What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[Flopper]

That's EXACTLY what they did in California and Canada, required background check for every firearm sales, including between non-licensed individuals. The result? No impact whatsoever. Not surprising when you consider firearms used in crime are obtained either through the black market or obtained from friends or family members.

In 2009 and 2010, the most recent years for which information is available, California had the nation's strongest gun controls and the ninth-lowest rate of gun deaths, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors firearms regulation.

Connecticut had the fourth-strongest gun laws and was sixth-lowest in gun deaths, while Hawaii ranked fifth in gun control and had the lowest death rate.

At the other end of the scale, the report found that Alaska, Louisiana and Montana - all graded F for gun control - had the highest rates of deaths caused by gunfire, more than double California's rate. The law center graded all 50 states and gave an F, for weak regulation, to 24 of them.

Read more: Tough gun laws linked to fewer deaths - SFGate

 

[JQPublic1]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

Hmmm, I doubt if the Continental Congress had any thing BUT single shot muskets in mind when they promulgated and included the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It might be noteworthy to consider that as personal weapons evolved, subsequent amendments should have been initiated to allow for each technological change! Under the present 2nd amendment only black powder muskets and flintlocks should be in the hands of the citizenry. There is no constitutional right to own anything else. The fore fathers who made the law were incapable of seeing what was to come.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's EXACTLY what they did in California and Canada, required background check for every firearm sales, including between non-licensed individuals. The result? No impact whatsoever. Not surprising when you consider firearms used in crime are obtained either through the black market or obtained from friends or family members.

In 2009 and 2010, the most recent years for which information is available, California had the nation's strongest gun controls and the ninth-lowest rate of gun deaths, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors firearms regulation.

Connecticut had the fourth-strongest gun laws and was sixth-lowest in gun deaths, while Hawaii ranked fifth in gun control and had the lowest death rate.

At the other end of the scale, the report found that Alaska, Louisiana and Montana - all graded F for gun control - had the highest rates of deaths caused by gunfire, more than double California's rate. The law center graded all 50 states and gave an F, for weak regulation, to 24 of them.

Read more: Tough gun laws linked to fewer deaths - SFGate

How do those states stand up on armed robberies nd other forms of gun violence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

Hmmm, I doubt if the Continental Congress had any thing BUT single shot muskets in mind when they promulgated and included the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It might be noteworthy to consider that as personal weapons evolved, subsequent amendments should have been initiated to allow for each technological change! Under the present 2nd amendment only black powder muskets and flintlocks should be in the hands of the citizenry. There is no constitutional right to own anything else. The fore fathers who made the law were incapable of seeing what was to come.

Hmm, I wonder why people don't study history, or a least read a thread, before they respond. Artillery was owned by individuals at the time of the Continental Congress, and the government still does all of its business with the private sector when they want to buy a weapon. How,m exactly, do you envision the government buying weapons if we prohibit people from owning them?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. The entire 2nd amendment has been taken out of context. The framers of the Constitution had no fear of a government dictatorship, because they had no concept of this country having a standing army with which to do so. The government used militias for emergencies...to fight Indians, French, and British. then, they were sent home. These militias were our only defense, and service in them was mandatory. Each militia man furnished his own gun. therefore, the framers were saying that the government was not going to ban arms, because who the hell was going to furnish them, the next time that the government was forced to call out the militia? yet, Washington had barely taken office as our first president, when he had to call out the militia, and their own private guns, in order to put down the Whiskey rebellion. In short, the very first time the government took up arms against anyone was against their own citizens. yet, nobody then, nor now, had any objection to this "tyranny" of the federal government.

The entire concept behind the second amendment became moot, once this country adopted a standing army, and militias were no longer depended upon for defense of the republic.

 

[JQPublic1]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

Hmmm, I doubt if the Continental Congress had any thing BUT single shot muskets in mind when they promulgated and included the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It might be noteworthy to consider that as personal weapons evolved, subsequent amendments should have been initiated to allow for each technological change! Under the present 2nd amendment only black powder muskets and flintlocks should be in the hands of the citizenry. There is no constitutional right to own anything else. The fore fathers who made the law were incapable of seeing what was to come.

