Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[LOki]

Originally they were not restricted at all.

And everything was fine, until the government started poking it's nose into the liberties of the people....

And that lead to mayhem, murder and robbery on a grand scale in the 20's and early 30's.

Perhaps if the government abandoned all its prohibitionist ponzi schemes, things will return to normal.

I believe a license requirement is reasonable and proper.

If the Government is going to play with licensing automatics they will also play with checks on other weapons and this will be the "oppressive" government, wouldn't you agree?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And everything was fine, until the government started poking it's nose into the liberties of the people....

Perhaps if the government abandoned all its prohibitionist ponzi schemes, things will return to normal.



If the Government is going to play with licensing automatics they will also play with checks on other weapons and this will be the "oppressive" government, wouldn't you agree?

No. Read a little history of the 1920's and 1930's crime scene. Fully automatics were not licensed on a whim. And it was 30 plus years before anymore serious weapons laws were enacted.

The only onerous law that was passed was the "assault weapon" ban. And I do not recall anyone taking it to court. It clearly violated the 39 ruling, going so far as to STATE that a weapon had to be useful to the military to be banned. A direct violation of the Supreme Court decision.

 

[LOki]

No. Read a little history of the 1920's and 1930's crime scene. Fully automatics were not licensed on a whim. And it was 30 plus years before anymore serious weapons laws were enacted.

The only onerous law that was passed was the "assault weapon" ban. And I do not recall anyone taking it to court. It clearly violated the 39 ruling, going so far as to STATE that a weapon had to be useful to the military to be banned. A direct violation of the Supreme Court decision.

In the US, national prohibition begins with:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volstead_Act">The Volstead Act</a> October 28, 1919.<blockquote>"The effects of Prohibition were largely unanticipated. Production, importation and distribution of alcoholic beverages &#8212; once the province of legitimate business &#8212; were taken over by criminal gangs, which fought each other for market control in violent confrontations, including mass murder. Top gangsters became rich and were admired locally, such as Omaha's Tom Dennison, and nationally, such as Chicago's Al Capone. This effectively made murderers into national celebrities. Enforcement was difficult because the gangs became so rich that they were often able to bribe underpaid and understaffed law-enforcement personnel and hire top lawyers. Many citizens were sympathetic to bootleggers and respectable citizens were lured to the romance of illegal speakeasies, also called "blind pigs." The loosening of social mores during the 1920s included popularizing the cocktail and the cocktail party among higher socio-economic groups. Those inclined to assist authorities were often intimidated, even murdered. In several major cities &#8212; notably those which served as major point of liquor importation, including Chicago and Detroit &#8212; gangs wielded effective political power. A Michigan State Police raid on Detroit's Deutsches Haus once netted the mayor, the sheriff, and the local congressman."</blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia#The_rising:_the_Prohibition">American Mafia--The rising: Prohibition</a><blockquote>"Mafia activities were restricted until 1920, when they exploded because of the introduction of the prohibition. Al Capone's Syndicate in the 1920s ruled Chicago.

By the end of the 1920s, two factions of organized crime had emerged, causing the Castellamarese war for control of organized crime in New York City. With the murder of Joseph Masseria, the leader of one of the factions, the war ended uniting the two sides back into one organization now dubbed Cosa Nostra. Salvatore Maranzano, the first leader of American Mafia, was himself murdered within six months and Charles "Lucky" Luciano became the new leader. Maranzano had established the code of conduct for the organization, set up the "family" divisions and structure, and established procedures for resolving disputes. Luciano set up the "Commission" to rule their activities. The Commission included bosses from six or seven families."</blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol&#37;2C_Tobacco%2C_Firearms_and_Explosives#Organizational_history">History of the BATF</a><blockquote>"The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the "Revenue Laboratory" within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or "revenoors"[5] and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became, briefly, a subordinate division of the FBI in 1933.

When the Volstead Act was repealed in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of Justice back to the Department of the Treasury where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several members of "Untouchables", who had worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942, responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU."</blockquote>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act">The National Fireams Act of 1934</a><blockquote>"The National Firearms Act (NFA), cited as the Act of June 26, 1934, Ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, as amended, currently codified as Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. &#167; 5801&#8211;5872, is a United States federal law passed in 1934 that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of all Title II weapons and mandates the registration of those weapons.

The Act was passed after the repeal of Prohibition, and it mandates that transfers of the covered firearms across state lines be reported to the Department of the Treasury (this function has since been transferred to the Department of Justice). The transfer tax of $200 placed on the transfer of firearms controlled by the Act was roughly equivalent to five months' salary in 1934."</blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Early_20th_century_gun_politics">Early 20th Century Gun Politics</a><blockquote>"A famous case where fully-automatic weapons being used in crime that has received widespread publicity in the United States was during the Saint Valentine's Day massacre during the winter of 1929; <b>this Prohibition-era gangster sub-machine gun mass murder during Prohibition lead directly to the National Firearms Act of 1934</b>, which was passed after Prohibition had ended. Since 1934, fully-automatic weapons have been heavily regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), but are available to citizens in most of the states in the United States upon paying a $200 transfer tax and registration. No other widely-publicized crimes involving fully-automatic weapons in the United States have since occurred."</blockquote>
You're welcome.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Missed it first time around.

The premise that an individual's rights extend only as far as they don't infringe on the rights of others I'd agree with, but I'd suggest that there may be more to look at. Take the 1st Amendment, free speech provision. Defamation laws provide a reasonable restriction and true, they're predicated on the individual rights of others.

As you said, this has a link to the rights of others. You can't just wave that away by calling that link 'slight'. You dont have the right to, say, incite a riot through inflammatory speech because to do so will harm others.

