Questions for Conservatives

[DeadCanDance]

ALL rights have limits. ALL of them. The key is to understand what they are. The Second Amendment is not nor was it intended to cover every thing. One can argue though that my position is wrong. And they would be within their rights to do so, within reason. However all the things you listed are not in fact prohibited and I did not say they were. Armor piercing ammunition is not prohibited, explosive rounds would be, as well as rounds with chemical agents in them.

ICBM's are strictly out, no room for argument. Cannon are arguable but the court is clear where THEY draw the line. This line eliminates any explosive ammo type weapon. However they can in fact be owned with the proper license and paperwork. Mortors and heavy weapons are out.50 caliber ammo is NOT out, and 50 caliber weapons are NOT out. Full automatic weapons are controlled though. There are non fully automatic weapons that fire the ammo though and qualify as individual arms.

Personally I have no problem with reasonable limits in keeping with what is the obvious intent of the Amendment. Reasonable based on the INTENT of the framers on what was covered.

I am quite sure you agree that REASONABLE limits on the First Amendment are acceptable also.

Anyone that argues there are no limits on our rights would be wrong, plain and simple. Government exists to limit us, it is to control us. Only the smallest of communities can function without an organized form of Government of one kind or another.

Well, then you and other cons have been shadow-boxing for years against a phantom threat: the threat the liberals are taking guns away.

It appears we are in agreement, that americans have a right to hunting weapons, rifles, shotguns. They don't have a right to certain types of military ammunition, high explosive 50 cal rounds, cop killer bullets, or automatic weapons. And they don't have a right, to not be subjected to background checks.


Obviously no right is unlimited. First amendment being no exception. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and free speech does not encompass intimidation or threat speech.

 

[midcan5]

DeadCanDance, you got em cornered, let's see how they try to wiggle out of this one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, then you and other cons have been shadow-boxing for years against a phantom threat: the threat the liberals are taking guns away.

It appears we are in agreement, that americans have a right to hunting weapons, rifles, shotguns. They don't have a right to certain types of military ammunition, high explosive 50 cal rounds, cop killer bullets, or automatic weapons. And they don't have a right, to not be subjected to background checks.


Obviously no right is unlimited. First amendment being no exception. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and free speech does not encompass intimidation or threat speech.

You would be wrong. The second amendment is NOT about hunting. It is about having an armed populous able to resit tyrany foreign or domestic. Further the Courts have ruled that MILITARY type weapons ARE what are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Ammo and weapons for individual weapons are legal and protected except in very limited specific ways.

Your attempts to paint it otherwise are ludicrous.

 

[DeadCanDance]

You would be wrong. The second amendment is NOT about hunting. It is about having an armed populous able to resit tyrany foreign or domestic. Further the Courts have ruled that MILITARY type weapons ARE what are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Ammo and weapons for individual weapons are legal and protected except in very limited specific ways.

Your attempts to paint it otherwise are ludicrous.

The second amendment is NOT about hunting. It is about having an armed populous able to resit tyrany foreign or domestic.

Then you WOULD be for citizens having armour piercing ammo, and RPGs. Make up your mind what exactly you think the second amendment is for.

Because you sure as hell ain't taking on the National Guard, and the Marine Corps with a shotgun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The second amendment is NOT about hunting. It is about having an armed populous able to resit tyrany foreign or domestic.

Then you WOULD be for citizens having armour piercing ammo, and RPGs. Make up your mind what exactly you think the second amendment is for.

Because you sure as hell ain't taking on the National Guard, and the Marine Corps with a shotgun.

First off, you assume that if it ever came to a shooting war of rebellion that the military ( made up of fellow citizens) would not fracture and split. Second your ignoring the fact that populations with access to even less weapons then we have access to have in fact rebelled against and won against repressive regimes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you agree with significant limitations of the right to personal arms.

On the contrary -- there isnt a personal weapon thats NOT covered by the 2nd.

Automatic weapons are out;

Not even close. Automatic rifles and machingeguns are -exactly- the weapons protected by the 2nd.

presumably 50 cal armour piercing ammunition is out,

Even now, 50BMG AP ammo is as unregulated as .22LR.

and cop-killer rounds are out.

Please: Define "Cop Killer" round.
This should be good.

Watch out: you're making an argument for limitations on the second amendment.

