Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Bern80]

I'll have to disagree Ravir. The analogy is apt. For it to work it doesn't require the purpose of the two objects to be the same, what's important is the relationship between an object, its purpose and the probability of use. I don't mean to sound like my former philosophy professor but that's just how I see it.

Again the purpose of the object is completely irrelevant and is tied to the fallacy that is your need argument. The FACT is at the end of the day the possessor of the object determines what it's purpose will be, in which case it doesn't matter if every automatic weapon ever constructed was only used for killing people. You have yet to answer why what something was used for by others has any bearing or relevance what so ever on whether I should be allowed to have said object.

What is annoying about your argument is essentially the double standard nature of it. You apply this need argument to automatics as a basis of whether one should be allowed to have one or not, but apparently such a standard doesn't apply to other things one doesn't need. Your perceived purpose of an automatic weapon apparently has some bearing as to whether one should be allowed one or not. But that standard doesn't apply to other objects either where right to ownership is concerned. There has to be a reason for that and for whatever reason you are being rather obtuse and unwilling to examine that facet.

Further I have encountered few who just plain ignore direct scrutiny. You had one post where you said essentially 'bring on the questions'. 2 pages later many are left ignored. Hell questions/objections posted 20 pages ago remain unanswered. For example by your argument if wants to participate in an activity that translates into a need for ownership of the object required to accomplish that activity. So it would stand to reason that if the activity I want to do is shoot an automatic weapon, I should be allowed to own one, by your argument. But on the other hand you object to ownership of automatic weapons and build in your 'rent at a range' argument. So explain why we shouldn't all be banned from owning golf clubs and should only be allowed to rent them instead.

 

[Diuretic]

Again the purpose of the object is completely irrelevant and is tied to the fallacy that is your need argument. The FACT is at the end of the day the possessor of the object determines what it's purpose will be, in which case it doesn't matter if every automatic weapon ever constructed was only used for killing people. You have yet to answer why what something was used for by others has any bearing or relevance what so ever on whether I should be allowed to have said object.

Let me look at this for a moment. Your point is that the possessor of an object determines its purpose. Well not really, the possessor adapts it for various purposes. But a machine-gun will never be used for oil painting, that requires a brush or a palette knife. The machine-gun can be used to belt tentpegs into the ground but a mallet would be better. But where a brush, a palette knife or a mallet can be used to kill someone, a machine-gun will do the job effectively and efficiently because that’s what it’s intended to do from original purpose. I maintain that it is perfectly permissible for anyone to be told they have little or no right to own a machine-gun but they’re perfectly entitled to own a paintbrush, a palette knife or a mallet. The difference lies in the purposes of each of those instruments.



What is annoying about your argument is essentially the double standard nature of it. You apply this need argument to automatics as a basis of whether one should be allowed to have one or not, but apparently such a standard doesn't apply to other things one doesn't need. Your perceived purpose of an automatic weapon apparently has some bearing as to whether one should be allowed one or not. But that standard doesn't apply to other objects either where right to ownership is concerned. There has to be a reason for that and for whatever reason you are being rather obtuse and unwilling to examine that facet.

It’s not a double standard at all, that’s where you confusion lies. It’s actually sensible discrimination. A machine-gun is used to kill people and kill them very efficiently. That’s why they need to be controlled and kept out of private hands for that reason.



Further I have encountered few who just plain ignore direct scrutiny. You had one post where you said essentially 'bring on the questions'. 2 pages later many are left ignored. Hell questions/objections posted 20 pages ago remain unanswered. For example by your argument if wants to participate in an activity that translates into a need for ownership of the object required to accomplish that activity. So it would stand to reason that if the activity I want to do is shoot an automatic weapon, I should be allowed to own one, by your argument. But on the other hand you object to ownership of automatic weapons and build in your 'rent at a range' argument. So explain why we shouldn't all be banned from owning golf clubs and should only be allowed to rent them instead

Again you’ve misunderstood the argument. See above. Golf clubs are for hitting golf balls, machine-guns are for killing people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your "need" argument completely fails. You have been shown why with your own words and just won't see it. Give it up. Stick with the right of the Government to reasonably regulate rights.

 

[Diuretic]

But the need argument is directly connected to the ability of government to reasonably regulate the right to bear arms in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But the need argument is directly connected to the ability of government to reasonably regulate the right to bear arms in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

No it is not. There is no argument about need in the 2nd amendment. And your warped argument fails anyway.

