View Full Version : Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Crazed Rabbit
03-09-2007, 21:13
Yeehaw! A great score for the constitution!
AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DC_GUN_BAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."
The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.
Disappointingly, there are still idiots around:
Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.
So, the bill of rights doesn't apply there? No freedom of speech? :dizzy2:
From an appellate law site:
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153
BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.
According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
This makes me happy. Not only do we have a new federal court ruling the 2nd is an individual right (like all the other rights), but they declared trigger lock laws and the like unconstitutional!
Crazed Rabbit
ShadeHonestus
03-09-2007, 21:29
So, the bill of rights doesn't apply there? No freedom of speech?
D.C. is a bit of an oddity, they do not enjoy the same model of representation that the rest of the country does, for example.
However its good to hear that the only dissent was on that basis.
gunslinger
03-09-2007, 21:36
[QUOTE=CRAZEDRABBIT]"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."[QUOTE]
If you follow this to its logical conclusion, it could be argued that various state laws requiring that firearms be kept unloaded and in a case while being transported in a vehicle are also unconstitutional. If interpreted broadly, this case could even prohibit states from outlawing the carrying of firearms on one's person in public.
Fisherking
03-09-2007, 22:24
Well, no doubt they will appeal. Now you need to worry that the Supremes can actually read what the Constitution says.
Crazed Rabbit
03-09-2007, 22:52
Yes, it's going to appeal. DC won't just give up its tyranny easily. The SCOTUS decision could be very big.
CR
Yeehaw! A great score for the constitution!Agreed. The DC law was a blight on our freedoms. Let's hope it stand up to appeal.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2007, 00:11
Wow, you come across like a bunch of real rednecks.
You don't think firearms should be kept locked up and unloaded?
I can understand an aversion to an outright ban, but really.
Proletariat
03-10-2007, 00:18
You don't think firearms should be kept locked up and unloaded?
Who said that? Making it a law is the issue.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2007, 01:32
You make it a law so that some idiot doesn't leave his gun out where his two year old can blow his own head off.
Adrian II
03-10-2007, 01:47
You make it a law so that some idiot doesn't leave his gun out where his two year old can blow his own head off.Cruise missile, Philipvs. After all cruse missiles are 'arms', too. So that some idiot doesn't leave his cruise missile out where his two year old can blow up the entire town.
Cruise missiles should be locked away safely in your bedroom closet.
:yes:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2007, 02:00
Okay, I'm definately liking the new username.
Adrian: What about ICBMs?
Adrian II
03-10-2007, 02:06
Adrian: What about ICBMs?Exactly. And I'm thinking Stealth bombers as well.
After all I think I Homer Simpson said it best when he told Lisa: ‘If I didn't have my gun, the King of England could just waltz right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?’
Present-day interpretations of the right to bear arms are based on a totally antiquated notion, adequate in the days of Madison when there would be a real need to get together a citizen’s militia to defend the fledgling democracy against external and internal encroachments.
In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act more and more Americans fear for the restriction of their constitutional rights and liberties by the government. But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.
HoreTore
03-10-2007, 02:27
reminds me of a sketch in family guy where they are writing the constitution:
"Hey guys, you think this passage is clear enough?"
"How could it be misunderstood, every citizen has the right to hang a couple of bear arms on the walls(points at two bear arms on the wall)"
"yeah ok, but before we send this thing to the printer, lets remove this abortion thing..."
Seriously though, being european, I really can't see why on earth you wouldn't want to have big restrictions on weapons...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2007, 02:46
Ditto, owning them is fine intrinsically but you want to restrict ownership and make sure people are culpable for stupidity with deadly weapons. Of course you can take this too far.
Labour is planning on banning Samuri swords.
Hosakawa Tito
03-10-2007, 03:05
Exactly. And I'm thinking Stealth bombers as well.
After all I think I Homer Simpson said it best when he told Lisa: ‘If I didn't have my gun, the King of England could just waltz right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?’
Present-day interpretations of the right to bear arms are based on a totally antiquated notion, adequate in the days of Madison when there would be a real need to get together a citizen’s militia to defend the fledgling democracy against external and internal encroachments.
In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act more and more Americans fear for the restriction of their constitutional rights and liberties by the government. But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.
Actually, within recent times, one well placed round has been known to have sparked drastic changes. There are plenty of gun laws on the books, punish the criminal who abuses them, not the vast majority of law abiding citizens who do not.
HoreTore
03-10-2007, 03:05
Heh, banning swords is a bit far... They're generally antiques and such...
But I don't see a single reason as to why anyone should be allowed to possess a weapon for any other use than hunting.
Defence? If I get robbed, they'll take my stuff. If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...
HoreTore
03-10-2007, 03:10
Actually, within recent times, one well placed round has been known to have sparked drastic changes. There are plenty of gun laws on the books, punish the criminal who abuses them, not the vast majority of law abiding citizens who do not.
Which one? The one in Serbia sparking off WWI? The one killing kennedy? The one killing Lennon?
A gun is made for killing other people. Owning a gun gives you the power to kill other people. Having people own guns, makes people shoot and kill other people. And it is FAR easier to kill someone(both physically, mentally and accidentally) with a gun, than say a knife. There is no other reason to get a gun than to be able to kill.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-10-2007, 03:13
Coincidentally:
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703050350
As customers watched in horror Sunday afternoon, a man stabbed a woman and attempted to set her on fire in the parking lot of a Jackson store, witnesses said.
The attack was stopped by a passer-by, who held the man at gunpoint until police arrived, witnesses said.
The suspect, Henry Watson, 42, was arrested and is expected to face aggravated assault charges, Jackson Police Department Cmdr. Lee Vance said. Watson's wife, Gracie Watson, 42, was transported to the University of Mississippi Medical center, where she was listed in good condition.
"It wasn't five minutes from when she had left my line when I heard a scream outside," said Theresa Stuckey, a cashier at the Family Dollar at 516 Nakoma Drive in Jackson. "I looked out, and (the attacker) was on top of her stabbing her, and stabbing her and stabbing her.
"She was screaming, 'Help, he's trying to kill me!' She was rolling on the ground, trying to get out of the way, but he kept stabbing her. He stabbed her about 20 times in the neck, back and arms."
As the attack continued, people were yelling at the man to stop and honking their horns, Stuckey said. She said she called 911.
"He was just standing over her hacking away," said Dolly Baker, who had just left the Save-A-Lot store next door when she saw the attack.
Baker said she watched the man pour gasoline on the victim then try to strike a match.
"He was literally trying to kill that lady in broad daylight," she said.
Baker said a passer-by stopped the attack.
"He told the man, 'Stop, or I'm going to shoot. And if you run, I'm going to kill you,' " Baker said.
The man held Watson at bay until police arrived at the scene.
"Right now, all we know is that (Watson) attacked his wife. For what reason, we don't know," Jackson Police Department Sgt. Eric Smith said.
Police said they are looking for the passer-by who stopped the attack and would like to talk to him but don't know who he is or where he went.
The incident occurred about 3:50 p.m.
Smith said he did not know exactly how many times Gracie Watson was stabbed but said it was more than 10 times.
I went to a range and fired a gun for the first time today. It's good fun. :yes:
Defence? If I get robbed, they'll take my stuff. If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...I disagree, plenty of people have been killed by robbers without trying to defend themselves. Plus there are always incidents like public shootings.
HoreTore
03-10-2007, 03:27
@ Sasaki: Yup, that can also happen. But more people are killed than saved, that's a fact you can't escape. And that episode could also be avoided without a gun...
@ Lignator: yes, they have, but still, if you have a gun in your hand, the chances of someone dying are drastically increased.
gunslinger
03-10-2007, 03:50
A gun is made for killing other people.
Yes, most guns are. Some guns are actually made for hunting, skeet shooting, or target shooting. However, those guns are fairly effective for killing people too.
Owning a gun gives you the power to kill other people. . . And it is FAR easier to kill someone(both physically, mentally and accidentally) with a gun, than say a knife.
Absolutely
There is no other reason to get a gun than to be able to kill.
Well, this isn't entirely true. There are certainly other reasons for owning a gun. However, gaining the ability to kill someone who you could not hope to defeat without a gun is definitely one of the best reasons for buying one.
Having people own guns, makes people shoot and kill other people.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that this is just a poorly written sentence. After all, I've agreed with pretty much everything else you said.
HoreTore
03-10-2007, 04:29
Well, the thread isn't about guns used for sports or hunting, so I wasn't talking about those, I'm talking about the guns used for defense...
As for my english, probably right, I'm not english and it's in the middle of the night here...
What I meant was, if people are allowed to have firearms(not for hunting or sports), then there will be deaths caused by those weapons...If that is more understandable?
gunslinger
03-10-2007, 06:37
What I meant was, if people are allowed to have firearms(not for hunting or sports), then there will be deaths caused by those weapons...If that is more understandable?
Yes, that's what I thought you meant, and I hope you understand that I wasn't being sarcastic about giving you the benefit of the doubt.
There is no getting around the fact that some of the people who are murdered with firearms each year wouldn't have been murdered if the killer didn't have access to a firearm. There is also no getting around the fact that a very large number of the people who commit murder with a firearm possess it illegally. I know that "the criminals will have them anyway" is an old, crusty argument, but it's one that really can't be refuted logically and realistically.
If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...
I don't mean to keep picking on your posts, but I just couldn't let this one go. How can you assume that if a criminal did not expect you to have a gun, he wouldn't bring one along? Believe me, they aren't that chivalrous. I agree with you that no TV is worth a human life, but is your girlfriend? Since you seem to be going with a burglary scenario here, I will inform you that it is very common for burglars who unexpectedly encounter unprotected women during a break in to become rapists spontaneously. If your moral system doesn't allow the killing of a man to prevent a rape, then please consider that the burglar / rapist may not wish to leave a live witness to his crime.
Let's consider this scenario in a world where the government has managed to make ALL guns evaporate. How are you going to defend your girlfriend if this bad guy has a knife or a baseball (Cricket?) bat? What if he's just so much bigger than you that you and your girlfriend are defenseless against him? Suddenly, you might wish you had a gun.
Del Arroyo
03-10-2007, 07:01
People already have a very strong motive to prevent their children from hurting themselves with unsecured firearms-- they are, after all, their kids. If this isn't enough for gun owners to do the right thing, and one of their kids gets hurt, it's on them. The state's role in this case should be education-- regulation is nothing short of condescending and tyrannical.
Who said that? Making it a law is the issue.
I'll say it. :wink:
I regularly keep a gun in the house that's both loaded and unlocked. I sometimes even carry it on my person. There are different situations that suit different people- what I do may not be the best for everyone, but that's a poor reason to outlaw it. :yes:
I went to a range and fired a gun for the first time today. It's good fun. :yes:Good for you, man. I find that's the single best way to "convert" people. I'm not saying this was your case, but many people who are uncomfortable with guns are so because they've never gotten the chance to safely use one. I've changed the minds of several family members/friends by taking them out for some target shooting. :2thumbsup:
People already have a very strong motive to prevent their children from hurting themselves with unsecured firearms-- they are, after all, their kids. If this isn't enough for gun owners to do the right thing, and one of their kids gets hurt, it's on them. The state's role in this case should be education-- regulation is nothing short of condescending and tyrannical.Quoted for truth.