But inflammatory speech amounting to incitment is also restricted but not on the basis of a direct interference with the rights of others (and I accept that there is a link with the rights of others but it's distant) but on the need to maintain peace and good order in society.

How does my -having- a a machinegun disrupt peace and good order?

So, to the automatic weapon objection. It's acceptable to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons because of the very nature of automatic weapons as effective (human) killing machines.

Inciting a riot vs posession of automatic weapons is apples and oranges.
One directly harms others, the other only has the potential to harm others.

Imagine if every home in the US had at least one automatic weapon (now don't swoon), the potential for harm is massive.

Every person in the US has the potential to incite a riot.
Every person in the US has the potential to rape and murder.
We don't restrict peoples' rights because of the potential to harm others, but only when their actions actually DO hurt others.

To avoid this harm the ownership of these types of firearms must be restricted (including prohibition)

If that's the case - that potential to cause harm is all that's necessary to justfy the restriction/prohibition of a right -- then every man that has a penis should be restrcited/prohibited from same, as he has the potential to rape.

Please note that FAR more legally posessed penises are used to rape than legally posessed machineguns are used to murder.

 

[Diuretic]

And if guns were banned, people would find another effective way of killing people. Like they did before guns were around.

Only speaking for myself, I haven't advocated "banning guns", but if someone has then they need a reality check.

 

[ReillyT]

Why don't we just ban ammunition for automatic weapons? That way, nobody's rights are infringed. We can have a civil conversation about ammunition and never have to bring up the 2nd Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why don't we just ban ammunition for automatic weapons? That way, nobody's rights are infringed.

Hmm.
Do you suppose banning the written word abridges the freedom of the press?

 

[ReillyT]

Hmm.
Do you suppose banning the written word abridges the freedom of the press?

Yes. The written word is a form of expression (just like flag burning). We have rights to free expression. Ammunition is not an "arm" in the same sense. We have no rights to ammunition.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. The written word is a form of expression (just like flag burning). We have rights to free expression. Ammunition is not an "arm" in the same sense. We have no rights to ammunition.

Ammunition is an inherent component to 'arms" just as the written word is an inherent component to freedom of the press, free speech, etc.

You didnt REALLY think there was anything of substance to your suggestion, did you?

 

[Diuretic]

As you said, this has a link to the rights of others. You can't just wave that away by calling that link 'slight'. You dont have the right to, say, incite a riot through inflammatory speech because to do so will harm others.

It doesn't do it directly. What it does do directly is to cause disorder.

How does my -having- a a machinegun disrupt peace and good order?

I didn't say it did.

Inciting a riot vs posession of automatic weapons is apples and oranges.
One directly harms others, the other only has the potential to harm others.

I agree, there's no direct comparison, that's why I didn't make one.

Every person in the US has the potential to incite a riot.
Every person in the US has the potential to rape and murder.
We don't restrict peoples' rights because of the potential to harm others, but only when their actions actually DO hurt others.

As I said, I wasn't making that comparison.

If that's the case - that potential to cause harm is all that's necessary to justfy the restriction/prohibition of a right -- then every man that has a penis should be restrcited/prohibited from same, as he has the potential to rape.

Please note that FAR more legally posessed penises are used to rape than legally posessed machineguns are used to murder.

I didn't compare penises with guns. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a gun is just a gun

 

[Diuretic]

Hmm.
Do you suppose banning the written word abridges the freedom of the press?

The reloading press?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It doesn't do it directly. What it does do directly is to cause disorder.

I didn't say it did.

I agree, there's no direct comparison, that's why I didn't make one.

As I said, I wasn't making that comparison.

I didn't compare penises with guns. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a gun is just a gun

You were discussing the need to ban atuomatic weapons because of the -potential- harm they -could- cause, both to order and to people.

My comparisons are derived directly from that, and as valid as the standard you set.

 

[ReillyT]

Ammunition is an inherent component to 'arms" just as the written word is an inherent component to freedom of the press, free speech, etc.

You didnt REALLY think there was anything of substance to your suggestion, did you?

Look, I don't believe in strict Constitutionalism, but it is the 2nd Amendment crowd that wants to ignore "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as a basis for limiting the right to bear arms.

Fine. If we want to be literal, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't prevent the limitation of the sale of ammunition. Ammunition is not the same thing as "arms". I am just playing along.

The written word or any word IS expression. Ammunition is not an "arm."

 

[M14 Shooter]

The reloading press?

Good one!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look, I don't believe in strict Constitutionalism, but it is the 2nd Amendment crowd that wants to ignore "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as a basis for limiting the right to bear arms.

Given that the amendment protects th eright of the people, how is that relevant.

The written word or any word IS expression. Ammunition is not an "arm."

Ammunisiton is every bit a part of "arms" as words are a part of "speech".

 

[AllieBaba]

Omg, ammunition is arms.

Are you sure you want to put your oar in, Reilly?????? Because I sense you're seriously outclassed here.

 

[ReillyT]

Given that the amendment protects th eright of the people, how is that relevant.


Ammunisiton is every bit a part of "arms" as words are a part of "speech".

I don't see that this is the case. There is no speech without words. There is no press without writing. There remain guns without ammunition.

 

[ReillyT]

Omg, ammunition is arms.

Are you sure you want to put your oar in, Reilly?????? Because I sense you're seriously outclassed here.

Just thinking out loud. Why not approach the issue from a different angle?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't see that this is the case. There is no speech without words. There is no press without writing.

Absolutely there is.
Observe:

^^^^^^
Freedom of speech exercised without the use of words.

If you can ban ammunition, you can ban words.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is speech, however, without the written word.

The fact is ammunition is part and parcel of arms.

I don't think twisting definitions counts as "approaching from a different angle". It's just silliness, and the conceit of somebody who apparently believes himself to be in possession of a great mind....