CDZ Guns Tanks and Nucklear Weapons. The second amendment.

[GaryDog]

Specious argument at best. It presupposes that guns are not useful for killing due to their size, abundance, and affordability. If that's true, then they're useless for self-defense, something that even Republicans and especially the NRA won't admit to.

Well, hold those goof-wads in the NRA down and tickle their feet until they admit to all you want them to ... ... That's about the extent of your argument reaches.

Okay, so you're willfully missing my point. If that's the way you want to converse, then congrats. Not very effective, though.

 

[Hiryuu]

Okay, so you're willfully missing my point. If that's the way you want to converse, then congrats. Not very effective, though.

You have a rant, not a point, and I choose to treat it that way. If it upsets you, you are likewise free from being compelled to respond.

 

[Ringel05]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........

Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.

Missed the point, didn'tcha........

Uh, no. I think you did. The rapid manner in which technology has changed for purposes of speech has been frequently addressed with time, place and manner restrictions. Just because something is an enumerated right doesn't mean it's limitless. That should matter infinitely more when it comes to items made to kill, as opposed to items made to pass along ideas.

I'm aware of that but you still missed the point. Those who claim that citizens should only be allowed access to the firearms that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution forget the fact that that application of restriction must apply to all the amendments equally.
Again, what does the advances in technology have to do with the Constitution? Also, again, there are mechanisms built in to make changes, those mechanisms were put there for a reason, if you have a problem with a specific amendment use the processes to make the changes you want, if you can.

 

[GaryDog]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........

Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.

Missed the point, didn'tcha........

Uh, no. I think you did. The rapid manner in which technology has changed for purposes of speech has been frequently addressed with time, place and manner restrictions. Just because something is an enumerated right doesn't mean it's limitless. That should matter infinitely more when it comes to items made to kill, as opposed to items made to pass along ideas.

I'm aware of that but you still missed the point. Those who claim that citizens should only be allowed access to the firearms that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution forget the fact that that application of restriction must apply to all the amendments equally.
Again, what does the advances in technology have to do with the Constitution? Also, again, there are mechanisms built in to make changes, those mechanisms were put there for a reason, if you have a problem with a specific amendment use the processes to make the changes you want, if you can.

First, there is absolutely no such doctrine in constitutional jurisprudence that requires all amendments to be dealt with equally, and I challenge you to find one.

Second, SCOTUS evaluates the level of appropriate federal restrictions based on changing societal landscape all the time. They've done it with many amendments, especially the 4th, which puts restrictions on what you can search in a cell phone, etc. Why wouldn't a restriction on newer technologies with guns be appropriate in light of that fact?

 

[Ringel05]

They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........

Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.

Missed the point, didn'tcha........

Uh, no. I think you did. The rapid manner in which technology has changed for purposes of speech has been frequently addressed with time, place and manner restrictions. Just because something is an enumerated right doesn't mean it's limitless. That should matter infinitely more when it comes to items made to kill, as opposed to items made to pass along ideas.

I'm aware of that but you still missed the point. Those who claim that citizens should only be allowed access to the firearms that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution forget the fact that that application of restriction must apply to all the amendments equally.
Again, what does the advances in technology have to do with the Constitution? Also, again, there are mechanisms built in to make changes, those mechanisms were put there for a reason, if you have a problem with a specific amendment use the processes to make the changes you want, if you can.

First, there is absolutely no such doctrine in constitutional jurisprudence that requires all amendments to be dealt with equally, and I challenge you to find one.

Second, SCOTUS evaluates the level of appropriate federal restrictions based on changing societal landscape all the time. They've done it with many amendments, especially the 4th, which puts restrictions on what you can search in a cell phone, etc. Why wouldn't a restriction on newer technologies with guns be appropriate in light of that fact?

We will have to agree to disagree then as based on 'Original Intent' I disagree with both you and SCOTUS in both those areas.

 

[hauke]

ok back to the 2nd amendmend.

it was made to defend against the british.
make militia

fight britain

 

[Hiryuu]

First, there is absolutely no such doctrine in constitutional jurisprudence that requires all amendments to be dealt with equally, and I challenge you to find one.