Tribesman
03-10-2007, 11:08
Now then children , in regards to that keep guns locked away thing .
That American teenager in Michigan who succumbed to the terrible scourge of "spontaneous Jihad syndrome" that we have seen floated around here recently and went and shot someone in a school , the gun he used to commit murder belonged to his mother for her self defence and she had it locked away , but he knew where she kept the key .
It is a bit hard to legislate for that sort of thing isn't it .
Now it could be said that if the mother didn't have a gun then the son couldn't have taken it , or if the mother had kept the key he couldn't have found it .
Then again there is legislation that could have prevented this , she describes her child as stubborn , disturbed , disobedient and unruly.
She should have taken the boy to the city elders and they could have stoned him to death .
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2007, 14:45
I'll say it. :wink:
So you have.
I regularly keep a gun in the house that's both loaded and unlocked. I sometimes even carry it on my person. There are different situations that suit different people- what I do may not be the best for everyone, but that's a poor reason to outlaw it. :yes:[/quote]
Prey tell where, in the countryside it's different, as you may concievable need a handgun for dealing with certain wildlife, such as snakes I suppose, or perhaps shooting your horse. In a city though there is no justification for a handgun. That doesn't alter the fact that having a loaded gun in your home is pure idiocy. If you don't have a hold of it it shouldn't be loaded.
Good for you, man. I find that's the single best way to "convert" people. I'm not saying this was your case, but many people who are uncomfortable with guns are so because they've never gotten the chance to safely use one. I've changed the minds of several family members/friends by taking them out for some target shooting. :2thumbsup:
Just so you know, I'm a first class shot with an assault rifle.
Give up with the pointless arguments. It is clear that to most of the Americans here guns represent freedom whereas to most of the Europeans they represent quite the opposite. That isn't going to change through bickering on the rights and wrongs of the subject.
You might legitimately argue about the constitutional side of the issue though, since that is clearly open to doubt.
Adrian II
03-10-2007, 15:17
It is a bit hard to legislate for that sort of thing isn't it.The Bill of Rights is perfectly clear on the matter, Tribesman, you know that. Americans are entitled to bear all arms that would be suitable in a well-regulated militia. People who restrain themselves to handguns and hunting rifles are clearly behind the times. Where is the National Cruise Missile Association when you need them?
HoreTore
03-10-2007, 15:44
Just so you know, I'm a first class shot with an assault rifle.
I'll add to that, though I wouldn't call me "first class", I did get the marksman badge for the AG3 rifle in the army.
While it was quite fun, it also assured me that such weapon should only be held by armed forces....
In a demonstration, an instructor shot at a dead pig, the damage done to it was simply absurd...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2007, 15:56
I always used to love the thing the'd do with blank rounds just before manuvers.
An apple at point blank range, one shot, no apple. Well, sometimes you could find the pieces.
Crazed Rabbit
03-10-2007, 18:11
But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.
Would you say the US gov't is winning or losing in Iraq? Just curious.
Or, you are right about defeating the gov't with shotguns and revolvers; that's why all rifles and firearms should be available.
You might legitimately argue about the constitutional side of the issue though, since that is clearly open to doubt.
Not really.
If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them.
Why is it that, so often when this issue comes up, that antis need to make up some hypothetical situation that basically never happens? If crooks expect someone to be waiting with a gun, they don't go to that house.
A gun is made for killing other people.
Then almost all owned by citizens are defective. Besides, if someone attacks me, I don't want something that's made to tickle him.
In a city though there is no justification for a handgun.
LOL! Ever heard of crime in a city?
There are some 1 to 2 million defensive uses of guns per year in the US. Sasaki posted an example where a handgun in the city saved that woman's life, as it has saved many others.
Crazed Rabbit
Adrian II
03-10-2007, 18:25
Would you say the US gov't is winning or losing in Iraq? Just curious.I would say the US government is not exactly using its entire arsenal there... But even if it did, this would not infringe for a moment the right of American citizens to bear M1A1 tanks or ICBM's. It's all in the Bill.
HoreTore
03-10-2007, 18:35
I always used to love the thing the'd do with blank rounds just before manuvers.
An apple at point blank range, one shot, no apple. Well, sometimes you could find the pieces.
Was on an exercise once, I was in the intelligence battalion, and so don't normally fire our weapons on exercises(I was on an attack only once, and it turned out to be friendly recruits with poor identifying skills...). I was really expecting to be attacked by special forces that time, and when it was over, I was rather frustrated... So, we found various items, and shot them using blanks(7,62 AG3 round), with about 1 cm between the object and the nozzle...
A youghurt box was the most spectacular one, the bang was so loud we our ears were ringing for about a minute! All that remained was the bottom of the box...
Sasaki Kojiro
03-10-2007, 18:48
But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.
80 million people with guns is a lot of people. The army has what, ~1M? And you're assuming everyone in the army is going to take the side of the government.
America isn't going to use nuclear weapons on itself :dizzy2:
Blodrast
03-10-2007, 19:12
80 million people with guns is a lot of people. The army has what, ~1M? And you're assuming everyone in the army is going to take the side of the government.
America isn't going to use nuclear weapons on itself :dizzy2:
And, of course, all those rifles will cause serious trouble to artillery pieces shooting at you from a few km, and to the tanks, and will certainly inconvenience the jet fighters...~:rolleyes:
Sasaki Kojiro
03-10-2007, 19:20
And, of course, all those rifles will cause serious trouble to artillery pieces shooting at you from a few km, and to the tanks, and will certainly inconvenience the jet fighters...~:rolleyes:
~:rolleyes:
A dictatorship is only feasible if it can control the country without open warfare.
The government doesn't have a tank or a fighter for every city and town anyway.
Blodrast
03-10-2007, 19:29
~:rolleyes:
A dictatorship is only feasible if it can control the country without open warfare.
The government doesn't have a tank or a fighter for every city and town anyway.
Ah, but a dictatorship doesn't need open warfare to control a country - only, at most, to take control of it. Check out China, NK, or other dictatorships of your preference. They don't have, or need, open warfare. Same goes for Eastern Europe - plenty of dictatorships there, but no "open warfare" that I can recall.
And, you can try playing with semantics as much as you want, although I think it's pointless - the gov't doesn't need one fighter/bomber/tank for each city... let's be realistic. Killing a significant number of the "rebels", as well as their leaders, usually suffices. One doesn't need to eliminate all rebels to be in control. Check out the Brits & the Irish - the Brits were in control, even with all the incidents that kept occurring - but it was faaar from "open warfare"...
Also, in reply to your previous post, nukes are not necessary to vaporize large areas - I'll bet you can still find some proof of that in Dresden, even after some 60 years...~;)
Adrian II
03-10-2007, 20:04
Ah, but a dictatorship doesn't need open warfare to control a country - only, at most, to take control of it.That's all very well, but the Second Amendment doesn't talk about who needs what to do what to whom.
It recognizes every American's right to bear nuclear submarines &cetera.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-10-2007, 22:56
Ah, but a dictatorship doesn't need open warfare to control a country - only, at most, to take control of it. Check out China, NK, or other dictatorships of your preference. They don't have, or need, open warfare. Same goes for Eastern Europe - plenty of dictatorships there, but no "open warfare" that I can recall.
And, you can try playing with semantics as much as you want, although I think it's pointless - the gov't doesn't need one fighter/bomber/tank for each city... let's be realistic. Killing a significant number of the "rebels", as well as their leaders, usually suffices. One doesn't need to eliminate all rebels to be in control. Check out the Brits & the Irish - the Brits were in control, even with all the incidents that kept occurring - but it was faaar from "open warfare"...
Also, in reply to your previous post, nukes are not necessary to vaporize large areas - I'll bet you can still find some proof of that in Dresden, even after some 60 years...~;)
Hey, it worked once didn't it? Although the British weren't really that oppressive lol.
The gov't isn't going to bomb all of it's cities. It would cripple itself if it did so. So instead they would have to take on 80M or so citizens who know how to shoot, many of whom are ex-military. I don't know why you bring up other countries in this scenario.
Personally I don't think the scenario is at all likely and don't see at as a big argument in favor of guns. It's more important as a deterrent to invaders really. There's some quote from a Japanese admiral to that effect I believe.
A gun is made for killing other people.
That's like saying a fast car is made for running from the police.
And Adrian, I understand your being facetious. But one can hardly use a cruise missile in self defense, unless someone invents a cruise missile that "only kills the bad guys". Militias, remember, are for supporting the law, and killing innocent bystanders is against the law.
doc_bean
03-10-2007, 23:19
America isn't going to use nuclear weapons on itself :dizzy2:
Errr....who can guarantee that if good honest citizens are denied the right to their own nukes ? Who will stop them if they do ?
I say the government needs to fear the people more, I'm going to start a charity for my oppressed US brethren, the goal will be to provide assault rifles and ammo to the people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford them, like the homeless and people living in impoverished (urban) areas. :hmg:
Adrian II
03-10-2007, 23:26
And Adrian, I understand your being facetious. But one can hardly use a cruise missile in self defense, unless someone invents a cruise missile that "only kills the bad guys". Militias, remember, are for supporting the law, and killing innocent bystanders is against the law.Where in the Bill of Rights does it say 'self-defense'? It just says 'arms' without restrictive qualifications. And we don't want to go 'activist' on this issue, do we?
The right of the American people to bear laser guns and cluster bombs shall not be infringed.
Hosakawa Tito
03-11-2007, 00:14
Trolls to the left of me, trolls to the right....who will rid me of these troublesome unarmed trolls?:laugh4:
Trolls to the left of me, trolls to the right....who will rid me of these troublesome unarmed trolls?:laugh4:
Well, as long as you're armed, you should have no problem. :beam:
Seamus Fermanagh
03-11-2007, 05:37
I agree with Adrian.
Arms does not mean personal weapons only.
When promulgated, the 2nd ammendment seemed simple enough. Most military power in the USA was in the hands of the citizenry in the form of their state/county militias. The standing army was miniscule in size. The navy was completely demobilized after the revolution -- getting it started up again was debated and there was sizeable opposition since many thought it would breed trouble.
A sizeable portion of the voters agreeing to the Constitution did so ONLY because of the promised ammendments including this right. Many of them did conceive of this as a guarantee that they would always have the right to "go to the mattresses" and protect themselves against the federal government by force of arms. Read a little Patrick Henry.
This suggests, of course, that if the ability to overthrow the government is involved, the ability to acquire weapons so capable should not be restricted. Airpower and AFV's seem necessary, though nukes might be excessive.
Currently, most of our self-styled militias are peopled with whack-jobs and tinfoil hatters, since -- as an agregate -- the people are not feeling themselves to be under the heel of the boot.
doc_bean
03-11-2007, 15:35
Currently, most of our self-styled militias are peopled with whack-jobs and tinfoil hatters, since -- as an agregate -- the people are not feeling themselves to be under the heel of the boot.
How many countries have had an organised uprising of the people ? Even in peaceful 'revolutions' like ukrain a few years back there was a large part of the country that wanted to keep things the way they were.
