Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

I answered every one of your questions, that YOU do not like the answers does not change that fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"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.

Except the Government DOES have the right to regulate speech.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I answered every one of your questions,...

You provided a respone.
Your response did not at all address the question.
Nothing changes that fact that you ran away from the question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except the Government DOES have the right to regulate speech.

Sure. To a certain degree.

Certain restrictions on time/place/manner when dealing with public space.
Content that directly harms others, like libel, slander, yelling fire in a theater.
Essentially, the government can regulate speech that infringes on the rights of others.

Care to apply that idea to the right to arms?

 

[manifold]

Care to provide apply that idea to the right to arms?

Not to harp too much on the obvious, but regardless of your, my, or anyone's philosophical opinions concerning the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, our government, at all levels, has assumed and exercised the power to regulate, abridge, infringe, and any other term for shit on and ignore, this right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not to harp too much on the obvious, but regardless of your, my, or anyone's philosophical opinions concerning the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, our government, at all levels, has assumed and exercised the power to regulate, abridge, infringe, and any other term for shit on and ignore, this right.

Thats because -certain people- are only worried about the Constitutional rights they like. The others might as well not be mentioned.

But even suggest that you 'regulate' a right they -do- like, and they go apeshit.

 

[manifold]

Thats because -certain people- are only worried about the Constitutional rights they like. The others might as well not be mentioned.

But even suggest that you 'regulate' a right they -do- like, and they go apeshit.

They've all been 'regulated' in one way or another. I think that's unfortunately the natural progession of things anyway. Specifically, IMO, the 9th & 10th Amendments have been completely decimated. The 2nd is still holding on by a thread, but it's got less bite than that old guy from Benny Hill.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Exactley and that is my point to Diuretic. You can come up with a lot of types of arguments againsts certain weapons. He just has happened to use two that have no valid basis whatsoever.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure. To a certain degree.

Certain restrictions on time/place/manner when dealing with public space.
Content that directly harms others, like libel, slander, yelling fire in a theater.
Essentially, the government can regulate speech that infringes on the rights of others.

Care to apply that idea to the right to arms?

Already have. The Government can and does regulate and control our rights to the degree the Courts agree they can. The automatic weapon restrictions are legal until a court rules otherwise and guess what? This decision will have absolutely no effect on those laws.

It is a separate issue and will require a separate court decision. Neither the 39 ruling or this ruling will suddenly make full automatic weapons legal to buy except with in the current laws of the land.

You can wish all you want for that to be different but it just is not.

You want it changed? Convince a lawyer and then a court your right. Then when your case loses convince the higher court to hear it, then on to the Supreme Court. I am pretty sure even if you got to the part where you could appeal to the Supreme Court they would refuse to hear it. At least based on the minimal argument you have presented so far.

It is a simple fact, a law is legal and binding until repelled by the Government or until found unlawful by a court ( usually requiring a path all the way to the Supreme Court).

In the case of a federal Law you need a Federal Court to rule against it and then you need the Supreme Court to agree it is unconstitutional to remove the law from the books.

 

[Diuretic]

Exactley and that is my point to Diuretic. You can come up with a lot of types of arguments againsts certain weapons. He just has happened to use two that have no valid basis whatsoever.

And what are they and why are they invalid? I'd appreciate a chance to respond to your claims.

 

[Bern80]

And what are they and why are they invalid? I'd appreciate a chance to respond to your claims.

1) That needing an automatic is somehow relevant to whether I should be allowed one

and

2) The 'intended' (a concept that is also invalid) purpose of it is somehow relevant to whether I should have one

and on a sidenote failure to acknowledge that objects do not have inate purpose and that purpose is given by people.

 

[Diuretic]

1) That needing an automatic is somehow relevant to whether I should be allowed one

and

2) The 'intended' (a concept that is also invalid) purpose of it is somehow relevant to whether I should have one

and on a sidenote failure to acknowledge that objects do not have inate purpose and that purpose is given by people.

Ah, necessity - yes I did make the point, repeatedly, that there was only a necessity for the military and a necessity but more limited in application, for police. Now you might disagree with me on that, that's fine, but you'll now need to point out the invalidity of my position. And simply disagreeing with it doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means our opinions differ, which is okay of course.

And the second point was a bit more complex. I was arguing about purpose from the intent in the designer. Again, disagree by all means, but if it's invalid then you'll have to point out why.

And on the sidenote - adaptation doesn't take primacy over intent of purpose.
A chair is designed to sit on (see the Bauhaus) but it can be used as a weapon. The design intent was to put bums on, the adaptive use is to put on bums

 

[Bern80]

Ah, necessity - yes I did make the point, repeatedly, that there was only a necessity for the military and a necessity but more limited in application, for police. Now you might disagree with me on that, that's fine, but you'll now need to point out the invalidity of my position. And simply disagreeing with it doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means our opinions differ, which is okay of course.

The point is invalid because to make such an argument requires that you base the right to possess other things on whether they are needed or not as well. Basically you need to come up with a ligetimate differentiation as to why you would allow possession of some things we don't need but not of others. I think if you did that you would find that neccessity isn't really at the heart of your argument, it's something else.

