Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

I touched in this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=660887&postcount=269

You try to invalidate civilian posession of automatic weapons based on the idea that some weapons are made for recreation and some for killing people. Given that, here, the right to arms is all about killing people, that's an invalid argument.

I did use the purposes of the various firearms to make my point but primarily I was using the concept of necessity.

 

[Diuretic]

What's ridiculous is that you have gone a dozen posts or so without comeing even close to offering a justification as to why 'need' is a valid reason to disallow ownership of somehting. You say your argument is basic and straightforward. That should make it pretty easy to defend.

I don't see it in terms of winning of losing, but I am very passionate about the issue. And if enough people start seeing things your way, indeed something will be lost.

My whole argument was need validates ownership/possession but also that need had to pre-exist. Whether or not I provided a reasonable argument is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. I put my views and tried to make them as cogent as possible. I still can't see a reason for civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My whole argument was need validates ownership/possession but also that need had to pre-exist. Whether or not I provided a reasonable argument is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. I put my views and tried to make them as cogent as possible. I still can't see a reason for civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms.

Your argument is weak. THE point being made is that since the 2nd applies to DEFENSE of Country and the Courts have already RULED a weapon MUST be military in nature to be protected, fully automatic weapons are in fact covered by the 2nd. The citizenry has a need in the case above, if you use your logic, to own fully automatic weapons for the same reason the police and military have a need.

Need is in fact present if one uses the very premise that we have a right to weaponry for self and community and country defense and that military weapons are the only weapons covered by the 2nd amendment.

Find another argument.

My position is that individual weapons are protected but crew served weapons are only protected at the State level. As in community , County or State. Held not by an individual but by the community.

 

[Diuretic]

Your argument is weak. THE point being made is that since the 2nd applies to DEFENSE of Country and the Courts have already RULED a weapon MUST be military in nature to be protected, fully automatic weapons are in fact covered by the 2nd. The citizenry has a need in the case above, if you use your logic, to own fully automatic weapons for the same reason the police and military have a need.

Need is in fact present if one uses the very premise that we have a right to weaponry for self and community and country defense and that military weapons are the only weapons covered by the 2nd amendment.

Find another argument.

My position is that individual weapons are protected but crew served weapons are only protected at the State level. As in community , County or State. Held not by an individual but by the community.

I'm not referencing the 2nd Amendment. I specifically eschewed discussion about it. I'm not making any argument concerning legal interpretation.

Further, you posted:

Need is in fact present if one uses the very premise that we have a right to weaponry for self and community and country defense and that military weapons are the only weapons covered by the 2nd amendment.

That's convoluted and illogical. You've assumed the validity of your own premises without proof.

If there's a right for ownership of firearms for protection of self and community then that proves.....there's a right of ownership of firearms for protection of self and community. It doesn't imply anything else. It certainly doesn't go anywhere near touching my argument, you're just hiding behind the confusion surrounding the exact interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm not referencing the 2nd Amendment. I specifically eschewed discussion about it. I'm not making any argument concerning legal interpretation.

Further, you posted:



That's convoluted and illogical. You've assumed the validity of your own premises without proof.

If there's a right for ownership of firearms for protection of self and community then that proves.....there's a right of ownership of firearms for protection of self and community. It doesn't imply anything else. It certainly doesn't go anywhere near touching my argument, you're just hiding behind the confusion surrounding the exact interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Wrong. You can not divorce the argument from the 2nd in the US. And you can not divorce the argument from the fact the second means defense of country. One can make a logical argument ( though I think it fails) that fully automatic weapons are in fact covered by the 2nd amendment exactly BECAUSE of need.

 

[manifold]

Of course it's an opinion, I haven't tried to suggest anything else.

On your point about civilian need - if the military is in place and if various police and law enforcement bodies are in place then it seems to me that the possibility of the average citizen being required (short of the draft) to be involved in military conflict is close to zero. But I do have to point out that it appears you've agreed with me. That a military need is the only justification for the ownership and use of fully automatic weapons.

So, given that then short of a full blown invasion on the US where the military couldn't repel said invasion (extremely unlikely), there appears to be no need for a civilian (except for specialist civilian police) to own a fully automatic weapon.

You left out the most important "unlikely" event. What happens when it's your own military, acting on behalf of a corrupt, tyrannical government, that needs to be repelled?

 

[jillian]

You left out the most important "unlikely" event. What happens when it's your own military, acting on behalf of a corrupt, tyrannical government, that needs to be repelled?

you think that's what the 2nd amendment's for? lol... if that were the case, treason wouldn't be the only crime defined in the Constitution, not to mention, the absurdity of the entire concept of a bunch of militia types fighting off the US military.

 

[Ravi]

And all along I (along with others now) have been pointing out that 'need' does not work as an argument. It is hypocritical to allow me have some things I don't need and not others. There aren't an mental gymnastics at work here. You picked an argument that doesn't withstand a shred a scrutiny or have any validity and at the end of the day this arbitrary line you have drawn is just that, purely arbitrary.

And say at as much you like, but NO your're main point isn't really 'need' at all. If that's all it was you would have to see how collosely arbitrary and hypocritcal it is to say it's okay for you to have this thing you DON'T need, but not this thing. You're argument REQUIRES that you justify not allowing onwership of an automatic (which I don't need) but allowing my ownership of a PS3 (which I also don't need). You have failed to do that so far. But if you can come up with that justification you will find what your real argument is.

I'm curious. If the government has nukes does that mean private citizens should have them as well?