That's not at all true.
My argument admits that there is an upper limit, but wherever that limit is, its far enbough up that any modern firearm you care to mention is protected by it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=6581

If you think you can counter that argument, please go ahead.

 

[M14 Shooter]

DeadCanDance, you got em cornered, let's see how they try to wiggle out of this one.

Interesting, how you like to live vicariously through others...

 

[mattskramer]

ALL rights have limits. ALL of them. The key is to understand what they are. The Second Amendment is not nor was it intended to cover every thing. One can argue though that my position is wrong. And they would be within their rights to do so, within reason. However all the things you listed are not in fact prohibited and I did not say they were. Armor piercing ammunition is not prohibited, explosive rounds would be, as well as rounds with chemical agents in them.

ICBM's are strictly out, no room for argument. Cannon are arguable but the court is clear where THEY draw the line. This line eliminates any explosive ammo type weapon. However they can in fact be owned with the proper license and paperwork. Mortors and heavy weapons are out.50 caliber ammo is NOT out, and 50 caliber weapons are NOT out. Full automatic weapons are controlled though. There are non fully automatic weapons that fire the ammo though and qualify as individual arms.

Personally I have no problem with reasonable limits in keeping with what is the obvious intent of the Amendment. Reasonable based on the INTENT of the framers on what was covered.

I am quite sure you agree that REASONABLE limits on the First Amendment are acceptable also.

Anyone that argues there are no limits on our rights would be wrong, plain and simple. Government exists to limit us, it is to control us. Only the smallest of communities can function without an organized form of Government of one kind or another.

Wow. This is what I was looking for. The rights have limits. People can argue. The court draws the line. You have no problem with reasonable limits.

As a side topic:
While we try to read the minds of the original writers, shouldn’t we also consider whether or not they could have imagined the weapons that we have today? What types of weapons would they have wanted to allow us to have hundreds of years from their time? What weapons would they allow us to have thousands of years from now?

Also, consider the fact that our founding fathers were humans just as you and I are humans. I think that too many people put our founding fathers on pedestals that are too high. They treat them as if they were Gods. While they seem to have had some good ideas, were all of their ideas perfect? Could they have ever been wrong in what they said, did, or wrote? I think so. Don’t be intellectually lazy and rely on appealing to authorities. Just keep in mind that sometimes authorities can be wrong.

 

[DeadCanDance]

First off, you assume that if it ever came to a shooting war of rebellion that the military ( made up of fellow citizens) would not fracture and split. Second your ignoring the fact that populations with access to even less weapons then we have access to have in fact rebelled against and won against repressive regimes.

If you want to stand by your assertion that the second amendment was a right given to citizens, to overthrow a tyrannical domestic government, then you have to assume that citizens should be armed with weapons capable of taking on an military junta: grenades, RPGs, automatic weapons. I don't see the Iraqi insurgents using 22 caliber rifles or shotguns to oppose what they consider to be an occupational force.

I'm glad that you admitted that there are significant and broad restrictions on the right to bear arms. That's what I've been saying for years. I'm just trying to reconcile that admission, with the fact that you think citizens should be armed to the point of taking on a domestic military junta.


Point of contention: the founders believed in a right to bear arms for national defense. A militia capable of defending the nation against attack. They didn't believe in large professional standing armies for that very reason. Which is essentially what the modern National Guard is: A state-controlled militia. If you want to read the tea leaves to discern what the founders wanted, you should be against large standing professional armies.

 

[82Marine89]

Point of contention: the founders believed in a right to bear arms for national defense. A militia capable of defending the nation against attack. They didn't believe in large professional standing armies for that very reason. Which is essentially what the modern National Guard is: A state-controlled militia. If you want to read the tea leaves to discern what the founders wanted, you should be against large standing professional armies.

That was 230 years ago. I don't believe our founders thought about nuclear weapons or long range attack bombers. In this day and age we need a standing army to defend against other nations that also have standing armies. Militias, without proper training and coordination, would be over run by other Nations.

 

[Paulie]

The National Guard has always been under Federal jurisdiction anyway. They are subject to deployment overseas like any active duty member is.

But let's not forget now...the Federal executive branch can now deploy guard units domestically, circumventing Posse Comitatus. Amazing how that one slid right through congress with only Leahy speaking out against it.

 

[DeadCanDance]

That was 230 years ago. I don't believe our founders thought about nuclear weapons or long range attack bombers. In this day and age we need a standing army to defend against other nations that also have standing armies. Militias, without proper training and coordination, would be over run by other Nations.

