The premise that an individual's rights extend only as far as they don't infringe on the rights of others I'd agree with, but I'd suggest that there may be more to look at. Take the 1st Amendment, free speech provision. Defamation laws provide a reasonable restriction and true, they're predicated on the individual rights of others. But inflammatory speech amounting to incitment is also restricted but not on the basis of a direct interference with the rights of others (and I accept that there is a link with the rights of others but it's distant) but on the need to maintain peace and good order in society.
There's no limitation on free speech for being infammatory--there are laws against starting riots. Different business.
So, to the automatic weapon objection. It's acceptable to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons because of the very nature of automatic weapons as effective (human) killing machines.
No. It's unacceptable to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons because of the very nature of automatic weapons as effective defensive weapons.
Imagine if every home in the US had at least one automatic weapon (now don't swoon), the potential for harm is massive.
So what?
To avoid this harm the ownership of these types of firearms must be restricted (including prohibition).
Unmitigated nonsense.
Only speaking for myself, I haven't advocated "banning guns", but if someone has then they need a reality check.
You haven't advocated "banning guns" (including prohibition)? Any guns? You're sure?
Look, I don't believe in strict Constitutionalism, but it is the 2nd Amendment crowd that wants to ignore "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as a basis for limiting the right to bear arms.
The preamble to the statement that expresses the the right, does not put limitations on the right--the preamble expresses the Government's interest in regognizing that right and protecting it.
The Government is not empowered to restict rights.
Fine. If we want to be literal, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't prevent the limitation of the sale of ammunition. Ammunition is not the same thing as "arms". I am just playing along.
The ammunition is a neccessary component to firearms that makes them meaningful as arms. Placing limitiations on ammunition certainly infringes upon keeping and bearing arms.[/QUOTE]
Further, the 1st amendment prevents any laws "abridging" freedom of expression.
To "abridge" is to "to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abridge
The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Infringe" means "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe
Thus you can't violate the right to bear arms, which arguably banning ammunition does not.
However, you can't reduce or lessen or diminish the right to freedom of speech and press, which arguably banning the written word does.
<a href="http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/infringe">Main Entry: <b>in·fringe</b></a>
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj\
Function: <i>verb</i>
Inflected Form(s): <b>in·fringed; in·fring·ing</b>
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date: 1513
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon<infringe on our rights>
<b>synonyms</b> see trespass
<b>— in·fring·er</b> noun
<i>Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law</i>
Main Entry: <b>in·fringe</b>
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: <b>in·fringed; in·fring·ing</b>
Etymology: Medieval Latin <i>infringere</i>, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be <i>infringed —U.S. Constitution</i> amendment II>; <i>especially</i> : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH <b>—in·fring·er</b> noun
You can't <a href="http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/encroach"><b>encroach</b></a> upon the right to bear arms in a way violates the right, which arguably banning ammunition certainly does.
Why would you say so? I think people generally consider arms as separate from ammunition. "Arms" fire ammunition.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, an "arm" is "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms."
Ammunition is defined as "the material fired, scattered, dropped, or detonated from any weapon, as bombs or rockets, and esp. shot, shrapnel, bullets, or shells fired by guns. "
Thus ammunition in this sense is different than weapon. Different definitions can be used to describe "ammunition," but almost all of them define it as something fired from a weapon. I guess we can have a separate discussion about the definition of ammunition, but let's assume that ammunition is held to its common meaning as something separate from weapons per se. Then can we ban ammunition?
No.
Main Entry: 3<b>arm</b>
Function: <i>noun</i>
Usage: <i>often attributive</i>
Etymology: Middle English <i>armes</i> (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date: 13th century
<b>1 a</b>: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; <i>especially</i> : <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm">firearm</a> <b>b</b>: a combat branch (as of an army) c: an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
<b>2</b> <i>plural</i> <b>a</b>: the hereditary heraldic devices of a family <b>b</b>: heraldic devices adopted by a government
<b>3</b> <i>plural</i> <b>a</b>: active hostilities : warfare <a call to <i>arms</i>> <b>b</b>: military service
<b>— up in arms</b> : aroused and ready to undertake a fight or conflict <voters <i>up in arms</i> over the proposed law>
Main Entry: <b>am·mu·ni·tion</b>
Pronunciation: \ˌam-yə-ˈni-shən\
Function: <i>noun</i>
Etymology: obsolete French amunition, from Middle French, alteration of munition
Date: 1607
<b>1 a</b>: the projectiles with their fuses, propelling charges, or primers fired from guns <b>b</b>: cartridges <b>c</b>: explosive military items (as grenades or bombs)
<b>2:</b> material for use in attacking or defending a position <<i>ammunition</i> for the defense lawyers>
Main Entry: <b>fire·arm</b>
Pronunciation: \ˈfī(-ə
r-ˌärm\
Function: <i>noun</i>
Date: 1646
: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms
Ammunition is a neccessary component to firearms that makes them meaningful as arms. Placing limitiations on ammunition certainly infringes upon keeping and bearing arms.
I don't understand what you're asking. The potential for harm from private ownership of full automatics is self-evident.
Considering all the acceptable (to you) items out there that present "the potential for harm" (freedom of the press for instance--acceptable to you I'm presuming) the relevency of pointing out the potential for harm as a reaon for prohibiting fully automatic weapons (while I presume you wouldn't prohibit printing presses) is questionable.
You seem to hold only fully automatic weapons to this standard of yours--the appearance is that you simply don't want people to have them and you're searching for some rationalization to support imposing your want on other people.
I didn't say there's an inherent harm in just owning automatic weapons.
No. You said there's a potential for harm--but it appears that it's a very special kind of potential for harm for fully automatic weapons; one that doesn't apply to other items that have a "potential for harm".
You've been adamantly coy about addressing this point (and similar ones that illuminate your hard-on for banning fully automatic weapons), which has been brought up a number of times.
I would be fine with someone owning an automatic weapon* that was incapable of being fired.
*using "weapon" as a synonym for "firearm"
It really wouldn't be a weapon then, would it? At least not in so far as you'd insist how it's primary purpose demands the weapon to function, and be functional.
I was referring to the potential harm in every private person owning an automatic that was capable of being fired.
Reference noted--so what?
A penis isn't an offensive weapon, it's friendly, well for the most part. It is capable of being misused that's true, but it's a piece of original equipment for roughly half of the population (for many the balls that usually come with it are optional extras). But more than that.
It's the original dual-purpose weapon. As such it's not subject to the controls that you're urging.
A fully automatic firearm isn't an offensive weapon, it's a defensive weapon, well for the most part. It is capable of being misused that's true, but it's important function is a benefit to the entire population of sensible freedom loving individuals. But more than that.
It's a dual-purpose weapon--not only useful for self defense, all the more effective defending one's community in concert with one's neighbors, but also fun to practice with at targets and old coffee cans. The right to keep and bear these weapons shall not be infriged upon by the government, as detailed in the Second amendment to our constitution, as such it's not subject to the controls that you're urging.