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong. You can not divorce the argument from the 2nd in the US. And you can not divorce the argument from the fact the second means defense of country. One can make a logical argument ( though I think it fails) that fully automatic weapons are in fact covered by the 2nd amendment exactly BECAUSE of need.

No, it's simply that we're discussing different things. I'm discussing apples, you're talking bananas

 

[Diuretic]

You left out the most important "unlikely" event. What happens when it's your own military, acting on behalf of a corrupt, tyrannical government, that needs to be repelled?

So, what are the chances?

Slim in the US, slim in Australia. Slim in the US because your political and legal system, with its checks and balances and its (barely alive but still there) doctrine of the separation of powers makes it extremely difficult for tyranny to appear. As well you have a military that has a sworn duty to the constitution and not to an individual or a power base. Slim in Australia or similar reasons except that our military is officially loyal to the Crown and not the politicians in parliament. I have faith in your military and in ours not to behave like, say, the Zimbabwe military, under the control of the dictator Mugabe.

 

[Bern80]

My whole argument was need validates ownership/possession but also that need had to pre-exist. Whether or not I provided a reasonable argument is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. I put my views and tried to make them as cogent as possible. I still can't see a reason for civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms.

Come on man your so close to getting this it's painful. If that is your argument then the nature of that argument requires that you apply it across the board. Let's try this example that i tried to before. I own a PS3. It's a videogame conosle. I most certainly don't need it. Now how are you going to justify allowing me that, but not an automatic weapon?

 

[BrianH]

Come on man your so close to getting this it's painful. If that is your argument then the nature of that argument requires that you apply it across the board. Let's try this example that i tried to before. I own a PS3. It's a videogame conosle. I most certainly don't need it. Now how are you going to justify allowing me that, but not an automatic weapon?

I agree with your point, but you can't compare a PS3 to a automatic firearm, there a bit different. If you turn a PS3 into a projectile taveling at 4000 fps, then you can compare it.

No law-abiding gun owner has any problem with owning a fully-automatic firearm (by the way, a firearm is not a weapon unless you use it on someone) There are only three groups of people that use weapons: Law enforcement, Military, and criminals. Civilians mostly own recreational firearms and potential weapons---most only fire their potential weapons for fun at the firing range, field, land, etc... Very few civilians (out of the whole) are forced to use their fire-arms as weapons. My cousin owns an AR-15 and has never used it as a weapon, but as a recreational firearm. Hunting, range, etc... Most would consider this assault rifle a weapon, but it's never been used as one.

The fact is that our government regulates firearms and regulates them to where civilians cannot legally obtain an automatic firearm. I would have no problem with owning one, but I know that it's unlikely that it will be legal to. Simple as that.

 

[Diuretic]

Come on man your so close to getting this it's painful. If that is your argument then the nature of that argument requires that you apply it across the board. Let's try this example that i tried to before. I own a PS3. It's a videogame conosle. I most certainly don't need it. Now how are you going to justify allowing me that, but not an automatic weapon?

Do you see a distinction between a video game console and a fully automatic firearm? I do.

 

[BrianH]

Do you see a distinction between a video game console and a fully automatic firearm? I do.

yeah, death by PS3 is rapidly rising in the U.S.

"PS3's don't kill people! People kill people!"

 

[Bern80]

Do you see a distinction between a video game console and a fully automatic firearm? I do.

getting warmer.......

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you think that's what the 2nd amendment's for? lol... if that were the case, treason wouldn't be the only crime defined in the Constitution, not to mention, the absurdity of the entire concept of a bunch of militia types fighting off the US military.

You mean like pajama clad militias in south east Asia? Or of American patriots forming militias to fight the professional Army of Britain and her bought German and Swedish Armies? Maybe you mean like in Bosnia where the Muslim citizenry formed militias to fight off professional Serbian armies?

Perhaps you missed the part where the 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure a MILITIA exists in the US for the VERY purpose of being called up to defend against foreign OR Domestic enemies, including professional armies.

Are you sure you ever learned American history or world History? How about current history? You get dumber and dumber on issues like this.

 

[BrianH]

You mean like pajama clad militias in south east Asia? Or of American patriots forming militias to fight the professional Army of Britain and her bought German and Swedish Armies? Maybe you mean like in Bosnia where the Muslim citizenry formed militias to fight off professional Serbian armies?

Perhaps you missed the part where the 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure a MILITIA exists in the US for the VERY purpose of being called up to defend against foreign OR Domestic enemies, including professional armies.

Are you sure you ever learned American history or world History? How about current history? You get dumber and dumber on issues like this.

Exactly correct...though there was an American Regular Army (Continental Army). THere were also armed militias (Minute Men---still around).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Exactly correct...though there was an American Regular Army (Continental Army). THere were also armed militias (Minute Men---still around).

The Continental Army was Militiamen that agreed to sign a contract to stay on past the normal spring summer period. The "army" was not professional for several years and even then was small, the bulk of our foeces were militia.

Same in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War,the Civil War, the Spanish American war , WW1 and WW2. Korea was only different because WW2 was susch a short time before and they just called up those men.

 

[BrianH]

The Continental Army was Militiamen that agreed to sign a contract to stay on past the normal spring summer period. The "army" was not professional for several years and even then was small, the bulk of our foeces were militia.

Same in the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish American war , WW1 and WW2. Korea was only different because WW2 was susch a short time before and they just called up those men.

I never claimed the bulk of our forces were militia. I am agreeing with your point, so I'm not going to argue with you, but there were separate militia forces, aside from the Continental Army.

 

[Diuretic]

yeah, death by PS3 is rapidly rising in the U.S.

"PS3's don't kill people! People kill people!"

I can see a national PS3 buyback scheme coming up in Australia