Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[M14 Shooter]

I don't need to, the case you cite has nothing to do with whether the Government can legally restrict fully automatic weapons

It determines what weapons are protected by the 2nd, by creating a test to see what weapons qualify as 'arms'.
How does the AR15 pass that test, where the M16 does not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It determines what weapons are protected by the 2nd, by creating a test to see what weapons qualify as 'arms'.
How does the AR15 pass that test, where the M16 does not?

It does not address fully automatic weapons, no matter how much you wish it did.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It does not address fully automatic weapons, no matter how much you wish it did.

Just so we're clear:
You are dodging, rather than answering, my question.

Miller specifically states that, to qualify as an "arm" as the term is used in the 2nd, a weapon must be "...any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"

Now, how does that mean AR15s but not M16s qualify as "arms"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just so we're clear:
You are dodging, rather than answering, my question.

Miller specifically states that, to qualify as an "arm" as the term is used in the 2nd, a weapon must be "...any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"

Now, how does that mean AR15s but not M16s qualify as "arms"?

That is not then nor now the ONLY test. The case did not establish an exhastive list of what qualified, it simply addressed WHY the particular weapon in question did NOT.

Again for the slow it is just ONE test. And it does not address whether the Government can limit past that test. That would be why there were not then cases in 1940 and on trying to use Miller to legalize fully automatic weapons.

I suggest you find a lawyer to explain to you why you can not use Miller to claim a proof of legal right to own fully automatic weapons.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Come sit with me in a duck blind and tell me how effective they are, lol.

I think of it in relative terms. Compared to a gun that fires a bullet a shotgun is pretty innefficient for killing humans. Unless it's a slug of course, if someone shot at you from 100 yards away with a shotgun, you would most likely live through it with little permanent damage.

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.

And that being the case (me haveing my own purpose), what relevance does some orignal intended purpose have to do with whether or not I should be allowed to have one?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not then nor now the ONLY test.

Please cite any other test created by the SCotUS regarding the definition of arms.

The case did not establish an exhastive list of what qualified, it simply addressed WHY the particular weapon in question did NOT.

It, quite clearly, decribes the conditions necessary for a weapon to qualify as an "arm" as the term is used in the 2nd.

I suggest you find a lawyer to explain to you...

I suggest you actually answer my question, or admit that you cannot:

How does an AR15 meet the conditions necessary to qualify as an "arm" under the 2nd whereas an M16 does not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please cite any other test created by the SCotUS regarding the definition of arms.


It, quite clearly, decribes the conditions necessary for a weapon to qualify as an "arm" as the term is used in the 2nd.


I suggest you actually answer my question, or admit that you cannot:

How does an AR15 meet the conditions necessary to qualify as an "arm" under the 2nd whereas an M16 does not?

Already answered, just because you do not like it does not change the fact I answered it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Already answered, just because you do not like it does not change the fact I answered it.

So, you cannot support your position.
Noted. Carry on.

 

[Diuretic]

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

No, it doesn't follow.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it doesn't follow.

Why not?
There is a threat facing the people.
Security from the threat requires automatic weapons.
For the people to be secure, they need automatic weapons.

 

[Diuretic]

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?

It's a mistake to treat all firearms as one single item. That's the problem the rabidly anti-gun lobby has and why they're seen as being unable to properly debate gun control issues. I've seen the same thing here, where people didn't understand the difference between a semi-auto rifle and a bolt-action repeater. It's not possible to discuss the finer points of gun control legislation with people who can't differentiate between the different types of firearm.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

For the reasons I've continually cited, you're wrong in that second assertion about use. As I have said, a fully automatic firearm is designed to kill people, it has no secondary associated purpose. I cited the example of a hammer. If you use the hammer to kill someone it doesn't therefore mean that all hammers are meant to kill people, your misuse doesn't change the purpose of the item.

 

[Diuretic]

Why not?
There is a threat facing the people.
Security from the threat requires automatic weapons.
For the people to be secure, they need automatic weapons.

Why are some police given automatic weapons?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why are some police given automatic weapons?

Because the people face a threat that require automatic weapons to secure them from same.

If the police need autos to protect the people, then the people need autos to protect themseves.

 

[Diuretic]

Because the people face a threat that require automatic weapons to secure them from same.

If the police need autos to protect the people, then the people need autos to protect themseves.

What sort of threat requires police to be armed with automatic weapons?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What sort of threat requires police to be armed with automatic weapons?

Beats me.
Whatever it is, it threatens the people.
And as such, the people need them to protect themselves.

 

[Diuretic]

Beats me.
Whatever it is, it threatens the people.
And as such, the people need them to protect themselves.

Okay I'll help you out. Why did the originally unarmed New York City Police Department decide to arm its officers?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay I'll help you out. Why did the originally unarmed New York City Police Department decide to arm its officers?

Not sure how the answer results in anything other than "it means the people need them too".

If there is a threat to the people, then the people need access to the means necessary to defend themselves from that threat. If the police determine that to protect the people from the threat, they need a certain weapon, then clearly the threat rises to the level where the people need the same weapons to protect themselves.

Clubs, swords, handguns, shotguns, machineguns -- if the police need them, then so do we.

 

[Bern80]

For the reasons I've continually cited, you're wrong in that second assertion about use. As I have said, a fully automatic firearm is designed to kill people, it has no secondary associated purpose. I cited the example of a hammer. If you use the hammer to kill someone it doesn't therefore mean that all hammers are meant to kill people, your misuse doesn't change the purpose of the item.

Wrong. If it is has no secondary use then it would simply be impossible for me to use it for anything else.

I guess we need to focus on this one specific point of purpose cause you're just not getting it. So far you have either ignored this point or just don't understand it and I ask that just respond that.

The best I can say it is that we're both right yes a gun has purpose, but that purpose is whatever a person gives it. It just so happens that the predominant purpose of automatic weapons was killing people. The question is what relevance does this predominant purpose have do with me if I want to own one? yes i disagree that the an automatics purpose is to kill because I believe it's purpose is whatever i choose to use it for. That you can't deny. And that being the case, so what if it's purpose is killing people? I'm not going to use if for that so what possible relevance does it have?

 

[Diuretic]

Not sure how the answer results in anything other than "it means the people need them too".

If there is a threat to the people, then the people need access to the means necessary to defend themselves from that threat. If the police determine that to protect the people from the threat, they need a certain weapon, then clearly the threat rises to the level where the people need the same weapons to protect themselves.

Clubs, swords, handguns, shotguns, machineguns -- if the police need them, then so do we.

The New York City Police Department armed its officers only after crooks armed themselves and started committing armed crimes.

The military obviously needs fully automatic weapons for its personnel so they can go to war properly equipped to get the job done. Some police, not all police, need to be equipped with fully automatic weapons for a couple of reasons. One reason is that there can be crooks who obtain automatic weapons and will use them http://tinyurl.com/9b5wz.

Some police will also need them for counter-terrorist operations. I know in the US police are heavily localised (I say that while acknowledging the existence of state and federal agencies) so I can't reference the thousands of police departments there but here we only have state/territory based forces (with a small federal force). Each state/territory has a specialist counter-terrorist unit that trains and operates closely with our Army Special Air Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Australia for CT work.

So, those are couple of explanations of why some police need automatic weapons.

Not all police need them or will get them so your argument doesn't follow.