's privacy rights? Worker's rights to unionize? The right to say "fuck" on the airwaves?

"An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about."

I suppose it is also good for maiming, injuring, and wounding masses of people in theaters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so."
Lawmakers have been whittling away at just about every right we have. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms.


That being the case, it is very difficult to take you seriously.


An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about.

I don't believe anybody has died from listening to Fox news or CNN or from having their cell phone conversations overheard, so I don't see how that compares.

Not a surprise.
Take a look at the core of the argument.
If it applies to one amendment, it then applies to them all.

"We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms."

Then you are against torture, warrantless wiretaps, data-mining, etc? You support a woman's privacy rights? Worker's rights to unionize? The right to say "fuck" on the airwaves?

"An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about."

I suppose it is also good for maiming, injuring, and wounding masses of people in theaters.

So is a shotgun, a knife, a shovel, a metal rake, and a whole list of items to include automotive vehicles of certain types.

The Court is clear, we have an individually protected right to self defense with firearms and the type of arms protected are military type, of use, in use or previously used by the military.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so."
Lawmakers have been whittling away at just about every right we have. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms.


That being the case, it is very difficult to take you seriously.


An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about.

I don't believe anybody has died from listening to Fox news or CNN or from having their cell phone conversations overheard, so I don't see how that compares.

Not a surprise.
Take a look at the core of the argument.
If it applies to one amendment, it then applies to them all.

"We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms."

Then you are against torture, warrantless wiretaps, data-mining, etc? You support a woman's privacy rights? Worker's rights to unionize? The right to say "fuck" on the airwaves?

"An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about."

I suppose it is also good for maiming, injuring, and wounding masses of people in theaters.

What part of HIS weapon jammed right off the go did you miss? He did not use an "assault weapon" to shoot 70 people, he used a shotgun and handguns.

 

[Borillar]

We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms.


That being the case, it is very difficult to take you seriously.


An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about.


Not a surprise.
Take a look at the core of the argument.
If it applies to one amendment, it then applies to them all.

"We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms."

Then you are against torture, warrantless wiretaps, data-mining, etc? You support a woman's privacy rights? Worker's rights to unionize? The right to say "fuck" on the airwaves?

"An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about."

I suppose it is also good for maiming, injuring, and wounding masses of people in theaters.

What part of HIS weapon jammed right off the go did you miss? He did not use an "assault weapon" to shoot 70 people, he used a shotgun and handguns.

The articles I've read about the incident indicated that the AR15 was the primary weapon used. I would also maintain that semiautomatic pistols with high capacity magazines are more appropriate weapons for LEO's and military than for civilian use. Legitimate self defense use of firearms doesn't necessitate these type of weapons. A person could just as easily defend himself with a 6 shot revolver than a semiautomatic pistol with a capacity 3X greater.

In any case, this is all purely academic. I doubt any attempt to curtail anyone's right to own these kind of weapons will ever succeed. We'll probably lose all our other rights in all but name, but Bubba will still be able to own his BFG-9000.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so."
Lawmakers have been whittling away at just about every right we have. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms.


That being the case, it is very difficult to take you seriously.


An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about.

I don't believe anybody has died from listening to Fox news or CNN or from having their cell phone conversations overheard, so I don't see how that compares.

Not a surprise.
Take a look at the core of the argument.
If it applies to one amendment, it then applies to them all.

"We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms."

Then you are against torture, warrantless wiretaps, data-mining, etc? You support a woman's privacy rights? Worker's rights to unionize? The right to say "fuck" on the airwaves?

"An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about."

I suppose it is also good for maiming, injuring, and wounding masses of people in theaters.

As I said: It is hard to take you seriously; I shall now stop trying.

 

[Foxfyre]

You would then say that these people are few and far between and that most people do NOT argue that the 2nd protects whatever armaments the people wish to have - yes?