Hmm, I wonder why people don't study history, or a least read a thread, before they respond. Artillery was owned by individuals at the time of the Continental Congress, and the government still does all of its business with the private sector when they want to buy a weapon. How,m exactly, do you envision the government buying weapons if we prohibit people from owning them?

Awww I just thought I would jump in here a drop my 2 cents worth!

Of course the US Government buys guns from private manufacturers since there are no government manufacturers that I know of. But don't play dumb and suggest that you aren't aware that most other foreign governments prohibit or restrict gun sales to private citizens while simultaneously arming their military factions. Perhaps a little reading is overdue on your part Hmmmmm!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. The entire 2nd amendment has been taken out of context. The framers of the Constitution had no fear of a government dictatorship, because they had no concept of this country having a standing army with which to do so. The government used militias for emergencies...to fight Indians, French, and British. then, they were sent home. These militias were our only defense, and service in them was mandatory. Each militia man furnished his own gun. therefore, the framers were saying that the government was not going to ban arms, because who the hell was going to furnish them, the next time that the government was forced to call out the militia? yet, Washington had barely taken office as our first president, when he had to call out the militia, and their own private guns, in order to put down the Whiskey rebellion. In short, the very first time the government took up arms against anyone was against their own citizens. yet, nobody then, nor now, had any objection to this "tyranny" of the federal government.

The entire concept behind the second amendment became moot, once this country adopted a standing army, and militias were no longer depended upon for defense of the republic.

Strange, can you explain how that works when the founders themselves said that the reason they did not fear a tyrannical government is because the people were armed?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmm, I doubt if the Continental Congress had any thing BUT single shot muskets in mind when they promulgated and included the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It might be noteworthy to consider that as personal weapons evolved, subsequent amendments should have been initiated to allow for each technological change! Under the present 2nd amendment only black powder muskets and flintlocks should be in the hands of the citizenry. There is no constitutional right to own anything else. The fore fathers who made the law were incapable of seeing what was to come.

Hmm, I wonder why people don't study history, or a least read a thread, before they respond. Artillery was owned by individuals at the time of the Continental Congress, and the government still does all of its business with the private sector when they want to buy a weapon. How,m exactly, do you envision the government buying weapons if we prohibit people from owning them?

Awww I just thought I would jump in here a drop my 2 cents worth!

Of course the US Government buys guns from private manufacturers since there are no government manufacturers that I know of. But don't play dumb and suggest that you aren't aware that most other foreign governments prohibit or restrict gun sales to private citizens while simultaneously arming their military factions. Perhaps a little reading is overdue on your part Hmmmmm!

Most other governments buy their weapons from US manufacturers.

 

[Flopper]

How do those states stand up on armed robberies nd other forms of gun violence?

I don't know what the effect gun control has on gun violence in armed robberies. However, only 21% of the murders with firearms are in connection with a felony. Murders during armed robberies are only a small part of the problem.

In these states as in all states, most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other; in the home, in barrooms, or street corners, among family, friends and acquaintances. When heated situations arise, the presence of firearms makes a murder or permanent maiming far more likely.

About 60% of those that die from gun shots are suicide victims. A Harvard study found that a suicide was 17 times more likely in a home with firearms than one without. Other studies have found juvenile suicide is 10 times more likely in a home with firearms.

Another frequent occurrence is when young kids get access to guns, not realizing that they’re actually loaded, they play the typical kids’ "bang-bang" game, where one pretends to shoot the other dead, and actually ends up killing a sibling, relative or friend, because they don’t realize that the gun is actually loaded. Without the guns, these deaths simply would not occur.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gun Control: Why It's Important | MyFDL
The gun toll we?re ignoring: suicide - Ideas - The Boston Globe

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do those states stand up on armed robberies nd other forms of gun violence?

I don't know what the effect gun control has on gun violence in armed robberies. However, only 21% of the murders with firearms are in connection with a felony. Murders during armed robberies are only a small part of the problem.