Perhaps if you argued the "need" of the Government to protect it's citizenry, although that too fails because of the 2nd amendment.

A requirement for a license does not "infringe" the right of the people to own arms. One could argue the States that completely outlaw it DO Infringe that right though.

 

[Diuretic]

No it is not. There is no argument about need in the 2nd amendment. And your warped argument fails anyway.

Perhaps if you argued the "need" of the Government to protect it's citizenry, although that too fails because of the 2nd amendment.

A requirement for a license does not "infringe" the right of the people to own arms. One could argue the States that completely outlaw it DO Infringe that right though.

Then why do the military have machine-guns and civilians don't?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then why do the military have machine-guns and civilians don't?

Civilians can have fully automatic weapons with a Federal License.

All it takes is a background check and payment of the required fee, then following the laws on ownership. Which are reasonable restrictions on the weapon type.

My personal opinion is that crew served weapons are not arms in the generally intended sense of the 2nd amendment. Anymore than bazookas, rocket launchers or howitzers are. And that single user fully automatic weapons are in fact reasonably restricted by current law.

Personally the argument that because a criminal has a fully automatic weapon a law abiding citizen needs one fails as well. The purpose claimed being self defense. However an individuals right to self defense does not include the ability to indiscrimantly kill, maim or injure innocent bystanders.

Now the argument that a militia needs those weapons is a sound one. However I believe that just as tanks and howitzers , rocket launchers et al are collective militia rights so to are machine guns.

I believe an argument could be made that the states that outright ban fully automatic weapons could and probably should be taken to court for violating the 2nd Amendment.

 

[LOki]

Fire extinguishers and fire hydrants are made to save lives and property. Automatic weapons are not. Bad analogy.

I'll have to disagree Ravir. The analogy is apt. For it to work it doesn't require the purpose of the two objects to be the same, what's important is the relationship between an object, its purpose and the probability of use. I don't mean to sound like my former philosophy professor but that's just how I see it.

Besides, fully automatic weapons are made for protecting lives and property.

 

[Diuretic]

I sense a convergence in the force.....

 

[Diuretic]

Some states do, some states don't...jeez this gets confusing, you folks are worse than us!

I must regale you one day with stories about how when people used to travel from Melbourne (Victoria) to Sydney (New South Wales) by train they all had to disembark while the coaches were lifted from one set of tracks and placed on another set of tracks at the border so that everyone could continue their journey (yes it was different gauges, the issue is "why?") You're not going to be at all surprised but the same thing used to happen going the other way as well!

We still have differing opinions here but they seem to be in sight of one another now.

Not, I hasten to add, that any of us are going to concede

 

[LOki]

I'm fine that those conditions.

I know the 2nd Amendment has been subject to much law from the US Supreme Court but I'm ignorant of it. So, I have no expertise in arguing precedent.

This is fine Diuretic. Particularly since the Supreme Court, at times steps beyond it's power to apply the Constitution to rewrite what the Constitution says. It's completely fair to argue against them too.

But I'll suggest this, that the right to bear arms can be limited by legislative instrument.

It can--by dint of a technicality--Constitutional Amendment, not regulation; the 2nd is clear, <i>"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."</i>

Yet the technicality will fall short, because the nature of rights is not that they a conferred by governments--rights are intrinsic. Our Government is not Constitutionally empowered to restrict rights, it is empowered only to protect them.

Furthermore, it should be limited.

You can't demonstrate this.

So I suppose the first statement is about the nature of a right and that any right has limitations.

I'll say that none of those limitations apply to keeping and bearing arms.

The second is a normative statement but consistent with my first statement.

No, I predict that you need to break with the covenant, and demand that "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means, or suggests that, "...the right of the people to indiscriminantly spray bullets at whatever and whoever they wish, shall not be infringed."

We know the cases of someone yelling fire in the crowded theatre and the dictum of my right to swing my arm ends at your nose. That's essentially my argument for the idea that all rights are subject to limitation, the limitation should be minimal though, as minimal as possible. The limits are where the arguments lie.

You are certainly within your rights to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there is a fire; and punch someone in the nose in defense of yourself or another. The "limitations" you are suggesting are actually "abuses", and right's do not confer entitlements to abuses. Those abuses speak to violating the rights of others.

Keeping and bearing arms--any arms--does not violate any rights of others.

My second statement meshes with the first one in that I believe that reasonable limitations on the private ownership of firearms can be put in place on the basis of public safety.

They certainly mesh, but since you have not established the validity of the premises of either, both appear faulty to me.