So, like RSG, you believe in the "living" constitution philosophy: that we interpret the constitution appropriately, as modern needs require. You don't believe in original strict constructionism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, like RSG, you believe in the "living" constitution philosophy: that we interpret the constitution appropriately, as modern needs require. You don't believe in original strict constructionism.

The Constitution is clear on the military and it is enforced to this day. The military can only be paid for 2 years at a time. THAT is the restriction.

 

[82Marine89]

So, like RSG, you believe in the "living" constitution philosophy: that we interpret the constitution appropriately, as modern needs require. You don't believe in original strict constructionism.

Not at all. I'm a firm believer in Federalism and believe that the powers given to the federal government are specifically listed, albeit abused, in the Constitution. National defense being one of them. But our Founding Fathers, the smartest men to have ever lived, were also smart enough to know that they didn't know everything and left rules for changes to be made as required. I believe there is a need for a standing army because of the political climate we now have. America is hated by many nations. This hatred started well before our current POTUS so don't blame him. Without a standing army, the attacks on 9/11 would pale in comparison to the havoc some countries would bring upon us.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The Constitution is clear on the military and it is enforced to this day. The military can only be paid for 2 years at a time. THAT is the restriction.

"Congress shall have the power....To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

This clause, and the writings and intent of the founders, clearly indicate they did not want large standing professional armies maintained imperpetuity in our country. For very good reasons.

The word "militia" is mentioned in the constitution many more times, than army or navy. The founders clearly intended citizen soldiers and the militia to be the primary and first line defense of the country.

Sure, you can keep making two year appropriations over and over, to maintain a permanent standing professional army. But, that goes against the intentions of the founders.

In short, you have demonstrated a belief in a living constitution, where we intrepret it appropriately for modern needs, rather than a reactionary inflexible dogmatic slavery to so-called "strict constructionism".

Congratulations. You're a liberal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Congress shall have the power....To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

This clause, and the writings and intent of the founders, clearly indicate they did not want large standing professional armies maintained imperpetuity in our country. For very good reasons.

The word "militia" is mentioned in the constitution many more times, than army or navy. The founders clearly intended citizen soldiers and the militia to be the primary and first line defense of the country.

Sure, you can keep making two year appropriations over and over, to maintain a permanent standing professional army. But, that goes against the intentions of the founders.

In short, you have demonstrated a belief in a living constitution, where we intrepret it appropriately for modern needs, rather than a reactionary inflexible dogmatic slavery to so-called "strict constructionism".

Congratulations. You're a liberal.

Your wrong again, as usual. The Government can and does legally maintain a standing army and has the ENTIRE history of our Country. The size is determined by needs and the founders arranged that it must be reviewed every 2 years to ensure the need is still present. That you spin it any other way is hilarious.

 

[maineman]

i'll acknowledge that there is no line mentioned....

do you think that such is or is not indicative of an intended line?

without a line how can we presume one while maintaining the same standard in the application of the rest of the bill of rights?

perhaps their naivety makes a clarifiaction amendment necessary.. I have no problem with the process of democracy and how we pass legislation. This is why I invite all the naysayers to get their grass roots on and do to the second what the 21st did to the 18th.

I am saying that in trying to keep the constitution relevant and current, the courts MUST continually interpret the language contained therein and draw and redraw those lines.

That does not make some line that they draw unconstitutional simply because YOU don't think it is appropriate.

 

[Psychoblues]

Dream on, mm. The "cons" have attempted to move those lines of which you speack ever since the original drawing of the Declaration Of Independence, and subsequently the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting, how you like to live vicariously through others...

And even more interesting how DeadCanDance ignored my post.

 

[Shogun]

I am saying that in trying to keep the constitution relevant and current, the courts MUST continually interpret the language contained therein and draw and redraw those lines.

That does not make some line that they draw unconstitutional simply because YOU don't think it is appropriate.

You can start a gras roots effort to have the constitution amended, repealed, changes etc etc...

THAT is how it's got to live, dude. Not trying to re-interpret the application of them according to decade. yes, the constitution allows for change and, through legislation, you have every option to start a movement. By arbitrarily throwing out a line not to cross we reduce to validity of the Constitution as a whole. Like I said... take a lesson in the process that began prohibition and then REPEALED prohibition.