In these states as in all states, most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other; in the home, in barrooms, or street corners, among family, friends and acquaintances. When heated situations arise, the presence of firearms makes a murder or permanent maiming far more likely.

About 60% of those that die from gun shots are suicide victims. A Harvard study found that a suicide was 17 times more likely in a home with firearms than one without. Other studies have found juvenile suicide is 10 times more likely in a home with firearms.

Another frequent occurrence is when young kids get access to guns, not realizing that they’re actually loaded, they play the typical kids’ "bang-bang" game, where one pretends to shoot the other dead, and actually ends up killing a sibling, relative or friend, because they don’t realize that the gun is actually loaded. Without the guns, these deaths simply would not occur.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gun Control: Why It's Important | MyFDL
The gun toll we?re ignoring: suicide - Ideas - The Boston Globe

What the fuck? Do you think someone dies every time a gun is pulled during a felony?

Drop the fucking fixation you have on murder and look at all the numbers. California has a higher than average crime rate despite the gun laws, and actually trends above the national average for violent crimes. These numbers are easily available, even if it is harder to pull out the crimes that involve firearms. On the other hand, if we look at armed robberies we can assume that they are more likely to walk into a jewelry store with a gun than a knife.

 

[JQPublic1]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. The entire 2nd amendment has been taken out of context. The framers of the Constitution had no fear of a government dictatorship, because they had no concept of this country having a standing army with which to do so. The government used militias for emergencies...to fight Indians, French, and British. then, they were sent home. These militias were our only defense, and service in them was mandatory. Each militia man furnished his own gun. therefore, the framers were saying that the government was not going to ban arms, because who the hell was going to furnish them, the next time that the government was forced to call out the militia? yet, Washington had barely taken office as our first president, when he had to call out the militia, and their own private guns, in order to put down the Whiskey rebellion. In short, the very first time the government took up arms against anyone was against their own citizens. yet, nobody then, nor now, had any objection to this "tyranny" of the federal government.

The entire concept behind the second amendment became moot, once this country adopted a standing army, and militias were no longer depended upon for defense of the republic.

Strange, can you explain how that works when the founders themselves said that the reason they did not fear a tyrannical government is because the people were armed?

Did you read vandalshandle's post? He said that at the time there was no standing army when the 2nd amendment was installed. The government was, essentially, unarmed! In that context, the founder's "fear of a tyrannical government" is a contemporaneous phrase that has long since become obsolete!

 

[JQPublic1]

Hmm, I wonder why people don't study history, or a least read a thread, before they respond. Artillery was owned by individuals at the time of the Continental Congress, and the government still does all of its business with the private sector when they want to buy a weapon. How,m exactly, do you envision the government buying weapons if we prohibit people from owning them?

Awww I just thought I would jump in here a drop my 2 cents worth!

Of course the US Government buys guns from private manufacturers since there are no government manufacturers that I know of. But don't play dumb and suggest that you aren't aware that most other foreign governments prohibit or restrict gun sales to private citizens while simultaneously arming their military factions. Perhaps a little reading is overdue on your part Hmmmmm!

Most other governments buy their weapons from US manufacturers.

Welll. I don't know... there are a helluva lot of RPGs and AK 47s out there not t mention arms manufactured in europe.

 

[PaulS1950]

The second amendment does not give any rights. It is meant to protect the rights we have at birth. It also provides protection for those arms, in the hands of individuals, that are of use to the militia - while reporting to active duty with the army. They are supposed to appear bearing weapons in common use by the military.
It limits only actions by government that might infringe on private ownership of all arms. If we can be tusted with full auto weapons it seems rediculous to ban semi-automatic weapons.

 

[Circe]

I guess anything you can carry or bear is ok by the constitution?

My understanding is that Scalia is playing with the idea that what one man can carry is what is meant by the Second Amendment.

I don't see that as logical myself, but he has said he's thinking that at least would be one limit, no group weapons like submachine gun nests.

It is NOT yet law of the land, though.

