Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[M14 Shooter]

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

Thus necessitaing that the people need similar arms to protect themselves.

One reason is that there can be crooks who obtain automatic weapons and will use them...
Some police will also need them for counter-terrorist operations...
So, those are couple of explanations of why some police need automatic weapons.

And this describes, exactly, why the people need them too -- especially the first one -- there are threats to the people, the security for whom requires automatic weapons.

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

All of them not having them doesn't negate my argument.

 

[Ravi]

Why are some police given automatic weapons?

Where I live they claim to do it because the criminals have them.

 

[Diuretic]

I think if you took the police out of the picture you'd have a point.

The average citizen would have to have a fully automatic weapon so that they could rush to the next bank heist where the crooks are armed with automatic weapons.

They would also need automatics to take on terrorists striking inside the country.

 

[Diuretic]

Where I live they claim to do it because the criminals have them.

That's fair enough too, because the weapons are out there. Police are usually reactive when it comes to being armed and being armed with specific types of firearms. I'm certainly not arguing that all police officers should be equipped with automatic weapons (although from memory it was very common in Northern Ireland for the then RUC to be armed with autos, understandable given the situation they were in), only that some need to be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think if you took the police out of the picture you'd have a point.

Why?
-If the threat to the people exists, it exists everywhere the people are.
-The police are not everywhere, and so there will always be people - the large majority of the people - that are not protected by the police.
-These people need to be able to protect themselves, and therefore need access to the weapons the police need to protect us.

 

[Diuretic]

Why?
-If the threat to the people exists, it exists everywhere the people are.
-The police are not everywhere, and so there will always be people - the large majority of the people - that are not protected by the police.
-These people need to be able to protect themselves, and therefore need access to the weapons the police need to protect us.

That's interesting. Why do you think the police exist?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's interesting. Why do you think the police exist?

In this context, they exist to counter the threat to the people of their community.

 

[Diuretic]

In this context, they exist to counter the threat to the people of their community.

Okay, I was thinking more broadly but I don't expect you to read my mind

The police - as has been affirmed in at least one appellate case in the US - don't exist to protect the individual citizen. They exist to enforce the law. The law itself exists to afford protection to the citizenry and the state (the polity) itself. The two working together are supposed to create a sense of protection in the community. Now I know that's a fiction in some places. That's why I don't have a problem with citizens being allowed to carry. Some places are just so unsafe, even with the existence of police, that you just have to look out for yourself.

But while it might be necessary for a citizen to carry a handgun for protection it's not necessary for a citizen to carry an automatic weapon for protection.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is predicated on the idea that certain firearms for recreational purposes are appropriate. Long weapons and handguns. Single and semi-auto mechanisms. Let's just use those classifications for ease of argument.

To the fully automatic weapon. I need to make the distinction again between the firearms made for recreational purposes and those made for military purposes.

This is a false premise.
All firearms are made for killing, or to gain proficiency in same. Skeet, paper targets, etc -- shooting at all of those things increase your ability to shoot to kill. You may not -intend- for that to jappen, but that is the net effect.

As such, there is no distinction between weapons for killing and weapons for recreation -- both sets are weapons for killing, or practicing killing.

Now, I have a problem allowing non-military (or non-excepted) persons from private ownership and use of fully automatic weapons. I believe those weapons belong with the institutions of the military and the police...

Why?

but the potential damage caused by misuse of a fully automatic weapon far exceeds the potential damage that can be caused even by someone with a semi-automatic long weapon.

This is not at all necessarily true -- it depends very very much on circumstance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The police - as has been affirmed in at least one appellate case in the US - don't exist to protect the individual citizen. They exist to enforce the law. The law itself exists to afford protection to the citizenry and the state (the polity) itself. The two working together are supposed to create a sense of protection in the community.

That is, of course, correct, which is why I used the term "the people" rather than "me". The role of the police is to protect the collective by enforcing the law, and the need I spoke of exists across that collective.

But while it might be necessary for a citizen to carry a handgun for protection it's not necessary for a citizen to carry an automatic weapon for protection.

If he needs a gun for protection, its because he is likely to be in a position where he needs to kill someone.
In that case, he needs a weapon intended for killing -- which would be, as you argue, an automatic weapon. Indeed, if he NEEDS a gun, then he needs the most effective killing machine he can afford.

 

[AllieBaba]

The whole point of an armed militia is to ensure that the people can access the same standard of firepower as the government.

There's no point to allowing us the right to bear arms if we are only allowed substandard and inefficient weaponry compared to the weapons the government and police are allowed to carry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The whole point of an armed militia is to ensure that the people can access the same standard of firepower as the government.

There's no point to allowing us the right to bear arms if we are only allowed substandard and inefficient weaponry compared to the weapons the government and police are allowed to carry.

The people do not need artillery, mortars or heavy weapons. A militia should have those for community defense but not Joe citizen. And that is in fact what M14 is arguing for, no restrictions. Again NO RIGHT is without restrictions.

The Government has a responsibility and a duty to enforce reasonable restrictions on all rights.

No matter how much M14 wants to claim differently, this decision will have no effect directly on fully automatic weapons. It probably won't even have a secondary effect. It is so unlikely that 5 of the Judges on Supreme Court would agree to an unrestricted right to private ownership of fully automatic weapons as to make it worse than a pipe dream.

M14 has a house of cards and is using smoke and mirrors, he hasn't a legal leg to stand on. Now depending on what exactly the ruling says he might be able to convince someone to start a new argument for fully automatic weapons, but the chance it will go anywhere in the courts is so remote as to be nonexistant.

