Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[RetiredGySgt]

Fully automatic weapons were restricted and in some cases outlawed BECAUSE of rampant misuse in the 20's and 30's with the Tommy gun. The Thompson Submachine gun was a scourge in the 30's, FORCING the Government to restrict it and control it.

The 2nd amendment is not absolute, no right is. The Government has a duty and responsibility to protect the people. Fully automatic weapons proved to be to dangerous unrestricted to the people..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Loki I think you've just redone the bazooka argument. On your reasoning there should be no restriction on any citizen getting what they want. Should Bill Gates be able to build his own MS Army equipped with whatever weaponry he chooses to purchase and issue?

(Given the way Vista's going he may just want to do that )

No, militias are the sole right of the States not private citizens. But every individual has a protected right to own and possess firearms.

Reasonable people understand the need to restrict that right to personal firearms and not to include crew served weapons. Nor bazookas or rocket launchers or grenade launchers. Machine Guns are rightfully restricted as well.

There is very little chance the Supreme Court will , any time in the near future, consider a personal right to own such weapons. And a decision upholding the individual right to firearms will not result in those weapons suddenly being legal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fair enough.

So...
If the police need automatic weapons to protect us from X, we need automatic weapons to protect ourselves from X.

 

[Bern80]

Does the phrase "form follows function" mean anything to you?

You probably know it's an architectural saying but it's appropriate here.

Kalashnikov identified a necessary function for his famous weapon. He designed it to meet that function. The primary purpose is represented in the design. Kalashnikov probably didn't care that his weapon could be used for hammering in tent pegs, its purpose was to kill people.

You're confusing purpose with use, they're not the same. The purpose of a Kalashnikov is to kill people. It can be used to hammer in tent pegs, it can be used to belt people in the face with, it can be used to spray bullets at an old car body on a range. Its purpose isn't changed by temporary usage. Its purpose is in the mind of the designer, its purpose is to kill people. It can't be treated as a rather interesting hammer, even though it can be used as one, when it's plainly designed to kill people.

A hammer can be used to hammer in tent pegs. A hammer can be used to kill someone. Its primary purpose is to apply a lot of force over a small area and therefore to magnify the force being applied. The user decides if it's a tent peg or a human head that it's used on. But its primary purpose is not to kill people. So, it needn't be seen in the same light as an instrument whose primary purpose is to kill people.

So, again, purpose is not use. Purpose is the primary reason for design and construction. If Kalashnikov wrote a manual for his weapon I'd be surprised if he included a section on how to bash tent pegs into the ground.

You're still not getting it. A PERSON DETERMINES PURPOSE. I think you are the one confusing purpose and use. Killing people is primarily what automatics were used for. That very well may be the purpose Kalishnekov had in mind. But you can't even say that with any real accuracy.

The point is a person determines what somethings purpose is. Kalishnekov determined what the purpose of the automatic would be (and I highly doubt if asked, his answer would be 'to kill people'). That means if I had one I would determine it's purpose. Wouldn't you agree? And that being the case what possible relevance does it's 'primary purpose' - as you like to call it, have in determining whether I should be allowed one?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The point is a person determines what somethings purpose is. Kalishnekov determined what the purpose of the automatic would be (and I highly doubt if asked, his answer would be 'to kill people').

You'd be right. Assault rifles are designed to wound, taking three men out of the battle, rather tahn just one, should he die.

That said, the right to arms is -all- about killing people. Seems to me that if that's the case, weapons intended to kill people are exactly those we have a right to.

No one questions the right to own a sword -- and what purpose does a sword have, if not to kill people?

 

[Paulie]

Bern - a fully automatic weapon has as its primary purpose the killing of human beings. It's not meant for recreational purposes. It can be used for the secondary purpose of recreation such as blasting the crap out of an old car body on a range. But the fact that it can be used for recreational purposes doesn't negate the primary purpose. Do you agree or not? If not, why not?

The purpose of all guns was to kill human beings. A gun is a weapon.

I can kill you just as easily with a six shot revolver as I can with an M60 machine gun.

I mean, seriously, how do you make that differentiation? A gun is a damn gun. They got more sophisticated, with more fireable rounds, as the times necessitated bigger and better guns.

You only see a difference in how many people can be killed. I could load up with kevlar, take a couple pistols out to Times Square, and kill just as many people as a dude with just an AK. Where you would be justifying my ownership of said pistols, and arguing against the AK, the same amount of people were killed. Why is that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You'd be right. Assault rifles are designed to wound, taking three men out of the battle, rather tahn just one, should he die.

That said, the right to arms is -all- about killing people. Seems to me that if that's the case, weapons intended to kill people are exactly those we have a right to.

No one questions the right to own a sword -- and what purpose does a sword have, if not to kill people?

Actually swords are illegal in some places. Same with knives over a certain length. As are crossbows. Ornamental swords are ok but functional swords are barred in cities and States depending on the local laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually swords are illegal in some places.

Woe to those people, living in such a silly place.

 

[manifold]

The purpose of all guns was to kill human beings. A gun is a weapon.

I can kill you just as easily with a six shot revolver as I can with an M60 machine gun.

I mean, seriously, how do you make that differentiation? A gun is a damn gun. They got more sophisticated, with more fireable rounds, as the times necessitated bigger and better guns.

You only see a difference in how many people can be killed. I could load up with kevlar, take a couple pistols out to Times Square, and kill just as many people as a dude with just an AK. Where you would be justifying my ownership of said pistols, and arguing against the AK, the same amount of people were killed. Why is that?

I agree, but still...

The line has to be drawn somewhere right? If not, then logically individuals would retain the right to own tanks, battleships and nukes too.

