Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

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:

Quote:

---

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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That's what I said.

---

In that case, good luck with getting it changed. :beam:
I'm happy with the current reading....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

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!

Quote:

---

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.......

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

hmm

---

Jefferson'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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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/...rlestonkx9.jpg

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

People die in civil wars. Remember Charleston?

https://img118.imageshack.us/img118/...rlestonkx9.jpg

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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...

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunslinger

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunslinger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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.

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunsingler

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.