And the second point was a bit more complex. I was arguing about purpose from the intent in the designer. Again, disagree by all means, but if it's invalid then you'll have to point out why.

And on the sidenote - adaptation doesn't take primacy over intent of purpose.
A chair is designed to sit on (see the Bauhaus) but it can be used as a weapon. The design intent was to put bums on, the adaptive use is to put on bums

But how was primary purpose derived? Simply by the fact that something was predominatnly used for a specific purpose. I think it is more accurate to say what somethings predominant purpose is rather than primary. Primary gives the impression that one can't use something for anything else. And really my question is even if that is an automatic's primary purpose, SO WHAT? That isn't going to be what I'm using it for so what relevance does the primary purpose of something have on whether or not I should be allowed to have it? Basically you're makeing the argument that we should not be allowed things that have a certain stigma attached to them.

 

[Shogun]

I've suggested long ago that the ATF publish a comprehensive report each year detailing the specific weapons used in crime so that we can have a better indication of what to restrict with a viable reason besides "guns kill people".


Shogun for Pres 2020!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I've suggested long ago that the ATF publish a comprehensive report each year detailing the specific weapons used in crime so that we can have a better indication of what to restrict with a viable reason besides "guns kill people".


Shogun for Pres 2020!

And I do not believe it really matters. Because someone uses a weapon to kill should have no bearing on whether it is right to ban it. If all that mattered is how many people have been killed by something, then we better get hot banning automobiles.

 

[Shogun]

I've made the comparison to autos many time already. but, certain autos ARE regulated according to a viable statistic relating to actual hazard. Cant have a 13 foot rig trying to get under a 12 foot overpass doing 70 can we? These are specifics rather than stating that cars are dangerous. Hence, clarification on what firearms are actually being used unlawfully in order to determine which restrictions are necessary.

 

[LOki]

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?

It seems the every time someone makes a statement like, "Geeze, then regular citizens would be alowed to have bazookas!" they say it like it's patently self evident that regular citizens should not be allowed to have a bazooka--they sayit without submitting any evidence or argument. You're no different.

Yes. I am arguing that the right of regular citizens, to keep and bear bazookas, is protected under the 2nd Amendment. I assert that it is apparent in the plain language of the amendment, and in the intent of the amendment which is for the the regular citizens of the U.S. to be prepared to meet any military force (including a domestic one) that threatens their liberty.

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..

AND

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.

I suppose this is one way to look at this; another way to look at this is that the 2nd Amendment is a blanket right to own any and all weapons, and the 1st Amendment places no limits on speech and religion and the right to peacefully assemble--that where the government has infringed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms--any arms--and where Congress has made laws--any laws--respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, they have done so in violation of the Constitution.

One could say that the infringment on rights appurtenant to the 18th Amendment is the root cause of the "epidemic of violence in the 20's and 30's." I would agree with you that, "[f]ully automatic weapons proved to be to dangerous unrestricted to the people"--but not so much dangerous to the general public, but rather dangerous to the oppressive agents enforcing the oppressive legislation of an oppressive government oppressively abusing their powers.

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.

I'm reasonable, and I'm not so sure that there is any problem at all with ordinary folks, with ordinary decency, owning fully autmatic weapons, bazookas, grenade launchers, etc...

So allow me to fix your sentiment to see if it fits better:<i>"Authoritarians 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, because they are a threat to the coercive power of authoritarians."</i>

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.

I think you're correct here, but the failure of the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution does not make the Bill of Rights invalid.

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 think the "line" you're talking about is being illuminated by the argument from RetiredGySgt. There is very similar argument that I've seen that distingushes "arms" which can be carried and used by individual soldiers in the field, from "ordnance" which involves artillery, combat vehicles, naval vessels, mounted weaponry, and of course, nukes. The argument disallows for the right to keep and bear "ordnance", but the right to keep and bear greandes, rocket launchers, and fully automatic weaopns that can be carried and operated by individual soldiers is protected.

Just for clarity's sake, I'm not so sure if such distiction is really valid, and for the puposes of the argument, I'm not making it--I'm fine with owning a nuke if I can get one.

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.

If the police have fully automatic weapons and are robbing banks, and terrorizing decent folks, should not those folks aslo have fully automatic weapons? Are you hanging your argumentaive hat upon the presumption that the government, it's military, and it's law enforcement arm neccessarily cannot ever become so repugnant to the decent notions of individual liberty and human rights that decent regular folks should never have need to defend themselves from their own government?

The Declaration of Independence argues otherwise.

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.

First, as long as criminals have access to automatic weapons, by your own argument regular citizens should have access to automatic weaopns; and as long as the government and/or it's coercive elements can become criminal, by your own argument regular citizens should have access to automatic weaopns.

Second, you have no right to determine what other people need and enforce that determination upon them.

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.

Joe citizen is a member of the milita, and your notions of restriction of actual rights is thus far unfounded outside of some bullshit authoritarian paradigm.