I'm not referring to my previous "need" argument here and I intend to quarantine that and hopefully stick to my two statements as outlined.

This is fine, but you need to establish that simply having a fully automatic weapon is somehow so dangerous that it violates the rights of others. I don't think you can.

 

[LOki]

And here we get to it. The Government does have a right and a responsibility to limit our "rights" So long as the limits are reasonable and needed.

The Government has no rights, only powers granted by the people.

I happen to agree that the Government can in fact limit our rights to fully automatic weapons.

The Government is not empowered to restrict rights.

I see it as a reasonable and prudent limitation based on situation that presented itself when the Thompson submachine gun became the problem it did.

The "problem" with the Thompson Machine Gun presented itself when the Government tried to restrict rights.

I am not sure I agree that those States that outlaw them completely are correct, I see that as unreasonable and a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

So do I.

To be clear, fully automatic weapons require a Federal license , they require that the storage location of the weapon be posted to the Government and updated when ever it changes and the Government must be informed if you intend to take the weapon across State lines. These are reasonable restrictions.

Does this licensing, in practice or intent, infringe upon the right to keep and bear these arms? If so, it's unconstitutional.

Civilians can have fully automatic weapons with a Federal License.

Does this licensing, in practice or intent, infringe upon the right to keep and bear these arms? If so, it's unconstitutional.

All it takes is a background check and payment of the required fee, then following the laws on ownership. Which are reasonable restrictions on the weapon type.

You don't have this license, do you? It's not at all that simple, and I see no reason that someone should be required to pay a fee to excercise a right--in fact, I see such fees as an infringment upon those rights.

How about a fee to express your religion? Like minded people such as you should be all for this.

My personal opinion is that crew served weapons are not arms in the generally intended sense of the 2nd amendment. Anymore than bazookas, rocket launchers or howitzers are.

Maybe so, but your opinion speaks to the counter-point in question, and your opinion does not constitute validation of the counter-point.

Besides, how big is the "crew" of an MP5? or any assualt rifle?

And that single user fully automatic weapons are in fact reasonably restricted by current law.

And I say they are not. Did that work for you?

Personally the argument that because a criminal has a fully automatic weapon a law abiding citizen needs one fails as well.

No it doesn't.

The purpose claimed being self defense. However an individuals right to self defense does not include the ability to indiscrimantly kill, maim or injure innocent bystanders.

Ahem: "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not mean, or even remotely suggests that, "...the right of the people to indiscriminantly spray bullets at whatever and whoever they wish, shall not be infringed."

Now the argument that a militia needs those weapons is a sound one. However I believe that just as tanks and howitzers , rocket launchers et al are collective militia rights so to are machine guns.

I can see that my defending the right to keep and bear your "crew based" weapons might be difficult; but yours is much more difficult--that the right to keep and bear any weapon that is carried and used by a single soldier is not protected by the 2nd.

I believe an argument could be made that the states that outright ban fully automatic weapons could and probably should be taken to court for violating the 2nd Amendment.

I see that opinion as being fully supported by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you are legally able to own weapons you can get a federal license for a fully automatic weapon.

 

[LOki]

If you are legally able to own weapons you can get a federal license for a fully automatic weapon.

Does this licensing, in practice or intent, infringe upon the right to keep and bear these arms? If so, it's unconstitutional.

 

[jillian]

Does this licensing, in practice or intent, infringe upon the right to keep and bear these arms? If so, it's unconstitutional.

Do you agree that the mentally ill and criminal shouldn't have guns?

 

[LOki]

Do you agree that the mentally ill and criminal shouldn't have guns?

Despite the fact that I'm arguing a different point...

If you agree that restricting only the demonstrably unfit (such as the mentally ill, and criminally violent) from possessing guns does not constitute a violation of the broad right of regular folks to possess guns, then I can stipulate to the notion that the demonstrably unfit (such as the mentally ill, and criminally violent) should be restricted from having guns.

How about that?

 

[jillian]

Despite the fact that I'm arguing a different point...

If you agree that restricting only the demonstrably unfit (such as the mentally ill, and criminally violent) from possessing guns does not constitute a violation of the broad right of regular folks to possess guns, then I can stipulate to the notion that the demonstrably unfit (such as the mentally ill, and criminally violent) should not have guns.

How about that?

Fair enough. I think we can agree there. And I realize you were arguing a different point. I just wanted to know if you were opposed to all regulation, hence the question.

Sorry for interrupting.