Besides, the second amendment doesn't state why you should have those weapons (well except to form militia's, but not what they're for) it just says your right to arms shouldn't be infringed. So why is your right to owning a nuclear submarine being infringed ?
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 15:49
This whole idea about Nukes being under the right to bear arms is only an argument made by the unreasonable. However if you need a contitutional reason, I'll go way way way way way out on a limb and say it could come into play with the commerce clause. Follow me because this is a damn slippery slope, but the Supreme Court has ruled on rights of the individual before in similar cases. If a local jurisdiction or even individual right has the ability to have a significant effect on the state of commerce (in its many forms), the federal goverment can claim jurisdiction.
As an example, and purposely a poor one, a rich potato Tycoon in some fringe right wing radical militia of Idaho would have the potential to disrupt negatively the current of commerce.
just one question...
what about the right to arm bears?....is that allowed?:juggle2:
KukriKhan
03-11-2007, 16:39
just one question...
what about the right to arm Bears?....is that allowed?:juggle2:
Chicago shouldn't be allowed any more advantage than they're already gonna have, this next season.
Adrian II
03-11-2007, 19:03
This whole idea about Nukes being under the right to bear arms is only an argument made by the unreasonable.Prove it.
I think the 'unreasonable' are doing a good job showing that the literal interpretation of this Second Amendment is the truly unreasonable approach. It says 'arms', my friend, not 'arms up to the size of a .30 Browing submachine gun'. Equally, there is nothing in its wording that would render the concealment of your heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles obligatory when you take you dog for a walk.
Any argument that purports to show a restriction inherent to this Amendment is necessarily going to based on notions of proportionality, historicity and context as used by gun control proponents.
Crazed Rabbit
03-11-2007, 19:06
The cowardly politicians, fearful people might stick up for themselves, are quick to demand those uppity peasants shut up:
http://www.nbc4.com/news/11213595/detail.html?dl=headlineclick
D.C. Leaders Vow To Fight Ruling On Handgun Ban
City Likely To Appeal To Higher Court
WASHINGTON -- City leaders are vowing to fight a federal court's decision to strike down D.C.'s long-standing ban on handguns.
In a 2-1 decision, a federal appeals court rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals, "nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."
The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.
"We intend to do everything in our power to work to get this decision overturned," D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said. "In the meantime, we will vigorously enforce our handgun law."
A lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."
Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.
President George W. Bush's administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
The District can either ask the full court of appeals to hear the case or appeal to the Supreme Court.
The city can also ask for a stay of the ruling while appealing to a higher court, which would mean there would be no immediate effect on the city's handgun laws.
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said he will fight the decision.
"I am strongly opposed to the Court's decision," he said. "District residents deserve every protection afforded to them under District law. I will instruct my attorney general and the solicitor general to explore every legal option that will uphold the city's gun ban."
A statement released Friday afternoon said the city will petition the full Court of Appeals for rehearing, and the current handgun law will remain in effect and will continue to be enforced at least until April 9.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in almost 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.
Even as the appeals court overturned the D.C. ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."
Such restrictions might include gun registration to provide the government with information about how many people would be armed if militia service was required, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.
It has been illegal to own or possess a handgun in D.C. since Feb. 5, 1977, unless that gun was registered with the city prior to that time.
With the exception of law enforcement officials, no new registrations of handguns have been allowed.
There is a different standard for rifles and shotguns. Those guns must be registered with D.C. police, and there are many restrictions on who can register such guns, including a minimum age of 21 unless cosponsored by a guardian, a vision test and no violent crime convictions. When rifles or shotguns are brought into the District, D.C. police must be notified, and the guns must be registered within 48 hours.
D.C. Council Member Phil Mendelson has scheduled a hearing that will focus on gun control and gun violence. The hearing will be held on March 21.
"This ruling is frightening in its scope," Mendelson said. "It has national implications with regard to gun control statutes across the county. It's the first time that a federal court has sad that the Second Amendment restricts or prohibits gun control."
Preliminary D.C. police statistics show that 267 gun-involved robberies and assaults were reported during the first six weeks of 2007, compared with 181 in the same period in 2006, Mendelson said.
"This situation will likely worsen if the court's decision is not overturned," he said. "Guns are too commonplace, already."
A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office would not comment on the ruling.
I love how the mayor says this is somehow a protection to the residents of DC, as though a law that criminalizes harmless behavior somehow protects people. I guess he really does think of his subjects as idiot children to be nannied over.
And I love in a non-sarcastic way how the councilman is frightened by the fact that he might be impeded in passing any law he wants by the constitution, that his control over the people might be compromised by rights.
A light has been shone into that dark recess, and the cockroaches are scared.
Crazed Rabbit
Trolls to the left of me, trolls to the right....who will rid me of these troublesome unarmed trolls?
When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic. :beam:
Exactly. And I'm thinking Stealth bombers as well.
After all I think I Homer Simpson said it best when he told Lisa: ‘If I didn't have my gun, the King of England could just waltz right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?’
Present-day interpretations of the right to bear arms are based on a totally antiquated notion, adequate in the days of Madison when there would be a real need to get together a citizen’s militia to defend the fledgling democracy against external and internal encroachments.
In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act more and more Americans fear for the restriction of their constitutional rights and liberties by the government. But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.
No, no Adrian. That makes far to much sense. IT'S OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO OWN A (Insert various weapons here).
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 19:21
Prove it.
Actually I pointed out how the possession of such weapons would fall under federal discretion due to the commerce clause alone.
That is much more reasonable than to state we should all have them since we are allowed to bear arms. :dizzy2:
Much more important to realize by any citizen of the U.S. and more so by those who aren't but only hear the rhetoric from or about its contitution and bill of rights is that there are ZERO absolute rights. Every right afforded to the individual is a balance played in the Supreme Court against the welfare of society and its function..ie commerce.
doc_bean
03-11-2007, 19:33
Much more important to realize by any citizen of the U.S. and more so by those who aren't but only hear the rhetoric from or about its contitution and bill of rights is that there are ZERO absolute rights.
You're one step away of saying that just because the constitution says you're right shouldn't be infringed it doesn't mean you have that right...
The Bill of Rights was written with the idea that those were 'god given' and thus absolute rights. Any 'interpretation' based on 'reason' is pure judicial activism. I'm not saying that isn't a good thing from time to time, but it is clearly stepping away from both the letter and the spirit of the constitution.
Adrian II
03-11-2007, 19:38
Actually I pointed out how the possession of such weapons would fall under federal discretion due to the commerce clause alone.Yes, I saw that of course.
I also saw you describing your argument thus: 'I'll go way way way way way out on a limb and say it could come into play with the commerce clause. Follow me because this is a damn slippery slope (..)'.
As far as I understand, the commerce clause only grants Congress the exclusive right to 'regulate' commerce with foreign nations, among the States, and with the Indian Tribes. In no way does this speak to the right acknowledged in the Second Amendment.
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 19:42
You're one step away of saying that just because the constitution says you're right shouldn't be infringed it doesn't mean you have that right...
The Bill of Rights was written with the idea that those were 'god given' and thus absolute rights. Any 'interpretation' based on 'reason' is pure judicial activism. I'm not saying that isn't a good thing from time to time, but it is clearly stepping away from both the letter and the spirit of the constitution.
You see only the rhetoric and not the substance. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled from the very beginning that there are no absolute rights, from free speech to weapons. I'll say it again, the Bill of Rights are balanced in the Supreme Court against the welfare of society. What do you think the Supreme Court does? Sit around and wait to protect Timmy the town idiot and his right to smear feces on himself?
If anyone has problems understanding this I'll give a plain, extremely simple, in your face example..often used in U.S. Government 101 at liberal and conservative campuses alike. You cannot go into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE" with the purpose of creating a panic. I can give you another example that will be even less difficult for people to comprehend, human sacrifice. Human sacrifice has been ruled not within the bounds of religous freedom, even by the willing, yet animal sacrifice has been...why I wonder.
HoreTore
03-11-2007, 19:44
The law is perfectly clear, every citizen has the right to have bear arms. I guess you could make a bear arm into a gun however... It should be legal to own a 7.62 mm Assault Bear Arm.
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 19:45
As far as I understand, the commerce clause only grants Congress the exclusive right to 'regulate' commerce with foreign nations, among the States, and with the Indian Tribes. In no way does this speak to the right acknowledged in the Second Amendment.
Yes, this was an extreme example, but if you read the court cases within the scope of the above, the rights of individuals in that scope are regulated.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-11-2007, 19:47
At the time the constitition was written, the weapons of the day were quite different. If you read quotes from the founders, you can see they thought self defense was a right americans should have. The 2nd amendment is interpretted in that context.
Yes, I saw that of course.
I also saw you describing your argument thus: 'I'll go way way way way way out on a limb and say it could come into play with the commerce clause. Follow me because this is a damn slippery slope (..)'.
As far as I understand, the commerce clause only grants Congress the exclusive right to 'regulate' commerce with foreign nations, among the States, and with the Indian Tribes. In no way does this speak to the right acknowledged in the Second Amendment.
The commerce clause also deals with interstate trade. If the weapon is made in New Jersey, the Federal Government has the ability to regulate the foundries business and trade to New York.
The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to keep and bear arms, it states nothing about preventing the government from regulating trade of weapons across state lines.
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 20:07
The commerce clause also deals with interstate trade. If the weapon is made in New Jersey, the Federal Government has the ability to regulate the foundries business and trade to New York.
The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to keep and bear arms, it states nothing about preventing the government from regulating trade of weapons across state lines.
Yes, in fact it can even be simpler. All there has to be is a tax on that type of product and it falls within the federal scope. See Also ATF
Adrian II
03-11-2007, 20:25
Yes, this was an extreme example, but if you read the court cases within the scope of the above, the rights of individuals in that scope are regulated.And regulations enacted by Congress top the Constitution? I don't think so.
The Second Amendment refers to the perpetuation of free government by the people, in that the people can not be oppressed if they are not first disarmed. The right to bear arms is therefore absolute; it is not granted, but proudly acknowledged by the sovereign convention of the American people in its Bill of Rights. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation. The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.
@Redleg. Good to see you're back, hope your house deal turns out well. And on topic: yes, I am aware of all that, I have read Lopez (1995).
Strike For The South
03-11-2007, 20:44
At the new bass pro shop there is a fine gun room its the coolest thing I ever seen. To me its not about if but how many. :laugh4:
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 21:38
And regulations enacted by Congress top the Constitution? I don't think so.
The Bill of Rights negates the role and function of the Supreme Court? I don't think so...
The Second Amendment refers to the perpetuation of free government by the people, in that the people can not be oppressed if they are not first disarmed.
True.
The right to bear arms is therefore absolute; it is not granted, but proudly acknowledged by the sovereign convention of the American people in its Bill of Rights. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation.
*Insert the plethora of Acts enacted here*
and their constitutionality
U.S. Supreme Court (and that darn balancing act necessary for government for and by a free people)
The freedom of speech and of the press
(article 1) does not permit the publication of libels,
blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications
injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right
of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not
infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed
weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if
upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the
verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion . . . nor
does the provision of the same article that no one shall be
a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify,
if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time,
a pardon, or by statutory enactment . . . Nor does the
provision that an accused person shall be confronted with
the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying
declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died
since the former trial.