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

The governemnt has an obligation to protect rights, not restrict them.

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.

You're probably right here. Yet the question is why would Supreme Court Justices not uphold the right of decent, freedom loving, Americans to keep and bear the very weapons that a governmet would use to put a free state under tyrranical rule?

M14 has a house of cards and is using smoke and mirrors, he hasn't a legal leg to stand on.

None except the 2nd Amendment. None except the clearly articulated arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. None but the express purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Barring all those, you're right.

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.

Sure. The question I'll ask again then is, why?

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.

No, but the Miller ruling had much to do with interpreting the 2nd such that military weapons are the "arms" for which the right to keep and bear is protected. Since fully automatic weapons are clearly and without argument military waepons, the Miller ruling has much to with the right to keep and bear fully automatic weapons.

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.

It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That includes by regulation. So you're right, the government can regulate firearms, but such regualtions cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, if that regulation is to be considered constitutional.

And the regulation of firearms is appropriate giving the killing capability of different firearms.

Nonsense. Kill shots kill equally.

If we took that into consideration, you'd see fully automatic SAWs on the market.

Spoken as if it's self evident that that would be bad. I'm fine with owning a SAW.

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)

But they're plenty lethal up close, and lethal is lethal. And if effectiveness is the criterial for prohibiting ownership, I rather have LACK of effectiveness being the determinant.

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.

Huh. Would you consider that to be an infringment upon my right to keep and bear a fully automatic AK-47? If not, why not?

Ah, necessity - yes I did make the point, repeatedly, that there was only a necessity for the military and a necessity but more limited in application, for police. Now you might disagree with me on that, that's fine, but you'll now need to point out the invalidity of my position. And simply disagreeing with it doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means our opinions differ, which is okay of course.

The right to keep and bear arms is not contigent upon demonstrating need--there is one way where your argument from need may be invalid. The other way it would be invalid is if you were somehow asseting that without a current need for a thing (in this case fully automatic weapons) there is a valid reason to demand no need could or will ever arise, under any circumstances--that future need cannot constitute need.

 

[BrianH]

I am an avid gun owner, just for info. purposes.

Loki
"Nonsense. Kill shots kill equally"

Fair enough, but if you're incinuating that you can kill someone at 500 yards with birdshot, then there's a big difference.


"Spoken as if it's self evident that that would be bad. I'm fine with owning a SAW"

You may be fine owning a SAW, but there are many who wouldn't. My personal opinion, I think a law-abiding citizen should be able to own whatever he/she wanted to own, since criminals will be able to get them anyway. But I can't be an idealist. I'm just laying down the view of gun law makers...

"But they're plenty lethal up close, and lethal is lethal. And if effectiveness is the criterial for prohibiting ownership, I rather have LACK of effectiveness being the determinant."

So you'd be fine with someone owning a howitzer?

"Huh. Would you consider that to be an infringment upon my right to keep and bear a fully automatic AK-47? If not, why not?"

I never said that I would not consider it a enfringment, I'm just telling it like it is. Like I said, if a law-abiding citizen owned one, I wouldn't have a problem. But I'm not making the laws.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not referencing the 2nd Amendment anywhere in my argument so we can put that aside. I'm not addressing the "right" to bear arms, I'm referring to civilian use and ownership of fully automatic weapons.

My argument is based simply on need. Despite repeated attempts to reframe my argument, it&#8217;s still there. It&#8217;s based on need. The military needs fully automatic weapons. Some police need fully automatic weapons. Non-police civilians and the overwhelming number of civilian police don&#8217;t need fully automatic weapons. That&#8217;s my argument.

Really some of the arguments here are to the point of fantastic. It's not difficult, just address my argument instead of constructing fantasy worlds to bolster your own arguments.

 

[LOki]

I am an avid gun owner, just for info. purposes.

Loki
"Nonsense. Kill shots kill equally"

Fair enough, but if you're incinuating that you can kill someone at 500 yards with birdshot, then there's a big difference.

I'm assering that if you did kill someone at 500 yards with birdshot, they'd be just as dead as if you killed them by any other method, or with any other weapon.

"Spoken as if it's self evident that that would be bad. I'm fine with owning a SAW"

You may be fine owning a SAW, but there are many who wouldn't. My personal opinion, I think a law-abiding citizen should be able to own whatever he/she wanted to own, since criminals will be able to get them anyway. But I can't be an idealist. I'm just laying down the view of gun law makers...

I think we're all aware.

"But they're plenty lethal up close, and lethal is lethal. And if effectiveness is the criterial for prohibiting ownership, I rather have LACK of effectiveness being the determinant."

So you'd be fine with someone owning a howitzer?

Spoken as if it's self evident that that would be bad. I'm fine with owning a Howitzer.

"Huh. Would you consider that to be an infringment upon my right to keep and bear a fully automatic AK-47? If not, why not?"

I never said that I would not consider it a enfringment, I'm just telling it like it is. Like I said, if a law-abiding citizen owned one, I wouldn't have a problem. But I'm not making the laws.

Again, I think we're all aware.