Second, SCOTUS evaluates the level of appropriate federal restrictions based on changing societal landscape all the time. They've done it with many amendments, especially the 4th, which puts restrictions on what you can search in a cell phone, etc. Why wouldn't a restriction on newer technologies with guns be appropriate in light of that fact?

One unconstitutional abuse doesn't necessarily set precedence for another. If you are suggesting it is SCOTUS' job to evaluate the appropriate level of federal restrictions, then there is no doubt you think they have lost track of their obligation to defend and uphold the Constitution as is. But of course you are not the first person to suggest it would be better if we legislated from the bench.

 

[hauke]

and in 1787 that means every man got a musket

not a sniper rifle killing at 1.5 km

 

[hauke]

just change the constitution to the reality of 2016 please

hunters may have rifles

everyone else not. no need for guns the wild west is gone for 100 years

if you want to bear arms join a national guard.

you can even fly supersonic jet fighters there

the police is capable of ensuring law nation wide.

no need for guns


get rid of guns and the bad guys can t have them

 

[Fair&Balanced]

every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

Constitutional Amendment only exist within the context of Supreme Court rulings. SCOTUS has CLEARLY ruled that firearms are limited to weapons that a single military member could and would effectively wield,

Life isn't Fallout 4 , thus there are no one man nuke launchers , thus your argument is bereft of any logic

 

[Ringel05]

just change the constitution to the reality of 2016 please

hunters may have rifles

everyone else not. no need for guns the wild west is gone for 100 years

if you want to bear arms join a national guard.

you can even fly supersonic jet fighters there

Uummmm, like I told you there's a process to do that, it can take years if not decades.

 

[hauke]

and if guns are gone the police can relax

no need to kill

no guns

 

[hauke]

theres ways to amend the constitution without the suprteme court

2/3 parliament

2/3 states

no supreme court

2/3 of peole rule above president senate parliament or supreme court.

the people rule


.. thats why i like the USA

 

[Hiryuu]

just change the constitution to the reality of 2016 please

hunters may have rifles

everyone else not. no need for guns the wild west is gone for 100 years

if you want to bear arms join a national guard.

you can even fly supersonic jet fighters there

the police is capable of ensuring law nation wide.

no need for guns


get rid of guns and the bad guys can t have them

I have a hunting rifle that can drop a target 3 times farther away than a standard AR-15. Not to mention that if a human gets hit with a round, they will most likely die (even if it just blows their foot off).

Edit:
I think that is where a lot of people who don't own firearms kind of lose track of reality.
Every deer hunter is at least a novice "sniper" experienced in stealth, camouflage and shooting.

 

[Ringel05]

theres ways to amend the constitution without the suprteme court

2/3 parliament

2/3 states

no supreme court

2/3 of peole rule above president senate parliament or supreme court.

the people rule


.. thats why i like the USA

The Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution........ And it takes three fourths of the States to ratify any changes.

 

[Ringel05]

and if guns are gone the police can relax

no need to kill

no guns

What planet do you live on?

 

[2aguy]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

They already had repeating rifles in development at the time of the Founding....

 

[2aguy]

The AR-15 is the symbol of freedom ...it is the musket of our times...which is why the left wants to stamp it out....

Charles C. W. Cooke: The AR-15 Is The "Musket of Our Time" - The Truth About Guns



All of which, ultimately, brings us back to the AR-15. In my view, there is nothing that better symbolizes the proper relationship between the citizen and the state than a robust right to keep and bear arms.

------

When one stops to think about it, it makes no logical or constitutional sense for the people’s employees (our politicians) to be permitted to disarm their employers (the voters).

And yet Americans fight constantly to prevent their representatives from doing just that. During heated debates, owners of common rifles such as the AR-15 are asked by those in positions of power, “Why do you need one of those?”—to which the appropriate response, in a voice dripping with suspicion, is first, “Why don’t you want me to have one?”

And second, “If the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs need $20 million worth of firearms; and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service needs shotguns, propane cannons and drones; I think I’m on solid ground with my AR, thank you very much.”