The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.
Nuclear suitcases can fall under regulation in so many ways its not even worth discussing further unless you just like to throw stones at a hornets nest. If you want to go to the integrity of law then we don't have to look any further than the principle of self defense against each other and against one's government. To claim nuclear status as a right of arms is to turn the principle on itself as there is no self defense against the nuclear weapon. We can also go to the nature of the weapon.
U.S. Supreme Court (and that darn balancing act necessary for government for and by a free people)
"The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon,
it being of the character before described as being intended
by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of
that unqualified character. The citizens may bear them for
the common defence; but it does not follow that they may be
borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people or for
purposes of private assassination. And, . . . the
Legislature may prohibit such manner of wearing as would
never be resorted to by persons engaged in the common
defence."
Adrian II
03-11-2007, 22:42
The Bill of Rights negates the role and function of the Supreme Court? I don't think so...Your quotes make little sense without source and context.
I believe the USSC has never directly addressed the issue of the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. From the inception of the Republic onward, however, the familiar two schools of interpretation have often competed. And the USSC has always come down on the side of regulation and restriction.
In three out of four cases the Court ruled that the Amendment limited the powers of Congress, not those of the States, to regulate or restrict the individual possession of arms. The State laws that restricted gun ownership to Protestants or whites were happily sustained.
In the fourth, the Court ruled that even a weapon as innocent as a sawed-off shotgun in the hands of some poor sob did not qualify as a weapon that could be used in a militia and could hence be outlawed. I quote Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.
. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation. The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.
@Redleg. Good to see you're back, hope your house deal turns out well. And on topic: yes, I am aware of all that, I have read Lopez (1995).
Incorrect Adrian within the body of the constitution the Congress can regulate several things that while it does not remove the right to keep and bear arms it has an impact on it.
For examble explosives are not considered arms, hince the nuclear suitcase can be regulated based upon the other clauses within the constitution. Same thing can be applied concerning other types of ordance, versus weapons.
Still waiting on the final paperwork, on the house, but it looks like it happen as planned. BTW the railroad is a great job, even though it is one of the more dangerous civilian careers around.
ShadeHonestus
03-11-2007, 23:15
Your quotes make little sense without source and context.
They should be able to be interpreted plainly, yes? They are however the courts opinions in challenges to Acts regulating firearms you can take your pick and you'll pretty much find those opines in most, in essence and directly in 2.
I believe the USSC has never directly addressed the issue of the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
They have many times and often in cases where the integrity to the decision is the individuals right.
From the inception of the Republic onward, however, the familiar two schools of interpretation have often competed. And the USSC has always come down on the side of regulation and restriction.
Not by a long shot when it comes to what you call restriction and you forget the elongated process to beginning regulation. They don't just throw hazard regulation without it being forged on the basis of constitutionality. Hence the challenge to regulation in the USSC is a bar set high.
In three out of four cases the Court ruled that the Amendment limited the powers of Congress, not those of the States, to regulate or restrict the individual possession of arms. The State laws that restricted gun ownership to Protestants or whites were happily sustained.
3 out of which 4?
In the fourth, the Court ruled that even a weapon as innocent as a sawed-off shotgun in the hands of some poor sob did not qualify as a weapon that could be used in a militia and could hence be outlawed. I quote Miller:
If I remember correctly this was a challenge to the Title II weapon classification as it fell under the ATF. There is much more I believe, so you might want to quote the decision and opinions in its entirety or provide a link to findlaw or something.
It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.
I don't think I've stepped in stuff that smelled as bad as that opinion my friend.
Have to cut this one short as my daughter is pulling on the arm to play...will return, but I'm anxious to hear more
Adrian II
03-11-2007, 23:25
For examble explosives are not considered arms (..)How so? And by whom?
BTW the railroad is a great job, even though it is one of the more dangerous civilian careers around.Well, it's not as if you ever walked away from danger in your life. ~ ;)
Just don't take that left track in Albuquerque...
Fisherking
03-11-2007, 23:29
Wish I had the time to go into all of this and what is wrong with the system…too darn late this evening!
The Supreme Court derives it ability to declare laws unconstitutional not for it position but as the highest Jury of the land….go back and check…
Regulations are not laws but rules made by Federal Agencies like the ATF
They carry the force of law only because Congress more or less allows it so…but very questionable at best…but just try to fight it in court…
The interstate commerce clause is the catch all for congress to circumvent much too much that they were otherwise prohibited from acting on….
Adrian II
03-12-2007, 00:15
I don't think I've stepped in stuff that smelled as bad as that opinion my friend.Neither did I ever leave something like it behind, my friend. As you will have understood by now, it is my view that the Second itself is starting to smell to high heaven. To paraphrase Marx' words on Feuerbach: stop interpreting it, change it.
Have to cut this one short as my daughter is pulling on the arm to play...will return, but I'm anxious to hear more,That is the most disarming argument in this entire thread. I will of course desist. ~;)
KukriKhan
03-12-2007, 00:25
LoL. He said "disarming". :giggle:
ShadeHonestus
03-12-2007, 01:03
As you will have understood by now, it is my view that the Second itself is starting to smell to high heaven. To paraphrase Marx' words on Feuerbach: stop interpreting it, change it.
The problem with a concrete code of law which lacks for the need of interpretation is that it cannot be lasting.
Adrian II
03-12-2007, 01:36
The problem with a concrete code of law which lacks for the need of interpretation is that it cannot be lasting.The margin of interpretation can be considerably reduced for our time.
Some time ago I was struck by an article on the topic by Californina Law Professor Calvin Massey: Guns, Extremists and the Constitution (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3655/is_200010/ai_n8905457/pg_1) (2002).
Massey states that American courts, including the States Supreme Courts and the Federal Supreme Court, have taken diverse and contrary positions on the issue of individual arms ownership. But he also contends that there has always been common ground and that this is worth exploring.
The undeniable theme of the arms right is defense - collective and individual. Collective defense is the melody of the theme, but the repeated sound of individual defense is the harmony. The arms right is not just about the right to die in uniform; it is about defending ourselves, our loved ones, our community, our nation, from those who would harm what we value. Not only is there evidence, albeit contested, that a personal self-defense right was part of the original specific intent of the Second Amendment's framers, and additional evidence that a considerable portion of the polity gave it that construction over the ensuing century or so, the personal self-defense interpretation comports with the slightly more general intent of defense. Our nation is no longer defended by citizen-soldiers. We are not Switzerland, where an armed cadre of citizen soldiers continues to form the core of national defense. Ambient circumstances have changed; the "common defense" purpose of the Second Amendment has shriveled into a useless raisin. But the need to defend against ordinary criminality is, unfortunately, still with us, and the right to defend against criminal assault is surely not useless.I have to say the 'useless raisin' didn't quite take my fancy. I would put it more graphically: it is as if the Second has only one leg left to stand on. That is the individual self-defense leg. The collective self-defense leg has shrivelled to the point of nonexistence. However, the owner is suffering from severe phantom pain.
Massey goes on to explain the main reason for the acrimony that renders present-day debate of the Second so futile:
One of the reasons why the gun debate is so polarized is because many gun owners simply do not believe the disclaimers of gun controllers that they do not intend to confiscate all private firearms. Indeed, the currently fashionable trend to describe firearms as a public health problem, as if guns were a pathogenic organism like smallpox virus, exacerbates this fear because the logical response to equating guns to smallpox is to eradicate the noxious pathogen.176 Because gun owners do not believe that gun controllers will be content with any control scheme short of abolition of private possession of firearms, they tend to overinflate their claim of constitutional entitlement. The result is a "debate" that is an angry shouting match from very long distance. Admitting that the arms right includes a private right to possess firearms for individual self-defense provides some measure of comfort to gun owners and simultaneously denies the grossly inflated claim that firearms ownership is an absohite right or that it includes the right to pack a Ryder truck full of ammonia fertilizer and diesel oil and detonate the package in front of a federal office building. Of course, this will not satisfy either the hard-core abolitionists or the fanatic insurrectionists, but I am not interested in an interpretation of constitional law that panders to extremists and lunatics.Note the opposition of nightmares in this passages: the fear of total eradication of handguns versus the fear of low-intensity civil wars waged by the militia movement.
What this article suggests to me, is that there may be a possible 'historic' deal (akin, in a way, to the Northern Ireland peace accord) between hardcore abolitionists and hardcore militia freaks. The deal would be that the (illusive) right to collective self-defense of the militia movement is traded against the (illusory) ideal of total gun control of the abolitionists.
A future Second would have to be so formulated that the right to ownership of arms suitable for individual self-defense is acknowledged, whilst the right to own and bear arms for any other purpose then individual self-defense is prohibited. Exemptions can be made for hunting and sports along the lines of many present-day States Acts regulating gun ownership.
Of course this is an ilusion on my part. As a non-American all of this is none of my business anyway. But it beats the assignment I am on at the moment, my kids are asleep and so is the love of my life, and I am out of cognac.
Where is Louis when you need him?
The law is perfectly clear, every citizen has the right to have bear arms. I guess you could make a bear arm into a gun however... It should be legal to own a 7.62 mm Assault Bear Arm.
It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.
Then again there is legislation that could have prevented this , she describes her child as stubborn , disturbed , disobedient and unruly.
She should have taken the boy to the city elders and they could have stoned him to death .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Just wanted to say thanks, had a great laugh with these and other posts.:2thumbsup:
Well, on topic, I still live in the german dictatorship that bans knives with a blade longer than 20cm and all sorts of other weapons.
but then again, we learned our lesson and don't elect warmongering criminals into the government anymore.
:wizard:
PanzerJaeger
03-12-2007, 04:07
At the time the constitition was written, the weapons of the day were quite different. If you read quotes from the founders, you can see they thought self defense was a right americans should have. The 2nd amendment is interpretted in that context.
:2thumbsup:
Out of curiosity were private citizens allowed to own cannons back in the day? With all the arguments of tanks and jets I'm just curious whether antique artillery is out of line.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-12-2007, 05:03
Adrian:
You make one compelling point in your disagreement with 2nd -- the times have indeed changed. You point to the "shriveling" of the common defense as enacted by the citizenry as undercutting the need for such a right, or at least preserving that right in a more curtailed form than originally penned (which, I agree, by using the term ARMS was meant to include any and all weaponry).
For me, it is actually the sea-change we have undergone in the basic framework of the republic. At its founding, the United States was a confederacy of sovereign states. This was deemed too balkanized a situation and most of the FF wanted some greater measure of stability and thus the Constitution was born. Each state was still sovereign, but had voluntarily passed certain powers to the national government to provide a degree of consistency and stability -- particularly in interstate commerce and international relations -- while retaining most sovereign power and agreeing in common to the preservation of certain individual rights deemed crucial to the purpose of limiting government and preventing tyranny.
This national form was grievously wounded by Lincoln's effective prosecution of the Civil War. States could be sovereign but, once having become a part of the United States could not sunder themselves from that polity by any means (there is substantial evidence that a significant portion of the FF would have disagreed with this). Thus the Federal government ceased to be an umbrella and became an overseer.
The 16th and 17th ammendments created the means to eradicate the power of the states more or less completely. The 16th inaugurated direct taxation of individuals by the federal government, allowing congress to do more than tax interstate commerce or international trade and giving the federal government the "ultimate" revenue tool [it was, of course, passed fairly readily -- after all, it was only for 1% of the income of top earners like the Vanderbilts and didn't affect the regular guy -- the soak it to the rich theme is an old one in politics]. Prior to this (save during war), National funds were the product of these commerce taxes and monies granted to the federal government by the states.
The 17th ammendment was an open and shut decision. What could be more democratic than removing the selection of U.S. Senators from the "smoke-filled rooms" of the state legislatures and allowing votes by the people of those states? Democratic, no doubt, but now BOTH branches of Congress have a directly vested interest in pandering to the voters and the state leadership is of comparatively little importance to them.
With this springboard, and aided by national crises (Depression, WW2, ColdWar), the F. Roosevelt and Johnson administrations (notably, but to be fair it is NOT as though Eisenhower or Nixon or Carter, or either Bush did a lot to alter this, and Reagan's efforts in this vein didn't go nearly as far as his rhetoric) brought the federal government into direct administration of services and many (most) aspects of every citizen's life.
Together, these events have shifted the United States from a Union of States to a Federal Government with numerous prefectures called states. In this context, the Federal government is keeping the issue and debate thereof firmly centered on personal weaponry.
Many of our liberals really do want to ban and confiscate personal guns. They view the government as the source of our protection and see a monopoly of force by that government as a powerful tool to decrease deadly violence. Many of our conservatives view this as an attack on their individual rights, and doubt the government's ability to provide better protection than they can create for themselves.
But you are correct, Adrian, in that the country for which this ammendment of individual rights was penned no longer exists. My preference would be to reform the country itself towards a style wherein that right was of greater purpose -- not to reform the ammendment to more aptly fit the nation as is. The trend of history suggests to me, however, that I am doing little more than pissing in the wind. I shall now conclude this rant, and go find some dry pants.
For examble explosives are not considered arms, hince the nuclear suitcase can be regulated based upon the other clauses within the constitution. Same thing can be applied concerning other types of ordance, versus weapons.
Does this mean that the government can say...."alright...you can have all the rifles and other guns you want, but as of this moment it is illegal for you to own any gunpowder" :idea2:
that works for me....without gunpowder even a .50 cal sniper rifle is just a fancy stick.......and since gunpowder is an explosive, and explosives ownership isn´t protected by the constitution.....well....:laugh4:
Hosakawa Tito
03-12-2007, 11:42
The comedian, Chris Rock, had an interesting solution, make bullets $5000 a piece....:laugh4:
The comedian, Chris Rock, had an interesting solution, make bullets $5000 a piece....:laugh4:
*Thinks of Uzis and MAC-10s with insane rates of fire* :2thumbsup:
The comedian, Chris Rock, had an interesting solution, make bullets $5000 a piece....:laugh4:
it would solve the problem of innocent bystanders......you would make damn sure you hit what you are aiming at:laugh4:
that joke is amazing... :2thumbsup:
I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your ******* head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property!?'
-Chris Rock
:smash:
Hosakawa Tito
03-12-2007, 13:19
Ronin, when I heard that stand up gig, I nearly passed out from laughing so hard. The Comedy Channel on XM Radio can be dangerous when driving.:laugh4:
Does this mean that the government can say...."alright...you can have all the rifles and other guns you want, but as of this moment it is illegal for you to own any gunpowder" :idea2:
Possible but doubtful.
that works for me....without gunpowder even a .50 cal sniper rifle is just a fancy stick.......and since gunpowder is an explosive, and explosives ownership isn´t protected by the constitution.....well....:laugh4:
The explosives that have been defined as controlled are listed under regulations by the ATF. Now you pose an interesting solution to gun control.
I have to say the 'useless raisin' didn't quite take my fancy. I would put it more graphically: it is as if the Second has only one leg left to stand on. That is the individual self-defense leg. The collective self-defense leg has shrivelled to the point of nonexistence. However, the owner is suffering from severe phantom pain.I just love the idea that we should simply read out or ignore any parts of the Constitution that we don't feel are useful anymore. "Constitution" is such a strong word anyway.... guidelines really.:rolleyes:
There's a clear mechanism for making changes to the Constitution- if something has become unworkable or irrelevant in modern context, it should be changed, not ignored. Talk about slippery slopes...
But you are correct, Adrian, in that the country for which this ammendment of individual rights was penned no longer exists. My preference would be to reform the country itself towards a style wherein that right was of greater purpose -- not to reform the ammendment to more aptly fit the nation as is. The trend of history suggests to me, however, that I am doing little more than pissing in the wind. I shall now conclude this rant, and go find some dry pants.I hear ya...:yes:
Adrian II
03-12-2007, 16:59
There's a clear mechanism for making changes to the Constitution- if something has become unworkable or irrelevant in modern context, it should be changed, not ignored. Talk about slippery slopes...That's what I said.
That's what I said.
In that case, good luck with getting it changed. :beam:
I'm happy with the current reading....
Adrian II
03-12-2007, 18:02
In that case, good luck with getting it changed. :beam: I don't care one way or the other.
But what reading are you referring to as 'the current reading'? I mean, that is amazing. Hundreds of millions of Americans are under the impression that there are widely different readings, and all this time they've been fooled! Hallelujah.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2007, 18:04
Out of curiosity were private citizens allowed to own cannons back in the day? With all the arguments of tanks and jets I'm just curious whether antique artillery is out of line.
State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
This actually answers Adrian's question more directly. Cannons weren't called arms, they were called ordnance.
Although apparently they allow you to own them anyway.
Crazed Rabbit
03-12-2007, 18:07
Out of curiosity were private citizens allowed to own cannons back in the day? With all the arguments of tanks and jets I'm just curious whether antique artillery is out of line
Indeed, cannons were legal to own. There were no regulations on what you could own back then.
But what reading are you referring to as 'the current reading'?
What the constitution was intended to mean by the founders - and what it does mean, no matter what anti-gunners insist about collective rights.
Taxing bullets is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Adrian has a point about the collective defense mentality going away - but we should seek to bring that back, as a matter of civic responsibility.
Crazed Rabbit
Indeed, cannons were legal to own. There were no regulations on what you could own back then.Just because it was legal at one point doesn't necessarily mean that it's protected under the 2A... Remember, under our system you're pretty much allowed to do anything by default, unless there's a law specifically against it.
But what reading are you referring to as 'the current reading'? I mean, that is amazing. Hundreds of millions of Americans are under the impression that there are widely different readings, and all this time they've been fooled! Hallelujah.There's a pretty clear statement of keeping arms as a personal right. There is room for some rational debate about how for that goes- but please spare us the absurdities. I think a rational position would be personal arms. Nuclear weapons, capable of eradicating millions are pretty hard to argue for individual use for defense of your liberty/country.
Fisherking
03-12-2007, 18:36
Out of curiosity were private citizens allowed to own cannons back in the day? With all the arguments of tanks and jets I'm just curious whether antique artillery is out of line.
Yes they were!
Tribesman
03-12-2007, 19:04
What the constitution was intended to mean by the founders - and what it does mean, no matter what anti-gunners insist about collective rights.
Hmmmmmmm.......
Taxing bullets is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Rubbish , since the regulations for a militia has rules on how much powder and balls a man shall keep and how much he should not keep , since the fines levied for breach of these well regulated militia regulations amount to a government levy it is a tax.
Hey you want to get back to the founding fathers and what they meant by a well regulated militia bearing arms then get back to the regulations for militia from the time of the founding fathers :yes:
Yeeeeeehaaaw!!!!!!! a new subject for gun nut weekly:laugh4:
Adrian II
03-12-2007, 20:17
There's a pretty clear statement of keeping arms as a personal right. There is room for some rational debate about how for that goes- but please spare us the absurdities.Your reading is only one among many, and historically it is not even the first or dominant reading.
The most plausible reading is the one echoed in many state constitutions and bills of rights at the time, i.e. a right to bear arms for collective self-defense against tyranny and against any standing armies that upheld tyranny.
As has already been pointed out, ordinary citizens owned cannon in the early days of the Republic. This was considered normal as attested by Tench Coxe in his 1814 report to Congress entitled Statement of the Arts and Manufacturers of the United States of America:
Cannon are constantly manufactured, when demanded, to a very considerable extent, in the public armories of the nation, and of the States, and on contracts, and for sale to associations of citizens, and to individual purchasers, for use at home, or for exportation.Any collective self-defense against modern tyranny and modern standing armies would require armaments on a par with those of such armies. Modern wars prove that only advanced weaponry will do the job. The North Vietnamese had tanks, jets and all the other advanced weaponry of the day - and they won. The mujahedeen in Afghanistan only beat the Russians with the aid of should-launched missiles and satellite intelligence passed on by the U.S. and Pakistan. On the other hand, the Iraqi insurgents are incapable of chasing the Americans out of Iraq because they dispose of only hand-held weapons and unsophisticated explosive devices.
So that if the above stance on the Second (collective self-defense against tyranny and its standing armies) is taken, any restriction with regard to the nature of arms covered by the Second would be a material infringement.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2007, 20:24
Your reading is only one among many, and historically it is not even the first or dominant reading.
The most plausible reading is the one echoed in many state constitutions and bills of rights at the time, i.e. a right to bear arms for collective self-defense against tyranny and against any standing armies that upheld tyranny.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
hmm
Adrian II
03-12-2007, 20:52
hmmJefferson's quote is among a plethora of quotes and opinions from the period. His view does not contradict the reading of the law I gave above, in the sense that the right to individual possession is a corollary or derivative.
A common theme of States' Supreme Court rulings throughout the nineteenthe century is that the right to bear arms is rooted in the fear of tyranny and standing armies, and the individual right to bear arms is acknowledged as a consequence. In Massey's words:
These state courts consistently derived from that concern the principle that the firearms right was intended to create an armed populace that could form a militia to defend the country and simultaneously deter tyranny. Courts split on the question of whether the arms right included an individual right to carry arms for self-defense. Although the most widely shared view of these courts was that the arms right was designed to secure the common defense, "every nineteenth century state court judge who said anything about the Second Amendment, except for one concurring judge in an 1842 Arkansas case, agreed that it protected the right of individual Americans to own firearms." These positions are not in tension; courts evidently thought that individuals with guns were the backbone of national defense and were a vital security against tyranny.
So where do your suitcase nukes fit into that?
Cannon are constantly manufactured, when demanded, to a very considerable extent, in the public armories of the nation, and of the States, and on contracts, and for sale to associations of citizens, and to individual purchasers, for use at home, or for exportation.Again, let me point out that the fact that something was previously not illegal did not mean it was considered a constitutional right.
Adrian II
03-12-2007, 22:03
So where do your suitcase nukes fit into that?American military logic. In the interest of saving Washington, it may be necessary to blow the town up. See Ben Tre. See Fallujah.
American military logic. In the interest of saving Washington, it may be necessary to blow the town up. See Ben Tre. See Fallujah.
Ah, and I would be saving myself from tyranny by nuking my town and killing myself and everyone I know there? :dizzy2:
Papewaio
03-12-2007, 23:26
I, Robot?
So to save ourselves, we have to destroy ourselves.
To promote our liberty, we have to circumscribe the life of others.
To sustain our freedom as individuals, we have to accept laws of society.
Adrian II
03-12-2007, 23:26
Ah, and I would be saving myself from tyranny by nuking my town and killing myself and everyone I know there? :dizzy2:People die in civil wars. Remember Charleston?
https://img118.imageshack.us/img118/9461/acwcharlestonkx9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
Crazed Rabbit
03-12-2007, 23:40
Rubbish , since the regulations for a militia has rules on how much powder and balls a man shall keep and how much he should not keep , since the fines levied for breach of these well regulated militia regulations amount to a government levy it is a tax.
That's not a tax, tribesy. A tax on goods is a percentage of the value of an item, levied on each and every item. :rolleyes:
Can you even provide a link to any such regulations?
CR
People die in civil wars. Remember Charleston?
https://img118.imageshack.us/img118/9461/acwcharlestonkx9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
What's your point? Of course people die in war- that's how it works. I don't see the argument there that says anything capable of killing someone is protected under the 2A.
Beren Son Of Barahi
03-13-2007, 05:08
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.gif
i think the image speaks for it self... banning handguns altogether seems like a good idea. also, buying back and removing the hand guns from the population is another part of the solution.
By destroying one-fifth of this country's estimated stock of firearms - the equivalent figure in the United States would be 40 million guns - Australians have chosen to significantly shrink their private arsenal. In 2002-03, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 population was one-fifteenth that of the US""
also, it's hard to argue that guns prevent crime, if you look at stats, for countries with low gun ownership compared to the USA with high ownership shows that less guns equals less deaths.
interesting read found here :link here (http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502)
ShadeHonestus
03-13-2007, 05:28
Do you have a spiffy graph that shows the number of deaths by illegally owned handguns? Do you have a graph that shows the number of deaths by handguns which, under the current law, were used in the execution of a crime other than premeditated murder?
PanzerJaeger
03-13-2007, 07:37
Any collective self-defense against modern tyranny and modern standing armies would require armaments on a par with those of such armies. Modern wars prove that only advanced weaponry will do the job. The North Vietnamese had tanks, jets and all the other advanced weaponry of the day - and they won. The mujahedeen in Afghanistan only beat the Russians with the aid of should-launched missiles and satellite intelligence passed on by the U.S. and Pakistan. On the other hand, the Iraqi insurgents are incapable of chasing the Americans out of Iraq because they dispose of only hand-held weapons and unsophisticated explosive devices.
:inquisitive:
So you would argue the success of guerilla warfare hinges on the use of advanced weaponry on par with that of the enemy?
You are indeed making some odd statements in your attempts to prop up your recycled arguments.
Adrian II
03-13-2007, 10:31
What's your point?Rather, what is yours?
You asked me a question: 'Ah, and I would be saving myself from tyranny by nuking my town and killing myself and everyone I know there?'
I answered it. Yes, towns are destroyed as a result of wars, including civil wars. A suitcase nuke would accomplish in one minute what protracted bombardment accomplished in Charleston in 1861-64. Hence the pic.
@Panzerjager. Yes, I think modern equipment is necessary, although probably not sufficient, to defeat a modern army in warfare.
The 'counter-example' of Iraq mentioned by others was ill chosen. If anything, Iraq demonstrates that sniper guns and improvised explosives don't cut it against the American and British forces. They may have a moral impact, but not a military one. And without outside assistance and reinforcement the Iraqi insurgency would long have petered out. All the insurgents would be left with would be sticks and stones.
If one accepts the reading of the Second as a right to armed insurgence against tyranny (and a derivative right to carry arms on your person), as has been the case in American court rulings throughout the nineteenth century, one has to think this through and ponder the consequences (andthese may seem absurd indeed).
Seamus Fermanagh did this in his own way in a post above, saying that the nature of government has changed so profoundly that this reading and all that it stood for have become quasi-obsolete, but that instead of adapting the wording of the Second to the times, the country should seek to reinvigorate the original spirit of the amendment and change the manner in which it is governed, in other words: adapt its institutions to the Second instead of the other way around.
I think I will take his cue and change my pants after pissing in the wind for so long. I do not advocate any reading in particular. In recent years my own view has changed, I used to be abolitionist and I have become a proponent of well-regulated private gun ownership, intended only for self-defense purposes. On the other hand, I believe that a certain American notion that one is safe from tyranny if holed up behind one's front door with a loaded gun is, to say the least, naive.
I can put it differently still: a militia that is not well-regulated is not a militia at all, it is a rabble. And a rabble is a form of tyranny by itself.
Now, calling that view 'odd' does not constitute a refutation. Make your own point.
ShadeHonestus
03-13-2007, 15:24
The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the meaning of militia and the weight of "collective" in its meaning. Its seen in almost every decision handed down. They quote, en masse letters and correspondence, from TJ and many many others...
Rather, what is yours?
You asked me a question: 'Ah, and I would be saving myself from tyranny by nuking my town and killing myself and everyone I know there?'
I answered it. Yes, towns are destroyed as a result of wars, including civil wars. A suitcase nuke would accomplish in one minute what protracted bombardment accomplished in Charleston in 1861-64. Hence the pic.I guess that would've been fine of the defenders of Charleston set out to destroy their own city and kill its civilian inhabitants- then yes, a nuke would accomplish that in one easy swoop. Somehow though, I don't think that was their intention at all. I dare say the destruction was caused by bombardment intended to dislodge stubborn and well-entrenched defenders. The figurative "nuke" was deployed by the aggressor and the shelling outraged and further motivated the defenders.
Again, this in no way speaks to the use of a nuke in a citizen's defense against tyranny. Thus, what was your point in bringing it up?
Edit:
I think I will take his cue and change my pants after pissing in the wind for so long. I do not advocate any reading in particular. In recent years my own view has changed, I used to be abolitionist and I have become a proponent of well-regulated private gun ownership, intended only for self-defense purposes. On the other hand, I believe that a certain American notion that one is safe from tyranny if holed up behind one's front door with a loaded gun is, to say the least, naive.
Glad your views are changing. Holing up behind your front door with a loaded gun is effective defense against criminals, not so much tyranny. Maybe with more people and a much bigger door.... :shrug:
Adrian II
03-13-2007, 18:30
Again, this in no way speaks to the use of a nuke in a citizen's defense against tyranny. Thus, what was your point in bringing it up?It is ironic that I started out demonstrating the absurdity of a certain reading of the Second Amendment, and now I have to defend myself against allegations of absurdity.
But it has been a long thread, I will try to be brief and clear.
Throughout the nineteenth century the 'collective self-defense against tyranny' has been the dominant reading of the amendment. In the nineteenth century even the private possession of cannon (although traditionally not a weapon of the militia) was not prohibited by either the federal government or the states.
This reading is no longer dominant. But it is still out there. I encounter it time and again in modern books and on websites, as a sort of last ditch defense against any form of gun control.
Now, what I have been saying throughout this thread is that if anyone accepts that reading, he or she should think this through and realise that the amendment's term 'arms', in this reading, would emcompass all modern weaponry without restrictions, up to and including the heaviest weaponry (i.e. the modern equivalent of cannon). And mind you, this is the original reading, it cannot be discarded as a 'distortion' of the amendment.
Should tyranny ever take hold in the U.S. and avail itself of the government machinery including the military, it will not be brought down through the use of hunting rifles and Saturday night specials, but only through the use of 'arms' in the much wider sense that it used to have back in 1789.
You can counter that this is absurd. I agree that it is. It is absurd to think that citizen's could walk around with suitcase nukes, shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or RPG's. It goes to show how absurd the original reading has become in the light of the power of modern weaponry. Seamus has one view on the way this discrepancy should be remedied. Others may prefer to change the present wording of the amendment.
Those who hold that no change is needed, that the absurdity can be explained away and that the amendment is just a 'guideline' effectively undo their own Constitution.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-13-2007, 18:44
Part of what is missing is the "militia" concept itself.
During that era, virtually all males possessing anything resembling property in that society -- save for a few conscientious objectors or those hopelessly incapable -- received firearms training and were expected to participate in military drill.
Your point regarding this, and the classic importance of training, is the key point of discrimination between a defender of the polis and an armed individual component of the rabble.
Personal firearms training was nearly ubiquitous at the time of the founding. This created a profound sense of understanding that our modern society lacks. Many of those standing in opposition to gun ownership do so prompted in part by a "fear" of the gun.
A return to near-universal firearms training would, I believe, ameliorate much of this and change profoundly the tone of the debate.
doc_bean
03-13-2007, 18:46
It is absurd to think that citizen's could walk around with suitcase nukes, shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or RPG's.
I thought RPGs were legal if you had the proper permits ?
Damn, you NRA fellows are really letting it slip...
gunslinger
03-13-2007, 18:52
By destroying one-fifth of this country's estimated stock of firearms - the equivalent figure in the United States would be 40 million guns - Australians have chosen to significantly shrink their private arsenal. In 2002-03, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 population was one-fifteenth that of the US"
This stat proves that Australia has less gun-related homocides than the U.S., but it doesn't prove that this is a result of shrinking their private arsenal. To prove that, we would need stats showing Austrailia's gun-related homocide rate both before and after the gun ban / buyback.
It is ironic that I started out demonstrating the absurdity of a certain reading of the Second Amendment, and now I have to defend myself against allegations of absurdity.It's because I find your deliberately absurd argument to be fallacious.
Throughout the nineteenth century the 'collective self-defense against tyranny' has been the dominant reading of the amendment. In the nineteenth century even the private possession of cannon (although traditionally not a weapon of the militia) was not prohibited by either the federal government or the states. Collective defense is still a valid reading because the amendment hasn't changed. However, just because there was previously no laws banning the ownership of cannon does not mean necessarily that owning cannon was protected under the 2A- it only means that it was previously legal.
Now, what I have been saying throughout this thread is that if anyone accepts that reading, he or she should think this through and realise that the amendment's term 'arms', in this reading, would emcompass all modern weaponry without restrictions, up to and including the heaviest weaponry (i.e. the modern equivalent of cannon). And mind you, this is the original reading, it cannot be discarded as a 'distortion' of the amendment.
You're saying that the original reading included any implements capable of killing someone and in any quantity?
Should tyranny ever take hold in the U.S. and avail itself of the government machinery including the military, it will not be brought down through the use of hunting rifles and Saturday night specials, but only through the use of 'arms' in the much wider sense that it used to have back in 1789.Look at the Branch Davidians- they had zero popular support(and were loons), yet how long did they manage to keep the entire federal government at bay by hiding out in a barn with readily available weaponry? What if there were tens or hundreds of thousands of such people who actually had a valid complaint against their government and enjoyed some level of popular support?
The first amendment isn't absolute either- our rights come with responsibility. The important matter is that we have a fundamental right to free speech and we have a fundamental, individual right to own arms for our defense.
Adrian II
03-13-2007, 20:05
You're saying that the original reading included any implements capable of killing someone and in any quantity?Anything suitable to the collective self-defense. Massey quotes one telling example of a 1846 Georgia Supreme Court (Nunn vs. State) ruling 'any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution if it contravenes the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia.'
As to the Branch Davidians, the example is defective in many ways. Tyranny and civil war entail entirely different levels of confrontation, violence, and manipulation of public opinion, including the evacuation of cities and regions, disruption of major communications and transport as well as a break-down of the social fibre as we know it.
Of course private ownership of battleships and satellite-mounted laserguns would not exactly contain or alleviate the situation...
But if one adopts this particular reading of the Second Amendment for our day and age -- and in the light of jrisprudence it is legitimate to do so -- then such bizarre consequences are inevitable.
ShadeHonestus
03-13-2007, 20:13
ca. 44,000 people die a year in traffic accidents.
Cars don't kill people, people driving cars kill people.
[edit]
*fact*
About 7,500 people die a year because pharmacists cannot read a doctor's prescription clearly.
People don't kill people, poor handwriting does.
both examples are USA only figures
Soulforged
03-13-2007, 21:58
It's because I find your deliberately absurd argument to be fallacious.
It's not fallacious, it's only the result of a literal interpretation. That interpretation only does not imply any arguement by itself. However is easy to see that Adrian used that form to demonstrate certain absurdities wich can be derivated from the 2nd Amendment of the USA Constitution, by only reading it's text in abstracto and pushing it to the last logical consequences.
Of course nobody is asking for an exegesis of that old document, let alone cannon private ownership as a consequence. We've hopefully passed through that stage of law devolopment and we today measure other things wich lead to other problems: like the so called "spirit of the law", or the ratio legis, or the social context, and so on...
Sasaki Kojiro
03-13-2007, 22:48
It's not a literal interpretation. "arms" means weapons you can carry. Cannons were referred to as "ordnance". If they had wanted to specify cannons in the amendmant they would have said "arms and ordnance".
Tyranny and civil war entail entirely different levels of confrontation, violence, and manipulation of public opinion, including the evacuation of cities and regions, disruption of major communications and transport as well as a break-down of the social fibre as we know it.
Exactly. If no one had guns, the government would have no problem enforcing their will. Since so many people have guns they would have to use heavy weaponry against their own cities. This would weaken them and perhaps open up the possibility of another country interevening, like the french in the revolutionary war.
Also, the us army isn't very "follow the leader no matter what". The are sworn to the constitution I believe. A scenario where the entire army follows the will of a tyrannical government is absurd.
Blodrast
03-13-2007, 23:23
Also, the us army isn't very "follow the leader no matter what". The are sworn to the constitution I believe. A scenario where the entire army follows the will of a tyrannical government is absurd.
A scenario where the entire arms-bearing population (80 mil, from one of your previous posts) rises against the government is also absurd. As in all civil wars, there will be people on both sides. Things are never clear-cut, black or white, and people are easy to confuse, deceive, and manipulate. Besides, that's what the governments do for a living.
It's not a literal interpretation. "arms" means weapons you can carry. Cannons were referred to as "ordnance". If they had wanted to specify cannons in the amendmant they would have said "arms and ordnance".
My $0.02 on the arms/ordnance issue. The "citizens" ordnance is currently controlled by the National and State Guard units. Any attempts to limit the state governors' control over these units should be fought tooth and nail.
Soulforged
03-13-2007, 23:53
It's not a literal interpretation. "arms" means weapons you can carry. Cannons were referred to as "ordnance". If they had wanted to specify cannons in the amendmant they would have said "arms and ordnance".So one does not pertain to the other? I thought that sometimes arms could be used in english as a broad term. For example, when somebody says "A call to arms" he asks for people to fight with a variety of weapons, hand-carried or otherwise. Perhaps I mistaked the spanish word "armas" wich can surely be used in such a way making an analogy of it.
EDIT: In any case you're asuming that by principle private ownership is not allowed respecting arms...
Also, the us army isn't very "follow the leader no matter what". The are sworn to the constitution I believe. A scenario where the entire army follows the will of a tyrannical government is absurd.
"But if we changed the Constitution we could make all kinds of crazy things". Given, the tyrant governs by dictation, not law, but I wouldn't say that it's absurd just because they sworn to the Constitution, just improbable.
But if one adopts this particular reading of the Second Amendment for our day and age -- and in the light of jrisprudence it is legitimate to do so -- then such bizarre consequences are inevitable.
Your claims of jurisprudence are a bit one-sided. Dredging up an 1846 case from the Georgia supreme court doesn't do much to set a federal precedence- it would be a Georgian precedent at best, assuming no conflicting cases have since come down the pipe- of which even that much I am skeptical. Look to US v Miller for starters.
t's not fallacious, it's only the result of a literal interpretation. That interpretation only does not imply any arguement by itself. However is easy to see that Adrian used that form to demonstrate certain absurdities wich can be derivated from the 2nd Amendment of the USA Constitution, by only reading it's text in abstracto and pushing it to the last logical consequences.Interpreting 'anything capable of killing someone' to be an 'arm' as protected by the 2A and then further claiming that was the intention of the framers is absurd. Going on to claim that jurisprudence supports this is laughable.
Adrian II
03-14-2007, 13:08
Your claims of jurisprudence are a bit one-sided. Dredging up an 1846 case from the Georgia supreme court doesn't do much to set a federal precedence (..)Why don't you read Massey before you go any further?
Soulforged
03-14-2007, 15:22
Interpreting 'anything capable of killing someone' to be an 'arm' as protected by the 2A and then further claiming that was the intention of the framers is absurd. Going on to claim that jurisprudence supports this is laughable.
To that I'd agree but I didn't see Adrian making that claim. It's more I think that in one of his first posts in this thread he clearly said that the purpose of this Amendment had everything to do with the political and social inestability of the first years of the independence and the need for militias to defend that independence. Those who are pro-guns are usually two things: liberals or literalists. The ones who are liberals use the liberal principles as a source of law, in wich no doubt the Constitution of the USA was based, and this is minimum government intervention, this is legitim, but there's some strong objections that can be presented to this axiological claim. The ones who are literalists say that there's a text, called Second Amendment, wich was written into the Constitution, and wich supposedly gives the right to every people living in the USA to carry a SORT of arms. Now if we push this last interpretation to its limits then what will you have, simple: people are allowed to carry ANY SORT of arms.
Then there's a third position wich, amazingly, is not yet abandoned, and it's the one wich states that such amendment was made to protect the freedoms of american society without the time element, that's in any time, in case there was some kind of opression, wheter it's from their own State or from an alien force. Taking this by it's historical context is legitim, but saying that the same premise conserves the same value in this days is a little bit forced. However if we accept that this interpretation is right, and that's what makes the 2nd Amendement so valid this days as it was centuries ago, then we also have to accept that to protect ourselves from the State we cannot simply use handguns anymore, we need heavier weaponry. I think that this is what Adrian has been saying. And I don't find it absurd as a rethoric to demonstrate a point.
I believe that the liberal position is the best one. The government should have no powers to take certain arms from the people, however when this surpasses certain limits, wich can certainly be defined as the right to self-defense, then the government, asuming a very daily position of protecting society, can and must intervein prohibiting its private ownership, this is done to protect public order and to put the State at it's legitim position: the power wich censurates and controls individual impulses so the society can hold together. There's no need for the word freedom to grow up to epic hights in this context, is simply a matter of liberal freedom, individual freedom.
Adrian II
03-14-2007, 15:29
However if we accept that this interpretation is right, and that's what makes the 2nd Amendement so valid this days as it was centuries ago, then we also have to accept that to protect ourselves from the State we cannot simply use handguns anymore, we need heavier weaponry. I think that this is what Adrian has been saying.Exactly my friend. :bow:
gunslinger
03-14-2007, 16:21
I believe that the liberal position is the best one. The government should have no powers to take certain arms from the people, however when this surpasses certain limits, wich can certainly be defined as the right to self-defense, then the government, asuming a very daily position of protecting society, can and must intervein prohibiting its private ownership, this is done to protect public order and to put the State at it's legitim position: the power wich censurates and controls individual impulses so the society can hold together. There's no need for the word freedom to grow up to epic hights in this context, is simply a matter of liberal freedom, individual freedom.
If I understand you correctly, then you are saying that the people have a right to own arms as long as this doesn't "surpass certain limits." I think we can all agree that things like nuclear weapons and mustard gas surpass those limits. This leaves us open to the debate of where, exactly, to draw the line. In other words, you have brought us full circle in this debate back to the point where we can argue about exactly what types of weapons should be legal and even when and where those weapons can be legally carried.
To put it another way, the 2A is either absolute, or it is not. If you maintain that it is NOT absolute (i.e. suitcase bombs, nuclear subs, and the right to carry an uzi on a commercial aircraft) then you must be prepared for lengthy debates on exactly how it should be limited.
The situation of the U.S. has changed dramatically since the 2A was written, most notably in the technological fields. Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution allowed for flexibility through the use of ammendments. As a person who believes that all able-bodied adults have a moral responsibility to carry a weapon, or otherwise be prepared to defend themselves and their neighbors from harm, I would rather see the 2A ammended, providing reasonable limits to the type of firepower an individual can possess, than go down the slippery slope of simply ignoring or reinterpreting those parts of the Constitution which have become outdated.
We should always interpret the Constitution literally, and if we don't like the result of the literal traslation, we need to ammend it.
Fisherking
03-14-2007, 16:31
In a supposedly free and democratic state, based on individual liberties, wouldn't you suppose that anything too dangerous for the people to own would also be too dangerous for the state to own?
Soulforged
03-14-2007, 17:06
If I understand you correctly, then you are saying that the people have a right to own arms as long as this doesn't "surpass certain limits." I think we can all agree that things like nuclear weapons and mustard gas surpass those limits. This leaves us open to the debate of where, exactly, to draw the line. In other words, you have brought us full circle in this debate back to the point where we can argue about exactly what types of weapons should be legal and even when and where those weapons can be legally carried.Nope. I've stated what should be the criteria to jugde if the weapon has crossed the line or not: personal defense. Many people have done the same during this debate, and I think it's a reasonable limit.
To put it another way, the 2A is either absolute, or it is not. If you maintain that it is NOT absolute (i.e. suitcase bombs, nuclear subs, and the right to carry an uzi on a commercial aircraft) then you must be prepared for lengthy debates on exactly how it should be limited.It's not.
We should always interpret the Constitution literally, and if we don't like the result of the literal traslation, we need to ammend it.
That's your point of view. As far as I know the legal community around the world has a different view. As stated previously, there's much more elements to consider than the letter of text, we've governed by people not letters. Every literal interpretation carries its own flaws by itself, it's too abstract.
In a supposedly free and democratic state, based on individual liberties, wouldn't you suppose that anything too dangerous for the people to own would also be too dangerous for the state to own?Yes, but the people have delegated many rights to the State, one of them is making war, and to make war and avoid casualties you need better weapons. It's the State wich makes war not society, and different from the "People" the State is formed by a centralized bureaucracy, laws, principles and the same Constitution, wich serves more to limit its powers than to take rights from the "People", it's not about what one person wants.
Nope. I've stated what should be the criteria to jugde if the weapon has crossed the line or not: personal defense. Many people have done the same during this debate, and I think it's a reasonable limit.