Radical extremists of all types are relatively uncommon and out of the mainstream. They generally get an extraordinary amount of the attention, however. And the only thing I have argued here is that Constitutional intent was to give the people an unalienable right to self defense, even against unlawful action of their own government should that become necessary; but that does not preclude the ability of government to regulate armaments.

And we are not arguing it does. we are arguing that specific Court decisions establish that semi automatic supposed assault rifles are exactly what is covered by the 2nd.

The guy who owns his own Bradley tank can also assert that it has sentimental value for him and he enjoys displaying it in his back yard and it therefore is not an assault weapon. He an also make the case that a Bradley tank can be a defensive weapon as much as an assault weapon.

So I don't intend to be splitting hairs here. I fully understand that you see a semi-automatic rifle as just another rifle in a private citizen's gun collection and I have no problem with that. And yes, I can see how that is covered by the 2nd Amendment.

The sticky wicket is at what precise level should the government regulate what weapons will be in the hands of a private citizen. Is there a line somewhere? If so, where. . . .

Where do you draw the line or do you in what the government should regulate?

Pea shooter
Sling shot
Daisy Red Ryder BB gun
22 caliber rifle
Single shot 18 guage shotgun?
12 guage double barrel shotgun?
9 mm pistol?
.357 Magnum?
38 caliber multiple shot handgun?
45 caliber revolver?
M1 Army rifle
M16?
Hand grenades?
Machine gun?
105 recoilless rifle?
Rocket launcher?
Surface to air missile launder?
Torpedoes?
Tanks?
Aerial bombs?
A nuclear weapon?

(I left out lots and lots of stuff that we could put in there.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

The sticky wicket is at what precise level should the government regulate what weapons will be in the hands of a private citizen. Is there a line somewhere? If so, where. . . .

The important thing is that, according to the test in Miller, the 2nd covers all classes of firearms.

 

[Foxfyre]

The sticky wicket is at what precise level should the government regulate what weapons will be in the hands of a private citizen. Is there a line somewhere? If so, where. . . .

The important thing is that, according to the test in Miller, the 2nd covers all classes of firearms.

So you're saying that I should be allowed to have a missile shoulder to air launcher that could fire a nuclear missile if I wanted one and could get one? Especially with the nuclear missiles to use in it?

 

[Vidi]

There is no viable argument for the right to bear arms in the 21st century other than its a right enumerated in the Constitution.

As a gun owner, I want to retain that right. Simply because I want my guns. Period.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The sticky wicket is at what precise level should the government regulate what weapons will be in the hands of a private citizen. Is there a line somewhere? If so, where. . . .

The important thing is that, according to the test in Miller, the 2nd covers all classes of firearms.

So you're saying that I should be allowed to have a missile shoulder to air launcher that could fire a nuclear missile if I wanted one and could get one? Especially with the nuclear missiles to use in it?

Not sure how you got that from that I said. Please do explain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no viable argument for the right to bear arms in the 21st century other than...

... you have the right to use deadly force in self defense, which you may exercise both individually and collectively, with the 2nd amendment as the guarantee that you will always have access to the best means to that end.

 

[Vidi]

There is no viable argument for the right to bear arms in the 21st century other than...

... you have the right to use deadly force in self defense, which you may exercise both individually and collectively, with the 2nd amendment as the guarantee that you will always have access to the best means to that end.

And how often is that really the case?

For every instance you can cite of viable gun related self defense, I can probably cite two examples of gun related murder.

I assert that ,though I fully support gun ownership, there is no viable argument other than "The Constitution says so" Any other argument can be defeated with the simple logic of weighing the positive vs negative effects.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Radical extremists of all types are relatively uncommon and out of the mainstream. They generally get an extraordinary amount of the attention, however. And the only thing I have argued here is that Constitutional intent was to give the people an unalienable right to self defense, even against unlawful action of their own government should that become necessary; but that does not preclude the ability of government to regulate armaments.