So where do you draw the line, if at all?

 

[Paulie]

I agree, but still...

The line has to be drawn somewhere right? If not, then logically individuals would retain the right to own tanks, battleships and nukes too.

So where do you draw the line, if at all?

I'm only talking about personal firearms. I believe one can own a tank though, no? I mean, one can own a "battleship" too, if they can afford it. I'm sure some of those super-yachts that wealthy people own are equipped with some kind of firepower.

I know I'd personally be equipping mine with firearm defense. I know that's not a typical battleship per se, but you know what I mean.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree, but still...
The line has to be drawn somewhere right? If not, then logically individuals would retain the right to own tanks, battleships and nukes too.
So where do you draw the line, if at all?

The Supreme Court has created a test to this effect.
It covers any firearm you care to mention; it does not cover nukes or other such weapons.

 

[Bern80]

The purpose of all guns was to kill human beings. A gun is a weapon.

Again this just so silly a statement. It's simply wrong on the face of it, because many are simply rather ineffecient for killing people. Spefically shotguns, which have extremely short effective ranges. And again on top of that a person decided the purpose and many cases that purpose was predominantly for killing people. The basic argument being made is that automatics should be banned because their purpose is killing, which is a statement that just plain defies logic.

However if you I don't use a an automatic for killing people then as far as I am concerned (I being the person decideing what it's purpose) the purpose of it is no longer killing people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree, but still...

The line has to be drawn somewhere right? If not, then logically individuals would retain the right to own tanks, battleships and nukes too.

So where do you draw the line, if at all?

Fully automatic weapons were restricted because of an epidemic of violence in the 20's and 30's with them. Gang wars, robberies and murder ALL across the country. And lo and behold the restrictions worked. Within a few years automatic weapons virtually disappeared from the crime scene.

The same can not be said of pistols or other firearms.

The 2nd Amendment is not a blanket right to own any and all weapons. Just as the 1st Amendment has limits on speech and religion and the right to assemble.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fully automatic weapons were restricted because of an epidemic of violence in the 20's and 30's with them. Gang wars, robberies and murder ALL across the country. And lo and behold the restrictions worked. Within a few years automatic weapons virtually disappeared from the crime scene.

And yet, they are still available to anyone that can legally own a gun and can afford one.

The 2nd Amendment is not a blanket right to own any and all weapons. Just as the 1st Amendment has limits on speech and religion and the right to assemble.

That may be true, but given the defintion of "arms" it is impossible to argue that an AR15 (et al) is protected by the 2nd while an M16 (et al) is not.

 

[Paulie]

Again this just so silly a statement. It's simply wrong on the face of it, because many are simply rather ineffecient for killing people. Spefically shotguns, which have extremely short effective ranges. And again on top of that a person decided the purpose and many cases that purpose was predominantly for killing people. The basic argument being made is that automatics should be banned because their purpose is killing, which is a statement that just plain defies logic.

However if you I don't use a an automatic for killing people then as far as I am concerned (I being the person decideing what it's purpose) the purpose of it is no longer killing people.

Bern, I'm a proponent of the 2nd, just so you know.

A shotgun is pretty effective at killing moving targets such as birds and skeet, and also many land animals. I've used them for years for those purposes. I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't consider them efficient at killing things, including a human being.

When muskets and muzzle loaders were the gun of the day, their primary purpose was to kill people. That's why guns were invented. People realized that hurling something with a bit of weight at someone with a really fast velocity would injure or kill them. This goes back to the beginning of time, so to speak.

I realize that ech individual has their OWN purpose for using a specific firearm, but the intended purpose when they were invented and improved throughout history was for taking the life of something, or deterring an enemy due to it's ability to take that enemy's life.

This still doesn't change my view on the 2nd though. 2 of my main cliche's if you will, are "guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people"...and "Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have them".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet, they are still available to anyone that can legally own a gun and can afford one.


That may be true, but given the defintion of "arms" it is impossible to argue that an AR15 (et al) is protected by the 2nd while an M16 (et al) is not.

Not hard at all. Just like it is not hard to say that a person talking about a fire in a theater is not breaking a law, BUT one shouting into the theater "FIRE" is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not hard at all.

Well then, explain how the AR15 passes the "arms" test in US v Miller, where an M16 does not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well then, explain how the AR15 passes the "arms" test in US v Miller, where an M16 does not.

You are aware M16's are not fully automatic right? They have a burst setting but unless it has changed since 1995 the M16 is not capable of full auto fire with out a seer being changed in it.

US v Miller is not the end all be all of acceptable restrictions on firearms. In fact the matter of fully automatic NEVER came up in the case.

That case won't provide you the standing you think you have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are aware M16's are not fully automatic

M16A2 are not automatic in the sense that you cannot dump the mag with a single trigger pull.
However, their predecessors are, as are several of their derivatives.
And in any case, legally, 3RB is automatic.

US v Miller is not the end all be all of acceptable restrictions on firearms. In fact the matter of fully automatic NEVER came up in the case.

You aren't answering my question.

And, for my POV, see by blog.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

M16A2 are not. Their predecessors are, as are several of their derivatives.
And in any case, legally, 3RB is automatic.


You aren't answering my question.

And, for my POV, see by blog.

I don't need to, the case you cite has nothing to do with whether the Government can legally restrict fully automatic weapons. In fact when the ruling was made restrictions on fully automatic weapons had been in effect for years.

Further all the ruling does is lay a base line to start from. It does not place a restriction on legal and prudent restrictions. Those questions never came up. Your case is useless as a means to claim fully automatic weapons are protected automatically.

One could use it as a precursor to try and challenge the law, but the case does not do anything but provide a base line to try and argue.