Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[LOki]

I'm not following you.

The argument on this thread seems to be that we as individuals should have automatic weapons because there either a) shouldn't be a restriction on what type of weapons we have or b) should have them because the government, i.e. the military and police have them. Also, it seems to be argued that we must be capable of fending off a government gone wild. So if this government has nukes, should we not also have nukes?

Yes.

Another question I've never gotten a good answer for...if the 2nd amendment means anyone can own guns, why mention the well regulated militia at all?

The preambe establishes the government's interest in protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

YOU didn't give me a good answer. Your claim that the army doesn't use nukes is ridiculous.

One of two things is true:
-You don't understand my argument because you sinply dont understand it
-You don't understand my argument because you do not want to.

What part of "Not every weapon the military uses qualifies as 'arms' under the 2nd" didnt you get, and why?

 

[BrianH]

Yes.



The preambe establishes the government's interest in protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Come on lokster, everyone should be able to have their own nuke? Are you kidding?

Lets say for example, someone with no previous criminal history (like guy that massacred those little girls at the Amish school) goes out and buys a nuke. Then decides that he wants to go nuts and detonated it, killing thousands and thousands of people -Exhibit "A" why citizens should not have nukes.

Exhibit "B" on why citizens should not have nukes. Say all the citizens could have nukes and didn't intend on using them. What's to stop a gang of criminals from breaking into your house when you are or are not home (either way would be bad) and steal the nuke and hold a country hostage, and/or detonate it killing thousands/millions?

Exhibit "C" on why citizens shouldn't have nukes....beause it's assinine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Come on lokster, everyone should be able to have their own nuke? Are you kidding?

Somehow, by arguing that people should have nukes, they are arguing against people having machinguns.

Yeah, it doesnt make any sense to me, either.

 

[Ravi]

Ravir: From what I got from your blog you say nukes aren't arms because the standing army doesn't use them...I'm not sure if that's what you said, but that's basically what I got out of it.

Shooter: That's prettty close.​

So I understood your blog entry...do you have a different point than the one you already agreed to above?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So I understood your blog entry...do you have a different point than the one you already agreed to above?

I said you were close.
If you arent going to bother to read the entire thing and at least TRY to understand it, then there's no sense in discussing it with you.

The answer to your question as to why there's no right to own nukes is that nukes are not "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd. I have explained this position.

If you think I am wrong, show how.

 

[LOki]

Come on lokster, everyone should be able to have their own nuke? Are you kidding?

Lets say for example, someone with no previous criminal history (like guy that massacred those little girls at the Amish school) goes out and buys a nuke. Then decides that he wants to go nuts and detonated it, killing thousands and thousands of people -Exhibit "A" why citizens should not have nukes.

Exhibit "B" on why citizens should not have nukes. Say all the citizens could have nukes and didn't intend on using them. What's to stop a gang of criminals from breaking into your house when you are or are not home (either way would be bad) and steal the nuke and hold a country hostage, and/or detonate it killing thousands/millions?

Exhibit "C" on why citizens shouldn't have nukes....beause it's assinine.

I'm not saying, "everybody should have their own nuke."
I'm not saying, "give everybody nukes."
I'm not saying, "everybody having a nuke is a good idea."

You're barking up the wrong fucking tree.

 

[manifold]

M14,

Why do you think the defintion for 'arms' in the context of the 2nd Amendment is different than the general definition of the word?

3arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date: 13th century
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14,
Why do you think the defintion for 'arms' in the context of the 2nd Amendment is different than the general definition of the word?

Because the SCotUS has defined it differently, more narrowly than its broader, common definition.

 

[Ravi]

I said you were close.
If you arent going to bother to read the entire thing and at least TRY to understand it, then there's no sense in discussing it with you.

The answer to your question as to why there's no right to own nukes is that nukes are not "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd. I have explained this position.

If you think I am wrong, show how.

I read it. You give no convincing reason why nukes aren't arms. Feel free to try again. I'm not going to reread your blog.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I read it. You give no convincing reason why nukes aren't arms.

Then you either didnt understand the argument, or you dont want to understand the argument.

From the conclusion:

• The Constitution, as interpreted by the only case dealing directly with the 2nd amendment, requires that to enjoy the protection of that amendment, any giver weapon must qualify as “arms”; to do this, it must be a weapon that can be effectively used in when in service of the militia.

• The militia, judged historically, is a collection of company-sized infantry units that are expected to, among other things, assist and resist the standing army.

• To be effective in those roles, the militia needs to be equipped in manner similar to the standing army, and that when ordinarily called for service, the members of the militia were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Now... show me company-sized infantry units that are issued, and commonly use, nuclear weapons.

 

[Ravi]

• The militia, judged historically, is a collection of company-sized infantry units that are expected to, among other things, assist and resist the standing army.

.

Where are you getting this definition? The one you posted said something about males. I guess that means women can't serve in the military.