 

[Circe]

There is no limit on the second ammendment but it does ask that weapons suitable for use by the military infantryman be protected so the (reserve) militia can be called upon to report for duty armed with the same weapon carried by the military.

As it stands, now, we cannot do that due to the fact that full auto weapons, rocket propelled grenades and hand grenades are controlled through a "tax" stamp that one must have before purchasing any class III weapons. Those who go through the process and pay the tax can buy, own and operate class III weapons but for most of us those weapons will be forever out of reach.

I have never heard of anyone "owning and operating" grenades and machine guns and so on --- who would that be? How are they "operating" them?

 

[Circe]

A grenade is an explosive.

No right to bear explosives.

Naaaaah, it's a normal infantry weapon.

If you "bear" a grenande you usually die.

A grenade is explosive ordance which is not borne by its user.

So what are those grenades we are always seeing soldiers carrying and throwing in war movies? You are playing some kind of word game here. Of course soldiers carry and throw grenades.

 

[Circe]

eflat,
The truth of the matter is that civilians owning automatic weapons are not presently banned by the Constitution. Niether are weaponized drones, amoung many other things.

They should be.

Yeah, weaponized drones are going to be LOTS of fun when terrorists and criminals start deploying them.

I figure by 2014, 2015 at the latest.

The Mall would be a good place to launch one; people fly kites there all the time so it would be well camouflaged activity. Radio-direct that thing right at the White House or the Capitol.

I bet the Secret Service is already really worried about drones and is looking out for them.

So, should armed drones be legal for everyone to buy at Walmart under the Second Amendment?

 

[Circe]

I doubt if the Continental Congress had any thing BUT single shot muskets in mind when they promulgated and included the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It might be noteworthy to consider that as personal weapons evolved, subsequent amendments should have been initiated to allow for each technological change! Under the present 2nd amendment only black powder muskets and flintlocks should be in the hands of the citizenry. There is no constitutional right to own anything else. The fore fathers who made the law were incapable of seeing what was to come.

I am sure you are right -- how could the FFs have predicted the future of weaponry? Impossible.

However, the legal Supreme Court decision Miller did legitimitize modern weapons, not just muskets. The Miller decision is because all the Constitutional protections apply to modern conditions: we don't have any Amendments in formaldehyde sitting on a shelf.

The question is simply ---- what modern weapons? What limits and why? That has never been rationalized. There are a few piecemeal laws against this and that, but so far no real body of law dealing with the problems of the Second Amendment that have led to all these madmen mass murders.

 

[eflatminor]

That's EXACTLY what they did in California and Canada, required background check for every firearm sales, including between non-licensed individuals. The result? No impact whatsoever. Not surprising when you consider firearms used in crime are obtained either through the black market or obtained from friends or family members.

In 2009 and 2010, the most recent years for which information is available, California had the nation's strongest gun controls and the ninth-lowest rate of gun deaths, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors firearms regulation.

Connecticut had the fourth-strongest gun laws and was sixth-lowest in gun deaths, while Hawaii ranked fifth in gun control and had the lowest death rate.

At the other end of the scale, the report found that Alaska, Louisiana and Montana - all graded F for gun control - had the highest rates of deaths caused by gunfire, more than double California's rate. The law center graded all 50 states and gave an F, for weak regulation, to 24 of them.

Read more: Tough gun laws linked to fewer deaths - SFGate

Uh...NONE of that changes the FACT that the rate of violent crime remained UNCHANGED before and after the implementation of background checks in California and Canada.

Causation vs correlation...

 

[Vandalshandle]

You can buy a drone for about $400. Most people could easily hook up a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to it, and operate that with a radio controled device that you can adapt from a radio controled toy boat or airplane. With a 50 round magazine, you could become a terrorist in your nieghborhood, or you might want to spray the upper floor windows of a secured government building. Until you sent the electronic signal that fired the weapon, you would be a law abiding citizen, and nobody would even have the right to take the damned thing away from you.


http://compare.ebay.com/like/190732276985?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar