Gun Control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Legal presendence has standing do to the fact tha we are a nation of laws.

---

That doesn't mean it's right: Kelo vs New London is also law.

Quote:

---

As shown that is incorrect - the drafters did indeed place restrictions on weapon ownership.

---

On merchant ships,not on private ownership at your home.

Quote:

---

Once again I did not state need - your reaching. Are you assuming that citizens in the military who are citizens just as you are will defend a tryanny?

---

I am not assuming that - I want to be prepared if they do.

Quote:

---

Again reaching for an arguement I did not make. If you continue this course then I will have to assume you have no farther arguement to present.

Nowhere have I stated that one should not fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms. What I have stated is that the founding fathers intent was toward personal arms - not every weapon in the current military structure.

---

You also seem to define machine guns like the SAW as not being personal arms- you are restricting the meaning of the amendment.

Quote:

---

Again taking a position I have not taken is a "strawman" arguement. Again I reject the "doomsday" arguement you have presented as justifing owning tanks, nuclear weapons, and all other non-personal weapons. The 2nd Amendment itself is not being rejected nor argued against. Its the interpation that it means all weapons versus personal arms. Can you adequately demonstrated a popular rebellion not being successful when the people decided to overthrow a tryannical government.

---

I am not trying to justify ownership of nuclear weapons.
Oh, I'd use Hungary in 1956 as an example. A few anti-tank weapons might have helped there.

And arms can be taken as more than just personal weapons, assuming that since the amendment does not mention ordance it does not include anything beyond personal rifles seems foolish to me. There are quotes and evidence from the day that arms meant "all the terrible implements of the soldier". If the amendment was to prepare a citizen's militia against foreign invasion or oppose a tyrannical government, then it would make sense for arms to include all arms of war. You think that arms beyond a rifle are not needed; how does this affect the meaning of the amendment?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That doesn't mean it's right: Kelo vs New London is also law.

---

And until it its overturn it remains a valid interpation of the law. Wether we like it or not.

Quote:

---

On merchant ships,not on private ownership at your home.

---

Private ownership is private ownership wether it be your home, your person, or any other property. You can not discount the restriction was placed.

Quote:

---

I am not assuming that - I want to be prepared if they do.

---

Personal arms will insure your ability to defend yourself.

Quote:

---

You also seem to define machine guns like the SAW as not being personal arms- you are restricting the meaning of the amendment.

---

THe SAW is not a personal arm that is exactly what I stated. Several Laws passed by congress and upheld in the courts via Miller, agree with that postion.

Quote:

---

I am not trying to justify ownership of nuclear weapons.
Oh, I'd use Hungary in 1956 as an example. A few anti-tank weapons might have helped there.

---

Might and might not have.

Quote:

---

And arms can be taken as more than just personal weapons, assuming that since the amendment does not mention ordance it does not include anything beyond personal rifles seems foolish to me. There are quotes and evidence from the day that arms meant "all the terrible implements of the soldier". If the amendment was to prepare a citizen's militia against foreign invasion or oppose a tyrannical government, then it would make sense for arms to include all arms of war. You think that arms beyond a rifle are not needed; how does this affect the meaning of the amendment?

Crazed Rabbit

---

It does not affect the meaning of the amendment. You have the right to arm yourself within the definitions provided by the constitution and the law. The interpation I use happens to concide with the current laws that we have in this nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And until it its overturn it remains a valid interpation of the law. Wether we like it or not.

---

That does not make it right, and it cannot be used as proof that a law is just or in accordance with the constitution.

Quote:

---

Private ownership is private ownership wether it be your home, your person, or any other property. You can not discount the restriction was placed.

---

And one cannot discount that they were only regulated under specific circumstances. Considering your interpretation of how the bill of rights allows government regulation even on guns protected by the amendment, such a restriction would not preclude cannon from being a protected arm.

Quote:

---

THe SAW is not a personal arm that is exactly what I stated. Several Laws passed by congress and upheld in the courts via Miller, agree with that postion.

---

Miller upheld laws against sawed off shotguns solely because they were thought (wrongly) by the SCOTUS to have no military application - which SAWs obviously due. The passing of laws does not mean the laws are constitutional, even if upheld by the courts. The constitution does not change because of laws being passed. They are passed by failible men.

Quote:

---

Might and might not have.

---

As I aid before- better to prepare for the worst.

Quote:

---

It does not affect the meaning of the amendment. You have the right to arm yourself within the definitions provided by the constitution and the law. The interpation I use happens to concide with the current laws that we have in this nation.

---

Where in the constitution are arms defined solely as personal weapons? The amendment says arms - not personal arms. The current laws do not define the constitution - then we would have to accept the first amendment not covering political speech.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That does not make it right, and it cannot be used as proof that a law is just or in accordance with the constitution.

---

I never stated that its just, just that it has been found not to be in violation of the constitution.

Quote:

---

And one cannot discount that they were only regulated under specific circumstances. Considering your interpretation of how the bill of rights allows government regulation even on guns protected by the amendment, such a restriction would not preclude cannon from being a protected arm.

---

Your arguement was that the founding fathers did not place any restriction on arms. The merchant arms restriction shows that arguement to be false.

Quote:

---

Miller upheld laws against sawed off shotguns solely because they were thought (wrongly) by the SCOTUS to have no military application - which SAWs obviously due. The passing of laws does not mean the laws are constitutional, even if upheld by the courts. The constitution does not change because of laws being passed. They are passed by failible men.

---

Your arguing a bad postion for a nation that is based upon law.

Quote:

---

As I aid before- better to prepare for the worst.

---

Fair enough - I don't react to negatives only as a justification of a postion.

Quote:

---

Where in the constitution are arms defined solely as personal weapons? The amendment says arms - not personal arms. The current laws do not define the constitution - then we would have to accept the first amendment not covering political speech.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Again the arguement is of intent of the amendment. The wording is vague enough to allow several interpations based upon people's will toward the subject. Notice how I have not called your postion incorrect because it happens to fall in line with the Anti-Federalist cause of the drafters of the constitution. My postion falls in line with the Federalist cause of the drafters of the constitution. Attempts to discount the history and the presedence of law does not make for a sound arguement to support the postion that the amendment means all weapons.

Both the founding fathers had emplaced restrictions upon arms ownership as shown by the laws regarding merchant shipping being armed, and the laws this nations have passed since our inception as a nation.

Yes, but equiping your Population with Mitilarty Weapons, like SAW's and Anti Tank guns, Hand Grenades and Claymores, it's not going to look pretty when they get 101% of the Federal Goverment and ends up leading a rebellion


10 pages so far... Boy, I know how to make good Debates :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

Yes, but equiping your Population with Mitilarty Weapons, like SAW's and Anti Tank guns, Hand Grenades and Claymores, it's not going to look pretty when they get 101% of the Federal Goverment and ends up leading a rebellion


10 pages so far... Boy, I know how to make good Debates :) :)

---

Who exactly said SAW's, Anti tank guns, Hand Grenades, or Claymores?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

10 pages so far... Boy, I know how to make good Debates :) :)

---

Do you know how to end it properly, too?

I mean, I hate to disappoint you - but if you start a thread about gun control, abortion or a couple of other subjects here, you can pretty much go and trek through the Himalayas on donkey-back for three months and it will still be running by the time you come back. :dizzy2:

I find it kind of amusing that this thread has pretty much given up on the "should citizens have guns" line of arguments, and progressed to "should citizens be allowed tanks/RPGs/mortars/SAWs/nukes". Probably shows just how much gun control has become a third rail of US politics. ~D

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg
Legal presendence has standing do to the fact tha we are a nation of laws.

---

And you can only find on incident of arms regualtion and it doesnt aspply to a citizen but a ship as has been mentioned. The same cannon that was ilegal on a ship was perfectly legal for a citizen to own. On top of that the law was strickin down.

Quote:

---

Your arguement was that the founding fathers did not place any restriction on arms. The merchant arms restriction shows that arguement to be false

---

You mean irrelevant. It neither applies to citizens of the US nor anyone in the US only to ships in US harbors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Who exactly said SAW's, Anti tank guns, Hand Grenades, or Claymores?

---

Read pages 7-10, and you will See every about them. Not going to quote each comment Vuk..

[QUOTE=Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote:

---

And you can only find on incident of arms regualtion and it doesnt aspply to a citizen but a ship as has been mentioned. The same cannon that was ilegal on a ship was perfectly legal for a citizen to own. On top of that the law was strickin down.

---

One is all it takes to prove that the founding fathers had different ideas concerning the 2nd Amendment and regulations then what some are willing to state that they did. The ship is a private enterprise, private property of a citizen of the United States and initially citizens were not allowed to arm their merchant ships. Was it struck down - sure it was, but your question was for me to demonstrate an instance where the founding fathers restricted arms ownership. That point has been shown.

Quote:

---

You mean irrelevant. It neither applies to citizens of the US nor anyone in the US only to ships in US harbors

---

Minus points for resorting to such attempt. Merchant ships owned by United States citizens are still part of the protections of the United States Constitution.

Also the law applied to all civilian ships regardless of what flag it flew.

Quote:

---

One is all it takes to prove that the founding fathers had different ideas concerning the 2nd Amendment

---

They had different ideas about almost everything. I dont think any of them thought to use the 2nd amendment however to supress the peoples right to bear arms. Thats the same mistake people make about the first. It certainly was never meant to limit the peoples freedom of religous expression. Once more the bill of rights is to protect the rights of the people and limit the power of the government. Not the otherway around as you read it.

Quote:

---

The ship is a private enterprise, private property of a citizen of the United States and initially citizens were not allowed to arm their merchant ships

---

But they were allowed to own cannon and they could own ships with guns they just couldnt enter US ports with them.

Quote:

---

Minus points for resorting to such attempt. Merchant ships owned by United States citizens are still part of the protections of the United States Constitution

---

There you go. Taking away a right is what you call protection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

They had different ideas about almost everything. I dont think any of them thought to use the 2nd amendment however to supress the peoples right to bear arms. Thats the same mistake people make about the first. It certainly was never meant to limit the peoples freedom of religous expression. Once more the bill of rights is to protect the rights of the people and limit the power of the government. Not the otherway around as you read it.

---

The 2nd Amendment is not being used to supress the people's right to keep and bear arms. When one takes that approach in thier arguement, then forget what the debate was from the very beginning of the constitution and the debates around the amendment itself.

Quote:

---

But they were allowed to own cannon and they could own ships with guns they just couldnt enter US ports with them.

---

You should re-read the quote. Existing laws prohibited the docking or departure of any armed civilian vessel from American ports, which had the dual effect of protecting the harbors for enemy powers and denying protection to domestic ships on the high seas.

Quote:

---

There you go. Taking away a right is what you call protection?

---

Again demonstrate to me where the constitution prevents the government from regulating weapons? The militia clauses allow for just that, to include the wording of the second amendment. Legislative law and judicial review continues to support that postion. Now if I was arguing that one must give up their handguns - you could make that accussation on my position. If I was arguing that you must give up your rifles - you can make that accusation. If I stated you must give up all your personal arms - you can make that accusation. But since I have never claimed such a postion your statement here is false.

So because my interpation is that the 2nd Amendment means personal arms - you seem to translate that into a taking away of a right. Very weak Giawan

Quote:

---

The 2nd Amendment is not being used to supress the people's right to keep and bear arms. When one takes that approach in thier arguement, then forget what the debate was from the very beginning of the constitution and the debates around the amendment itself.

---

Maybe you can show me a quote from one in which he esposes that the 2nd amendment means the government can control what weapons you can own. Once more is the bill of rights there to protect the rights of the people or give power to the government? By your reasoning its the latter.

Quote:

---

You should re-read the quote. Existing laws prohibited the docking or departure of any armed civilian vessel from American ports, which had the dual effect of protecting the harbors for enemy powers and denying protection to domestic ships on the high seas.

---

Thats what I said. If you had your own dock you could have an armed vessel however, And again this law was quickly changed. It seems to be unconstitutional anyway and violates the 2nd amendment if we are to extend it to our waters.

Quote:

---

Again demonstrate to me where the constitution prevents the government from regulating weapons

---

I didnt say it did. However your argument that this is found in the 2nd amendment is spurious at best. Once more the bill of rights doesnt empower the governent.

That the government is charged with arming the militia doesnt mean they cant arm themselves. Im sure in the war of 1812 anyone who showed up with a cannon was more than welcome and the bigger the cannon the better. Arent soldiers still allowed to carry personal weapons?

Quote:

---

So because my interpation is that the 2nd Amendment means personal arms - you seem to translate that into a taking away of a right. Very weak Giawan

---

Since there is no mention of it being limited to personal arms and in those days you could own any weapon available I dont see how you have a leg to stand on.