And we are not arguing it does. we are arguing that specific Court decisions establish that semi automatic supposed assault rifles are exactly what is covered by the 2nd.

The guy who owns his own Bradley tank can also assert that it has sentimental value for him and he enjoys displaying it in his back yard and it therefore is not an assault weapon. He an also make the case that a Bradley tank can be a defensive weapon as much as an assault weapon.

So I don't intend to be splitting hairs here. I fully understand that you see a semi-automatic rifle as just another rifle in a private citizen's gun collection and I have no problem with that. And yes, I can see how that is covered by the 2nd Amendment.

The sticky wicket is at what precise level should the government regulate what weapons will be in the hands of a private citizen. Is there a line somewhere? If so, where. . . .

Where do you draw the line or do you in what the government should regulate?

Pea shooter
Sling shot
Daisy Red Ryder BB gun
22 caliber rifle
Single shot 18 guage shotgun?
12 guage double barrel shotgun?
9 mm pistol?
.357 Magnum?
38 caliber multiple shot handgun?
45 caliber revolver?
M1 Army rifle
M16?
Hand grenades?
Machine gun?
105 recoilless rifle?
Rocket launcher?
Surface to air missile launder?
Torpedoes?
Tanks?
Aerial bombs?
A nuclear weapon?

(I left out lots and lots of stuff that we could put in there.)

No serious attempt has been made by any legitimate group to argue tanks, missiles and crew served weapons are covered by the 2nd. The Government and the Courts have pretty uniformly held that FIREARMS are what the second encompasses. Further since the Constitution specifically forbids the States from possessing armed sea going vessels ( the only type of Strategic asset militarily at the time) one can easily dismiss Strategic weapons. Splitting hairs indeed. There is no intrinsic right protected by the second to own anything other then knives and firearms. As that is all an Individual was expected to appear carrying at the militia gathering.

Further the Courts have held that the law placing restrictions on fully automatic weapons is valid and does not violate the 2nd.

So lets stick to FIREARMS shall we?

 

[FA_Q2]

There is no viable argument for the right to bear arms in the 21st century other than...

... you have the right to use deadly force in self defense, which you may exercise both individually and collectively, with the 2nd amendment as the guarantee that you will always have access to the best means to that end.

And how often is that really the case?

For every instance you can cite of viable gun related self defense, I can probably cite two examples of gun related murder.

I assert that ,though I fully support gun ownership, there is no viable argument other than "The Constitution says so" Any other argument can be defeated with the simple logic of weighing the positive vs negative effects.

Utterly false.

Sure, there are going to be more cases of assault with weapons then there are going to be cases where they are used in defense but that has nothing to do with regulation mostly because:

CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW

I really fail to see how this is such a hard concept to grasp. The simple fact of the matter is that, in order to abridge our rights, you would need to show that such laws are actually effective in reducing crime/increasing safety. The evidence is simply not there. As I already pointed out earlier this thread, the vast spread of laws that have been passed all over the place in this country should have led to a wealth of evidence for gun control. It has not. You gain NOTHING when you remove weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens but leave them in the hands of people that don’t obey the law.

The truth is that there is no rational argument to TAKE peoples guns. Not the opposite.

On top of this, the number one weapon of choice for criminals (and the most used weapon for crimes) are handguns because they can be concealed and are just as effective. Banning scary looking weapons (what is what assault weapon bans really are) have no real bearing on crime anyway.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I'm also quite skeptical that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of which weapons were covered by the second amendment on "several occasions".

Common usage.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the second amendment is made up of two parts
Since their was a regular army small but it did exist at the time of the creation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
The states have a right too a militia

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

The People have a right too keep and bear arms

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And supreme court rulings have stated that the only weapons protected under the second amendment are those of suitable use for the militia and must be bought the individual.
Miller vs U.S. and Lewis vs. U.S.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Where do you draw the line or do you in what the government should regulate?

Right to BEAR arms.

Intended to be borne by the individual militiaman (infantryman).