 

[jillian]

Where are you getting this definition? The one you posted said something about males. I guess that means women can't serve in the military.

It's also incorrect AGAIN, insofar as it ignores the definition of treason. But whatever....

it's not like facts matter to some people anyway.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where are you getting this definition?

"Judged historically"
That is, ascoss the relevant hsitory, the majority of them are...

Show me company-sized infantry units that are issued, and commonly use, nuclear weapons.

The one you posted said something about males. I guess that means women can't serve in the military.

That's it.... you can't attack the argument, so you misdirect -- and, as sauce for the goose, you do it with an amazingly insipid non-sequitur.

 

[Ravi]

Nope, like I said before, you just aren't making a convincing case. If you go strictly by what was happening back in the day, then you aren't entitled to personally own anything that was available back then and women can't serve in the military.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, like I said before, you just aren't making a convincing case.

"I'm not convinced" is meaningless.
Why don't you show me how I am wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

You mean the close attention I pay to each of your points? Or is the "ouch" for the way I critically pointed out the problems with each of yout points?



I didn't slice your argument, and it's essence is patently clear: "Need" is a function of "sense of duty" and/or "training."



My cogent responses do not rely upon parsing to any extent--your argument, however, is a gold mine of dumb whose every nugget of dumb should be illuminated upon fully.



There is no cherry picking involved. I took great pains to address each and every point you made, leaving nothing out--the very thing you're complaing about. Make up your mind.

No



it's



the




continual



slice


and


dice


that



drives



me



up




the


wall

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What sized unit uses Nukes? Using your definition every type of weapon ever used by the military is covered. Are you arguing that a Tank is an "arms"? How about an Howitzer?

I guess we should be allowed to own surface to air missiles, I mean company sized units use Patriot missile systems after all.

Tell ya what M14, let me help ya out. The Constitution forbids the States the right to keep Warships in time of peace. IN the Founding Father's day the only "strategic" asset would have been armed war ships. They forbid States the right to keep them.

So rather then argue the "company sized" bullshit, argue that militias can not own nor keep in peace time "strategic" arms or weapons. That would include surface to surface ICBMs , Long Range Bombers, Nuclear war heads, War Ships, et al.

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic writes


How it looks to people who don't understand the concept of a government like ours versus those who have given their freedoms and souls over to a more socialist society? We don't really care.

How it looks to us is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It looks to us like a society that sees unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the foundation of our government, and puts the faith of securing and preserving those rights firmly in the hands of the people.

It looks to us like the people are the government. It looks to us like a people with the ability to make life totally and utterly miserable for rogues that would presume to take away those rights. Is that likely in the United States? No. Is it unthinkable? Given changing fortunes of societies within the prism of historical perspective, it would be foolish to think such a thing impossible. It could even be effected with something as simple as a wrongheaded immigration policy.

Could the people fight off the combined power of a U.S. military? Nope. But they wouldn't have to. That military isn't big enough to target all 300 million of us simultaneously, and our military is also us. Professional soldiers yes, but also citizens committed under oath to defend the Constitution and serve the people--employees of the government, but not the government. Anybody who thinks a rogue government could turn all of those citizen soldiers against the people would be certifiably insane.

Given how helpless the people of Great Britain or the Netherlands or Germany or--pick another country--would be if say a radical fundamentalist Islamic majority rose up to overthrow the existing government and impose Sharia Law, the United States is in no such danger essentially because we do not hand over our care and comfort to the government to provide.

You were doing very well providing useful pro and con perspective to the debate until you let out what very much appears to be an anti-American, European snobbish arrogance. Do you not know how that looks to us?

I have never understood the fear of government idea in the US. I think I know why it exists but I've never understood it. Perhaps if you hadn't been conceived in violent revolution and had evolved then as a nation you wouldn't have the fear - or a better word is "mistrust" I think - of your own government. But you didn't, you seized your independence from a tyrannical British regime (anyone who doubts my use of the word only has to take a look at British history at this time under King George III) which repressed its own people as much as its colonies. I suppose the attitude of the revolutionaries who created your nation has permeated every generation since. You're a bit like Cuba like that aren't you? Your historical heroes were the revolutionaries who grabbed independence from the colonial power.

And a critique isn't "anti". I must admit to getting ticked whenever I'm accused of being "anti-American" or told to piss off because I'm not an American and I can, if I choose, get quite pointed in discussion. I'm not going to take anything back because those are my views, like them or not.

Anyway, the idea of the US military turning on its own people is patently ridiculous and when it's suggested I shall point that out with vigour.

 

[Diuretic]

Well...
If we have firearms because we need to kill people, what argument is there that we do not then need the most effective means of doing so?

Note that you dont need to go into a discussion regarding the use of a 200kt nuclear weapon to drive oof would-be carjackers, et al.

Because those suggestions are out of context, I kept my argument on point.