Gun Control is a noble cause, but honestly it has one giant flaw: If one bans guns, then more people will be killed with knives, crossbows, and other non-firearm weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

Gun Control is a noble cause, but honestly it has one giant flaw: If one bans guns, then more people will be killed with knives, crossbows, and other non-firearm weapons.

---

Not to mention that militaries will never get rid of their guns, and criminals will always have them available. Gun control will only dis-arm legal, law abiding citizens who will now not be able to defend themselves from criminals. The criminals will ALWAYS get guns! Guns are something you will never be able to wipe out, and making them illegal just restricts law abiding citizens right to safety and self defense - their most basic and inherent right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Not to mention that militaries will never get rid of their guns, and criminals will always have them available. Gun control will only dis-arm legal, law abiding citizens who will now not be able to defend themselves from criminals. The criminals will ALWAYS get guns! Guns are something you will never be able to wipe out, and making them illegal just restricts law abiding citizens right to safety and self defense - their most basic and inherent right.

---

While I agree with your sentiments, Vuk, honesty compels me to note that gun control can reduce the number of deaths resulting from violence.

It is far easier, psychologically, to pull a trigger than it is to get up close and personal to shiv someone. Moreover, since it requires very little physical strength, it is a form of lethal violence that can be equally practiced by all. So guns, particularly handguns, probably do increase the number of fatalities -- even if the incidence of violence would be the same (and I agre it would).

Gun control, by reducing the "ease" of lethal violence, would likely result in a decrease in the number of fatalities. What impact the absence of guns would have on self defense, how much it would convert the existing incidences of violence into an exercise of tyranny by the physically stronger, would be hard to estimate.

To be effective, gun control would have to involve the confiscation of any and all firearms down to and including "non-firing" collectibles. Only a sweeping and draconian effort by the government to actively remove all guns from the hands of any but the military could hope to make guns such a rarity that their use -- even by criminals -- was "unthinkable."

Needless to say, individual rights would go by the board in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

While I agree with your sentiments, Vuk, honesty compels me to note that gun control can reduce the number of deaths resulting from violence.

It is far easier, psychologically, to pull a trigger than it is to get up close and personal to shiv someone. Moreover, since it requires very little physical strength, it is a form of lethal violence that can be equally practiced by all. So guns, particularly handguns, probably do increase the number of fatalities -- even if the incidence of violence would be the same (and I agre it would).

Gun control, by reducing the "ease" of lethal violence, would likely result in a decrease in the number of fatalities. What impact the absence of guns would have on self defense, how much it would convert the existing incidences of violence into an exercise of tyranny by the physically stronger, would be hard to estimate.

To be effective, gun control would have to involve the confiscation of any and all firearms down to and including "non-firing" collectibles. Only a sweeping and draconian effort by the government to actively remove all guns from the hands of any but the military could hope to make guns such a rarity that their use -- even by criminals -- was "unthinkable."

Needless to say, individual rights would go by the board in the process.

---

Firstly, You would never get all guns, criminals will always get guns.
Secondly, since criminals have guns, they will be using them on innocents. Letting citizens carry guns may highten the body count of criminals for a while, but it would lower the body count of innocents. Crime would so drematically decrease though, that the body count would lower by a lot in the long run.

Seamus- there's been a study done on convicted prisoners who said if they couldn't get a handgun, they'd use a sawed off shotgun - which would lead to more deaths, due to the increased damage a sawed off shotgun does at close range.

Quote:

---

Probably shows just how much gun control has become a third rail of US politics.

---

Ted Kennedy is still trying to ban all rifle ammunition, including the vernable .30-30.

Crazed Rabbit

Hey, don't mistake me. I'm in favor of gun ownership etc.


My only point was that removing virtually all guns would probably reduce the percentage of fatalities in episodes of violence.

To remove virtually all guns would require a concerted effort by government to physically confiscate them. This is impractical, of course -- Read Waco/Ruby Ridge multiplied by several orders of magnitude, possibly followed by a revolution.

Moreover, if virtually all guns were removed from the equation, I am not sure that it would decrease per capita incidents of violence -- I suspect the exact opposite.

Taking away guns won't help.. People will still get it from the Black Market. I don't think it will be good if someone who got a gun from the BM (Black Market) is trying to shoot you, while you trying to kill him with Mr.Metal Baseball bat :-/

If peoplecan't get them from the BM, they will just use Baseball bats, knives, crossbows, etc..., and what you going to do then, Banned Kitchen and Steak Knives?? :-/