What is so hard to understand?

[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.

And how often is that really the case?

That people use deadly force, or the threat thereof, in their own self-defense?
Depends on who you ask - in 1997, the DoJ publised a study that said 100k to 2.5 million times per year.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

But, however often it may be, the fact remains that the right to arms is centered around the right to self-defense, and thus, relevant - unless, of course, you want to make an argument that the right to self-defense is no longer relevant.

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

Given that there are fewer than 10k gun related morders un the US each year - probably not.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"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."

The problem with that is that no two people would agree on the subjective value judgements involved.
Guns can be used to feed hungry children (good) or to poach endangered species (bad). Some people may not agree with my labels and then there remains the question of a reasonable measurment of how good/bad and my example is only one of several aspects of having a firearm some of which defy measurement. Example: How many crimes are never attempted due to the suspected presence of a firearm?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well you said the 2nd covers all classes of firearms. Yesterday I posted a fairly lengthy list of what constitutes a 'firearm'--such list was studiously ignored of course--and a missile launcher would belong on that list.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm very big on original intent of the Constitution and our unalienable rights that it protects and that includes strong support for the 2nd Amendment. But again, is there a line to be drawn in what sort of firearms are protected as our right? And who should draw the line?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Well you said the 2nd covers all classes of firearms. Yesterday I posted a fairly lengthy list of what constitutes a 'firearm'--such list was studiously ignored of course--and a missile launcher would belong on that list.

No. It would not.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Now don't get me wrong. I'm very big on original intent of the Constitution and our unalienable rights that it protects and that includes strong support for the 2nd Amendment. But again, is there a line to be drawn in what sort of firearms are protected as our right? And who should draw the line?"

In the end the line will be drawn in the courts and it remains unknown just where.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Well you said the 2nd covers all classes of firearms. Yesterday I posted a fairly lengthy list of what constitutes a 'firearm'--such list was studiously ignored of course--and a missile launcher would belong on that list.

No. It would not.

So again, where do you draw the line? How do you define a firearm? And are all manner of firearms protected by the 2nd?

Again what was the intent of the Founders with the 2nd? The Gatling gun/machine gun had not been invented in the late 18th Century. Would the Founders have considered it the right of the private citizen to own a cannon? I rather think they would have.

If it is a matter of what is necessary for self defense, I can think of all manner of circumstances where something larger than a deer rifle could be necessary for self defense. Bringing it down to the components of this debate, there is the issue of the semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons that also were unknown to the Founders in the late 18th Century.

Unless we can define what we consider to be a protected firearm, the debate becomes pretty impossible to have.

firearm [ˈfaɪərˌɑːm] n
(Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well you said the 2nd covers all classes of firearms. Yesterday I posted a fairly lengthy list of what constitutes a 'firearm'--such list was studiously ignored of course--and a missile launcher would belong on that list.

No. It would not.

So again, where do you draw the line? How do you define a firearm?

Firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And are all manner of firearms protected by the 2nd?

Yep. Each class of firearm falls under the test in Miller.

 

[Borillar]

No. It would not.

So again, where do you draw the line? How do you define a firearm?

Firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And are all manner of firearms protected by the 2nd?

Yep. Each class of firearm falls under the test in Miller.

Does the 2nd amendment cover only small arms, or does it also allow for larger arms like cannons, howitzers, mortars which also shoot projectiles at high velocity through confined burning of a propellant?

 

[Foxfyre]

No. It would not.

So again, where do you draw the line? How do you define a firearm?

Firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And are all manner of firearms protected by the 2nd?

Yep. Each class of firearm falls under the test in Miller.

And you are using Wikipedia's really vague definition of what a 'firearm' is rather than the Collins English Dictionary definition that I posted? Where do you draw the line on the list? Any list of what could be included as a 'firearm'?

I am not trying to be difficult here, but if you won't have that conversation, then you can see how the anti-2nd Amendment advocates feel justified in their convictions as well.

It is not quite so cut and dried or simple as some in the pro-2nd Amendment group seem to want to make it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So again, where do you draw the line? How do you define a firearm?

Firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And are all manner of firearms protected by the 2nd?

Yep. Each class of firearm falls under the test in Miller.

And you are using Wikipedia's really vague definition of what a 'firearm'...

You asked:

How do you define a firearm?

I gave you my answer.
The definitions are subtantially the same; the wiki article lists the various classes of firearms.


That said, the remainder of what I said is sound.