The Justices appear to be in agreement that some restrictions are appropriate and are now hashing out whether the restrictions in DC are in fact reasonable. Fully automatic weapons will have nothing to do with this decision. No matter how much M14 wishes it to be so. Miller V Texas had nothing to do with Fully Automatic Weapons either.

 

[Diuretic]

That is, of course, correct, which is why I used the term "the people" rather than "me". The role of the police is to protect the collective by enforcing the law, and the need I spoke of exists across that collective.


If he needs a gun for protection, its because he is likely to be in a position where he needs to kill someone.
In that case, he needs a weapon intended for killing -- which would be, as you argue, an automatic weapon. Indeed, if he NEEDS a gun, then he needs the most effective killing machine he can afford.

As I said, the needs of the military and some police units demands that they have automatic weapons. That need is distinct from the need of a citizen. The military fight in extremely hostile situations. There is no other assistance for them, they are it. They have need of the most effective and efficient weapons available. The police don't have such a strong need, which is why the military has the big weapons such as tanks and artillery pieces. Some of the police need automatic weapons, most police don't. And so it cascades down to the citizen. See how it goes? The argument demands some fine discrimination to be understood.

 

[BrianH]

I believe it was B. Franklin that referred to Democracy as two wolves and a sheep arguing over what's for dinner. In a republic, the sheep has a gun.

 

[Paulie]

what relevance does some orignal intended purpose have to do with whether or not I should be allowed to have one?

Perhaps none, and a good point. What I'm arguing for though, is that all guns ought to be considered the same in regards to the 2nd. I'm trying to make the case that the shotgun is no different to me in regards to the 2nd, as say an AK-47. And basically for the same reason as you, because my intention with either wouldn't be to kill a person.

We're bascially arguing semantics because I agree with you anyway. The way I originally put it out there was apparently misleading.

I wouldn't feel safe in a society where I know that the only people with guns are either cops, where I'm at someone ELSE'S mercy in regards to my personal security, or criminals.

In a society like that, you have to WAIT for your personal security to arrive to YOU. No thanks, I'll handle my own security.

 

[BrianH]

Perhaps none, and a good point. What I'm arguing for though, is that all guns ought to be considered the same in regards to the 2nd. I'm trying to make the case that the shotgun is no different to me in regards to the 2nd, as say an AK-47. And basically for the same reason as you, because my intention with either wouldn't be to kill a person.

We're bascially arguing semantics because I agree with you anyway. The way I originally put it out there was apparently misleading.

I wouldn't feel safe in a society where I know that the only people with guns are cops, where I'm at someone ELSE'S mercy in regards to my personal security, or criminals.

In a society like that, you have to WAIT for your personal security to arrive to YOU. No thanks, I'll handle my own security.

You make a good point, but guns are not considered with the same regards because the 2nd Amen. mentions nothing about the regulation of firearms. It says that you can bear them, but it doesn't say that the government cannot regulate them.

And the regulation of firearms is appropriate giving the killing capability of different firearms. If we took that into consideration, you'd see fully automatic SAWs on the market. I've never seen a shotgun lethal at over a hundred yards (accurately and consistently--sure buck-shot and such-but it's not what the shotgun is designed for) The AK-47 has a much farther range and can be more lethal at close and longer distances. Even so, any law-abiding citizen can waltz down to the gun shop and purchase an AK-47 just as easy as a shotgun. The only regulation on the AK-47 is that you can't buy them in fully-automatic.

 

[BrianH]

Don't get me wrong, I feel the same way that you do in regards to your firearms opion, I'm just giving a little info into the whole regulation part of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No matter how much M14 wants to claim differently....
M14 has a house of cards and is using smoke and mirrors, he hasn't a legal leg to stand on...

I'm sorry...
You were asked to put up or shut up, and you chose to shut up.
Why are you trying to re-start a discussion you ran away from?

 

[Foxfyre]

You make a good point, but guns are not considered with the same regards because the 2nd Amen. mentions nothing about the regulation of firearms. It says that you can bear them, but it doesn't say that the government cannot regulate them.

And the regulation of firearms is appropriate giving the killing capability of different firearms. If we took that into consideration, you'd see fully automatic SAWs on the market. I've never seen a shotgun lethal at over a hundred yards (accurately and consistently--sure buck-shot and such-but it's not what the shotgun is designed for) The AK-47 has a much farther range and can be more lethal at close and longer distances. Even so, any law-abiding citizen can waltz down to the gun shop and purchase an AK-47 just as easy as a shotgun. The only regulation on the AK-47 is that you can't buy them in fully-automatic.

The critical and most pliable word in the Second Amendment is "infringed". What did those who established and ratified the Constitution mean by that word?

Main Entry: in·fringe
Function: verb
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed ; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : DEFEAT , FRUSTRATE
intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·fring·er noun

The staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment generally interpret that to mean that the government has no ability to interfere with a citizen's ownership of any sort of firearm, automatic or not.

Others take the view that the government's duty to "provide for the common defense' and 'promote the general welfare' would allow for regulation of firearms toward that end.

So we walk that fine line between what regulation is simply common sense vs our Constitutional right implied in the Second Amendment. Does the 'well regulated militia' thing provide the license for regulation of firearms?

Probably at some point we will need a SCOTUS ruling that actually clarifies that point. Maybe the one coming down will help.

(Analogies re government regulation of driving cars, flying planes, etc. don't really apply here as there is no Constitutional right to drive.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The critical and most pliable word in the Second Amendment is "infringed". What did those who established and ratified the Constitution mean by that word?

"Infringed" is a level of protection at least as powerful as the term "abridged", as used in the 1st amendment.

That said, its impossible to argue that the government has any more power to "regulate" the right to arms as it does the right to free speech.