 

[LOki]

Fair enough. I think we can agree there. And I realize you were arguing a different point. I just wanted to know if you were opposed to all regulation, hence the question.

I am pretty much (not entirely) opposed to all regulation--maybe not the intent of some regulations, but the notion of regulation in particular.

For instance, I think a regulation that requires that a gun be substantial enough to safely discharge the ammunition it's loaded with is a nice regulation, but failing to do so (manufacture a gun that can safelt discharge its ammunition) could be considered criminally neglegent without regulation, and without creating a regulatory agency to create rules that are not subject to legislative procedure.

Esoteric, and beside your point, I'm sure.

 

[Bern80]

Let me look at this for a moment. Your point is that the possessor of an object determines its purpose. Well not really, the possessor adapts it for various purposes. But a machine-gun will never be used for oil painting, that requires a brush or a palette knife. The machine-gun can be used to belt tentpegs into the ground but a mallet would be better. But where a brush, a palette knife or a mallet can be used to kill someone, a machine-gun will do the job effectively and efficiently because that&#8217;s what it&#8217;s intended to do from original purpose. I maintain that it is perfectly permissible for anyone to be told they have little or no right to own a machine-gun but they&#8217;re perfectly entitled to own a paintbrush, a palette knife or a mallet. The difference lies in the purposes of each of those instruments.

No the difference is not purpose that is a false premise and that is what you are being obtuse about. Going with that argument is even more flawed logic. Do you just have a horribly anal retentive personality where you get upset when people don't use things for their 'intended' purpose? And it still doesn't answer the question, even if an automatic's purpose is to kill people, if I'm not going to use for that, what difference does it make? It such an illogical premise it hurts the brain to even think about. Am I to be banned from owning SOME things if I don't use them for your perceived purpose? This is essentially you position: If i'm not going to use an automatic weapon to take human life I shouldn't be allowed to have one. In what world does that make any sense at all?

It&#8217;s not a double standard at all, that&#8217;s where you confusion lies. It&#8217;s actually sensible discrimination. A machine-gun is used to kill people and kill them very efficiently. That&#8217;s why they need to be controlled and kept out of private hands for that reason.




Again you&#8217;ve misunderstood the argument. See above. Golf clubs are for hitting golf balls, machine-guns are for killing people.

I haven't misunderstood at all. What you perceive something's purpose to be is irrelevant. I say perceive because that is also a false premise and rather disingenuous and even if true at the end of the day it is completely irrelevant.

Here is what you need to understand. The very most you can attribute to an automatic weapon purpose wise, is that it's purpose is to fire bullets quickly. That is the most you can possibly attribute to it an inanimate object. The falacy of your argument is that you are trying to attach human intent to an inanimate object. You are somehow inexplicably holding an an inanimate object responsible for the decisions that people made when using them. The target of those bullets is determined by a person. Killing people may be what they were primarily used for, but that isn't an automatics purpose. If that were the case you would have to ban ownership of muskets as well.

 

[Diuretic]

I am pretty much (not entirely) opposed to all regulation--maybe not the intent of some regulations, but the notion of regulation in particular.

For instance, I think a regulation that requires that a gun be substantial enough to safely discharge the ammunition it's loaded with is a nice regulation, but failing to do so (manufacture a gun that can safelt discharge its ammunition) could be considered criminally neglegent without regulation, and without creating a regulatory agency to create rules that are not subject to legislative procedure.

Esoteric, and beside your point, I'm sure.

Not at all esoteric, it's actually an interesting argument.

Now let's assume that everyone obeys every law (this is just an abstract ideal I'm using, I'm sure you know that but I have to make it perfectly clear just in case I'm felled from behind).

A law is passed which requires every firearm manufactured to be robust enough to discharge ammunition in a safe (for the user) manner. Now in my abstract ideal situation no firearm would blow up because it wasn't properly manufactured.

Contrast that with the situation where (still in my abstract ideal world) there was no regulation about manufacture. What might happen? Guns would be blowing up everywhere.

Survivors would sue and in years they would get their damages. The gun manufacturers would continue to carry out their risk management analyses in the same manner Ford did with the Pinto.

Sure enough, in a while there would be sufficient data for the general public to wake up to the fact that the Inyereyes Firearms Company was making shitty firearms whereas Remington were making good firearms and the Inyereyes Firearms Company would go broke. Eventually.

In the meantime there would be dead and injured.

Isn't it better to prevent this than pick up the pieces later? Surely it's prudent to pass and enforce regulations?