And so, I don't know where your beef is - the gun control argument can only go so far once itis understood that all classes of firearms pass the test in Miller and are thusly protected by the 2nd.

 

[Foxfyre]

Firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yep. Each class of firearm falls under the test in Miller.

And you are using Wikipedia's really vague definition of what a 'firearm'...

You asked:

How do you define a firearm?

I gave you my answer.
The definitions are subtantially the same; the wiki article lists the various classes of firearms.


That said, the remainder of what I said is sound.

And so, I don't know where your beef is - the gun control argument can only go so far once itis understood that all classes of firearms pass the test in Miller and are thusly protected by the 2nd.

Well, okay. Your answer however suggests you are depending on Wikipedia to make your case--it doesn't--and I am wondering if you have ever read Miller. And I wonder if you have tuned into the debates re its interpretation and how it is used both by gun rights advocates and gun control advocates to make their respective cases.

But I'll move along. Thanks for keeping it civil anyway.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you are using Wikipedia's really vague definition of what a 'firearm'...

You asked:

How do you define a firearm?

I gave you my answer.
The definitions are subtantially the same; the wiki article lists the various classes of firearms.


That said, the remainder of what I said is sound.

And so, I don't know where your beef is - the gun control argument can only go so far once itis understood that all classes of firearms pass the test in Miller and are thusly protected by the 2nd.

Well, okay. Your answer however suggests you are depending on Wikipedia to make your case

What, exactly, is wrong with the wiki defintion and the classes of firearms it lists?

And I am wondering if you have ever read Miller.

I first read Miller in 1986 and have read it abnout 1000 times since.

Please feel free show how my position regarding Miller and it's application, especially concening my argument that the test it creates incorporates all classes of firearms under the protection of the 2nd, is unsound.

And I wonder if you have tuned into the debates re its interpretation and how it is used both by gun rights advocates and gun control advocates to make their respective cases.

Yep. I am certain that my understanding of the particulars is in the 99th percentile.

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet you won't answer a rather simple question asked of you related to this issue. I can post a gazillion links and claim all sorts of credentials of why I am qualified and competent in a subject, but the proof of my understanding really is in whether I can answer a simple question related to it. Wouldn't you agree?

But again, rather than be argumentative, I don't really enjoy a debate conducted only via cut and paste and 'go read whatever', so I am now engaged in other pursuits. Do have a nice day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yet you won't answer a rather simple question asked of you related to this issue.

Which was...?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not playing that game friend. Again have a nice day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not playing that game friend. Again have a nice day.

Looking back, I don't see a single question that I did not answer.
If there's something I missed, please let me know.
Otherwise... scurry away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yet you won't answer a rather simple question asked of you related to this issue. I can post a gazillion links and claim all sorts of credentials of why I am qualified and competent in a subject, but the proof of my understanding really is in whether I can answer a simple question related to it. Wouldn't you agree?

A simple question like:
What, exactly, is wrong with the wiki defintion and the classes of firearms it lists?

 

[OODA_Loop]

THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 44


(3) The term "firearm" means (A)
any weapon (including a starter gun)
which will or is designed to or may
readily be converted to expel a projectile
by the action of an explosive; (B)
the frame or receiver of any such
weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm
silencer; or (D) any destructive device.
Such term does not include an
antique firearm.

 

[OODA_Loop]

(4) The term "destructive device"
means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or
poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant
charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive
or incendiary charge of more than
one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the
devices described in the preceding
clauses;

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Well you said the 2nd covers all classes of firearms. Yesterday I posted a fairly lengthy list of what constitutes a 'firearm'--such list was studiously ignored of course--and a missile launcher would belong on that list.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm very big on original intent of the Constitution and our unalienable rights that it protects and that includes strong support for the 2nd Amendment. But again, is there a line to be drawn in what sort of firearms are protected as our right? And who should draw the line?

You completely ignored my post. Again, the 2nd covers man portable small arms. Rifle, pistol, shotgun, it further includes bayonets, knives and in some cases swords.

It does not protect Machine guns or fully automatic weapons. This has been established on several occasions. It does not protect crew served weapons or strategic assets. Well it does at the State level with in reason.

One must be able to BEAR the firearm. As in carry. While this might include shoulder fired grenade launchers and grenades etc, no one has ever addressed the laws against those so currently they remain heavily regulated and illegal in any State that passes such laws.

Lets stick to reality and what is reasonably understood to be covered and what is already LEGALLY considered not covered.