Bluntly put, it is impossible to separate out the structure of the American settlement from the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.

If, as many desire, the federal government were to rid the people of the United States of their most commonly owned rifle, it would be ushering in not just a change in the legal status quo, but a profound shift in the balance of power. Crises, as Edmund Burke observed, are perilous for the free.

Those who wish to avoid such a change must thus ensure that their rifles are cast in the correct light.

Day in and day out, the gun control movement attempts to represent the AR-15 as being in some way extravagant or outré—as the unlovely corruption of a worthwhile principle. “Sure,” one hears it said, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but that gun just takes it too far.”This, of course, is nonsense.

In truth, the AR-15 is the contemporary equivalent of the musket—an everyday gun for everyday citizens. Fundamentally, the AR-15 is democratic. It is the yeoman’s gun; the people’s gun; the Brown Bess of our era.

 

[Nosmo King]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

I have a sterling record as a gun control advocate on this board. I believe that assault weapons are, in fact, a public health hazard.

But I understand that the constitution is elastic enough to cover changes in technology. Certainly the founding fathers could not conceive of machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, thermonuclear warheads.

But the could not envisage computers, telephones and the internet either. When the 4th amendment speaks of unwarranted searches and seizures of 'letters', we understand that this extends to computers and e-mails as well. Faxes, telephone communications, and personal messages are just as private as posted letters.

Let us then assume that semi-automatic weapons, as dangerous and unnecessary as they are, can be considered 'arms' under the meaning of the second amendment.

Now, the constitution was written for the people. It is not a suicide pact. It is, in fact, an elastic document that serves successive generations as it served our predecessors.

 

[2aguy]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

I have a sterling record as a gun control advocate on this board. I believe that assault weapons are, in fact, a public health hazard.

But I understand that the constitution is elastic enough to cover changes in technology. Certainly the founding fathers could not conceive of machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, thermonuclear warheads.

But the could not envisage computers, telephones and the internet either. When the 4th amendment speaks of unwarranted searches and seizures of 'letters', we understand that this extends to computers and e-mails as well. Faxes, telephone communications, and personal messages are just as private as posted letters.

Let us then assume that semi-automatic weapons, as dangerous and unnecessary as they are, can be considered 'arms' under the meaning of the second amendment.

Now, the constitution was written for the people. It is not a suicide pact. It is, in fact, an elastic document that serves successive generations as it served our predecessors.

How are they a health hazard.......? Numbers and facts should show that..right...but they don't....there is not one fact that supports what you believe.....

about 8 million rifles with detachable magazines in this country, 5 million AR-15s

157 deaths in mass public shootings with rifles with detachable magzines.......in 34 years....

Cars...every single year....33,000...

Knives in 2014...... 1,567.....and over 1,500 every year....

How exactly are they a health hazard...

On the CDC guns are 17 on the top 20 ways to die in this country....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



For 2014 included......


All rifles: 248 ------------(2013....285 (that means AR-15s kill even fewer than that))

Knives: 1,567-------------( 2013....1,490)

Hands and feet: 660----( 2013 .......687 )

Blunt objects: 435------ ( 2013....428)

And gun murders by rifle...been going down....

2008...380

2009...351

2010...367

2011...332

2012...298

2013...285

2014...248

After the assault ban was lifted in a country of over 320 million people with 90 million homes with guns

And over 5,000,000 AR-15s in private hands.........

5,000,000 legal AR-15s....less than 285 murders and we don't have the actual number for just AR-15s

..knife murders.....2009-2013.....



Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2009

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2008

murder by knife......

2004---1,866
2005---1,920
2006---1,830
2007---1,817
2008---1,888
2009----1,828
2010----1,732
2011----1,716
2012---1,604
2013---1,490
2014---1,567

Rifle murder....

2004---403
2005---445
2006---438
2007---453
2008---380
2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285
2014---248


How Many Assault Weapons Are There in America? How Much Would It Cost the Government To Buy Them Back?

Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading assault-style rifles make up around 1 percent of the total arsenal.