Very well. I'd argue that I need a Howitzer to defend myself. :grin: And for the record I completely disagree about personal defense. Many people hunt or shoot targets for sport. As someone else pointed out, make it easier for people who want to legally own guns of different kinds, and make it harder on criminals who obtain them illegally and use them in crime.
It's the State wich makes war not society, and different from the "People" the State is formed by a centralized bureaucracy, laws, principles and the same Constitution, wich serves more to limit its powers than to take rights from the "People", it's not about what one person wants.
You must not live here in the US or the UK then. The US government has arguably gone well into the area of "self perpetuation" lately, and done just about everything it can to push the boundaries of what it can legally (and illegally) do to it's citizens and foriegn nationals, and how many more of our rights they can strip away. Witness Guantanamo Bay. Witness the DMCA and Patriot Act. Witness Bush flagrantly ignoring the Constitution, law, and due process with his wiretaps. Personally I think we should impeach him for that as he's clearly broken his vow to "uphold the Constitution and the laws of our nation." More and more when I see and read what the government is doing, it makes me think more seriously about purchasing a gun for self defense. Before anyone knocks me on that, I suggest you take a long hard look at the current state that my (our?) government and nation is in, and go read the Declaration of Independance again. Just some thought.
:bow:
gunslinger
03-14-2007, 20:20
Nope. I've stated what should be the criteria to jugde if the weapon has crossed the line or not: personal defense. Many people have done the same during this debate, and I think it's a reasonable limit.
I agree that self defense is a good starting point. However, as Whacker has pointed out with a somewhat ridiculous example, that still leaves a lot of room for debate. Also, do people have a right to self defense at the mall, in the car, or only in their homes? What about on the pulic sidewalk that runs through their yard?
Earlier in this thread it was stated that the debate here should not be about whether a person needs, or should be allowed, to possess or carry a weapon for self defense. It was stated that those issues had already been hashed out ad naseum in other forums, and that the real issue here was the interpretation of the Second Ammendment. A very heady debate concerning past case law, common law, and 18th century definitions of words such as "arms" and "ordnance" then ensued. People questioned whether colonists were allowed private ownership of cannons. These were all well-formulated arguments and discussions, and relevent to the topic.
Not surprisingly, the debaters seemed to end up at the point where they realized that the 2A did, in fact, protect the rights of citizens to own cannons in the 18th century. The simple logic that follows leads one down the path of insanity to a place where modern Americans should be allowed to own whatever type of ordnance they wish.
Please understand that I'm not suggesting that I want people to be allowed to own tactical nukes. I am suggesting that the 2A would seem to allow it. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Second Ammendment should be ammended. It obviously fails to take into account the effects of modern weaponry.
An ammendment, debated by the U.S. Congress as well as the Congress of every state (or at least 2/3 of them) should bring us a much more satisfying answer to this issue than a handful of activist justices overturning each other every time the adminstration changes.
A new thread, entitiled "How would you ammend the Second Ammendment" would probably be interesting, as long as you ignored all of the bad jokes and fringe extremists from both sides.
Soulforged
03-14-2007, 20:53
I agree that self defense is a good starting point. However, as Whacker has pointed out with a somewhat ridiculous example, that still leaves a lot of room for debate. Also, do people have a right to self defense at the mall, in the car, or only in their homes? What about on the pulic sidewalk that runs through their yard? That's for the courts to determine, I was only speaking in regards to the 2nd Amendment and its rational limits.
You must not live here in the US or the UK then. The US government has arguably gone well into the area of "self perpetuation" lately, and done just about everything it can to push the boundaries of what it can legally (and illegally) do to it's citizens and foriegn nationals, and how many more of our rights they can strip away. Witness Guantanamo Bay. Witness the DMCA and Patriot Act. Witness Bush flagrantly ignoring the Constitution, law, and due process with his wiretaps. Personally I think we should impeach him for that as he's clearly broken his vow to "uphold the Constitution and the laws of our nation." More and more when I see and read what the government is doing, it makes me think more seriously about purchasing a gun for self defense. Before anyone knocks me on that, I suggest you take a long hard look at the current state that my (our?) government and nation is in, and go read the Declaration of Independance again. Just some thought.I'm not saying that the State cannot surpass those limits, I'm only saying that the State has those limits and is more responsable using their instruments than any other individual in particular.
Fisherking
03-15-2007, 09:58
When the Constitution was written it was illegal in several states to practice law for money.
It was supposed to be in language anyone could understand. Also the law was common law and was more concerned with intent and not the letter of the law.
The document was deliberately written to limit government and to keep them out of peoples affairs. It worked fairly well until the 1860s and the erroneous decisions regarding states rights. It also took off when they managed to get the 16th amendment excepted and had a direct tax. You will note there after that the federal government exploded after that and we moved away from common law to admiralty law and began worrying about the letter of the law rather than its intent.
Today you will note that the Army can't be called out for police work or disaster relief because of posy commutates but they can call out the Marines….(the letter of the law and not its intent).
Soulforged
03-15-2007, 15:19
Continuing with the limits of arm ownership (sorry for not doing it earlier but I didn't have time): What about this rule: The following weapons are allowed for any particular individual, adult, without an history of violence, previous convictions, incapacity (if it's dangerous for other people or himself): All non-lethal weapons, lethal melee weapons (?) and lethal ranged weapons with no more than a certain caliber, like let's say .50 (or arrows). Other people who do have an history of violence or previous convictions or are not yet adults could own (or simply posess) all non-lethal weapons. There's no restriction of quantity, all of the previous requisites should be acredited via a sort of identification and weapons can be personalized as long as it doesn't surpass any of the three mentioned categories into the next (non-lethal, melee, ranged up to .50). Perhaps someone who is an expert on the subject can help me here.
Continuing with the limits of arm ownership (sorry for not doing it earlier but I didn't have time): What about this rule: The following weapons are allowed for any particular individual, adult, without an history of violence, previous convictions, incapacity (if it's dangerous for other people or himself): All non-lethal weapons, lethal melee weapons (?) and lethal ranged weapons with no more than a certain caliber, like let's say .50 (or arrows). Other people who do have an history of violence or previous convictions or are not yet adults could own (or simply posess) all non-lethal weapons. There's no restriction of quantity, all of the previous requisites should be acredited via a sort of identification and weapons can be personalized as long as it doesn't surpass any of the three mentioned categories into the next (non-lethal, melee, ranged up to .50). Perhaps someone who is an expert on the subject can help me here.
I don't disagree entirely with your intent, but the problem you run into is discrimination. Why would you disbar someone who say for example, once got in trouble for being in possession of a very small amount of drugs, from owning a weapon? Does that conviction automatically make them any more unfit, that say for example the violent-minded Neonazi who's got a clean record? I'm for some levels of limitation (Howitzers are overkill :grin:), I just don't know how that would be done. This is again why I'm for the most part disinclined and against putting too firm of bounds around the freedoms that are enumerated in our Constitution.
gunslinger
03-15-2007, 17:30
Continuing with the limits of arm ownership (sorry for not doing it earlier but I didn't have time): What about this rule: The following weapons are allowed for any particular individual, adult, without an history of violence, previous convictions, incapacity (if it's dangerous for other people or himself): All non-lethal weapons, lethal melee weapons (?) and lethal ranged weapons with no more than a certain caliber, like let's say .50 (or arrows). Other people who do have an history of violence or previous convictions or are not yet adults could own (or simply posess) all non-lethal weapons. There's no restriction of quantity, all of the previous requisites should be acredited via a sort of identification and weapons can be personalized as long as it doesn't surpass any of the three mentioned categories into the next (non-lethal, melee, ranged up to .50). Perhaps someone who is an expert on the subject can help me here.
Actually, that is the kind of thing that has been going on in Congress and the Courts for years. There is actually a big push on right now to outlaw the .50 cal. weapons because they are the most effective sniper rifles to date. This, of course, wouldn't affect black powder muzzle-loading rifles in which .50 cal. is actually a fairly small round. A 12 gauge shotgun slug is .72 cal. As you can see, this gets very complicated. A line needs to be drawn in the sand, but no one agrees on where to draw it. We end up with laws like the ridiculous assault weapon ban which was allowed to expire during the Bush administration. Under that law, a semiautomatic version of an M-16 rifle was perfectly legal. Unless it had a bayonet lug. That's right, a small chunk of metal welded on near the end of the barrel to allow a military bayonet to be affixed would make the weapon illegal. How many crimes have been commited with fixed bayonets in the last 100 years?
Soulforged
03-16-2007, 13:26
I don't disagree entirely with your intent, but the problem you run into is discrimination. Why would you disbar someone who say for example, once got in trouble for being in possession of a very small amount of drugs, from owning a weapon? Does that conviction automatically make them any more unfit, that say for example the violent-minded Neonazi who's got a clean record? I'm for some levels of limitation (Howitzers are overkill :grin:), I just don't know how that would be done. This is again why I'm for the most part disinclined and against putting too firm of bounds around the freedoms that are enumerated in our Constitution.Ok, I forgot to add "for violent crimes", that would be "convictions for violent crimes". I don't really know why this is so difficult in theory, just set a limit, draw a virtual line based on objective parameters that exist and all is solved. I mean, we're not talking here about "love" or "prettiness" but the sizes and power of weapons, they're all perfectly determined...
Actually, that is the kind of thing that has been going on in Congress and the Courts for years. There is actually a big push on right now to outlaw the .50 cal. weapons because they are the most effective sniper rifles to date. This, of course, wouldn't affect black powder muzzle-loading rifles in which .50 cal. is actually a fairly small round. A 12 gauge shotgun slug is .72 cal. As you can see, this gets very complicated. A line needs to be drawn in the sand, but no one agrees on where to draw it. We end up with laws like the ridiculous assault weapon ban which was allowed to expire during the Bush administration. Under that law, a semiautomatic version of an M-16 rifle was perfectly legal. Unless it had a bayonet lug. That's right, a small chunk of metal welded on near the end of the barrel to allow a military bayonet to be affixed would make the weapon illegal. How many crimes have been commited with fixed bayonets in the last 100 years?I still don't see the complication, it might be on the power struggle inside Congress, but on plain terms it's pretty simple. If we accept that by principle a person is responsable and he can use a gun without damaging anyone else (unless it's on self defense or defense of others) or destroying things, then I think that a simple number as limit will do the work. Even more it will end with illegal trade and arms traffic.
Kralizec
03-16-2007, 14:38
There's some quote from a Japanese admiral to that effect I believe.
Paraphrased: An invasion is impossible. There will be a gun behind every blade of grass.
A good example, in action, is Iraq. I'm surprised it's never brought up to support the pro-gun cause. ~:confused:
/sarcasm
The invasion bit, or the gov'ment-turned-despotic argument, is entirely anachronistic. Invasions are out since MAD kicked in, and the chances of Hillary/Obama installing a military junta? Now there's a hypothetical scenario that won't happen till hell freezes over.
Self-defense is still valid, and I do support private gun-ownership excluding automatic weapons (admittedly, I used to think differently for a long time). Especially in America where distances are generally larger, and therefore the police response-time generall longer. There should, IMO, be severe penalties if a crime is committed or an accident happens with your weapon unless you can prove that you couldn't have (reasonably) prevented it. Personal responsibility and all.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.