What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[M14 Shooter]

If you are simply looking for somebody to fight with, and are hoping that because I am female that makes me a "liberal" to destroy, I suggest you try M14, since he's off my radar because of name-calling and won't interfere with my conversation, at any rate.

Translation:
I destroy your arguments and you cannot stand to be in a position where the only honest thing for you to do is admit you are wrong.

 

[Circe]

well you need to go back a little further in history because the machine gun was inventer in 1718 in england. look it up. and if you want to see what the founding fathers where really aware of read the journals of the continental congress. pay some particular attention to 1777. read the franklin papers too. they knew weaponry was well advanced passed a simple musket. they were even putting in requests to develop experimental technologies. a gun existed that could fire bullets as fast as todays ar-15.

No, I think this is not true and not a good argument in any case. You are saying that all the modern weapons were extant in 1789, and so since the FFs didn't ban them, we shouldn't.

Oh, wait --- are you defending against the "black powder" argument? That only black powder front loaders should be legal according to the Second? People try that on sometimes, but I am not making that argument!!

It's a silly argument that says nothing is protected except what was available in the 18th century: but all the constitutional protection challenges refer to modern issues, such as "search and seizure" of computers. There may still be some people arguing for black powder only, but let's not be delayed by that, it's a silly argument. You have to deal with what is, with the changes.

Could we please talk about grenades? Are you all okay with having grenades sold at every Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmarts, and if so, why?

all these things you are worried about people having are already illegal. yet they have them. and who has them? people who intend to do harm with them. so the laws have done what exactly?

No, people do NOTNOTNOT have grenades!!!! Adam Lanza did NOT run down the hall throwing a grenade in each classroom he passed, simply because he could not GET grenades.

People do NOT have mortars. People do NOT have shoulder-fired rocket launchers! People do not have cannon. People do not have submachine guns trained carefully out their living room windows. People do not have whiz-bang shells to fire in light artillery. People do not have flame-throwers, a popular weapon in WWI, be sure. People do not have poison gas, a VERY popular weapon in WWI. People cannot go to Wal-Mart and buy a cannister or three of mustard gas!

So what indeed have the laws done, exactly, against people intending to do harm with grenades, mortars, light artillery, submachine guns, flame-throwers, and poison gas?

THE LAWS HAVE STOPPED PEOPLE LIKE ADAM LANZA FROM BUYING AND USING THESE WEAPONS AND KILLING HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AT A TIME.


Personally, I think that's just as well. Your mileage may vary. But crazies having access to high-kill-rate weaponry would change America a lot: everyone would be afraid to join any crowd, just as Iraqis are afraid of the daily bombs thrown at crowds in every market, every queue, every religious observance.

 

[Circe]

A grenade is an explosive.

No right to bear explosives.

Naaaaah, it's a normal infantry weapon. The Second CLEARLY refers to normal infantry weapons, if it does nothing else. Nothing is clearer than that a proscription against grenades is simply unconstitutional. Yet we do it anyway.

So what about that? Is that okay with you that there is an unconstitutional ban on grenades, or do you want grenades sold at every local gun shop for anyone to buy, just like assault rifles?

 

[eflatminor]

Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted the invention of grenades

Grenades existed well before the 1700s. Grenades first came into use around the 15th century.



So did short barreled shotguns. They we called a blunderbuss, an EXTREMELY effective close range weapon.



Actually, the first machine gun was invented by James Puckle in 1718. Who knew???



Military weapons? Sure they had 'em.



No, but they had weapon designed to kill multiple victims at once, so what's the difference? A double barrel close quarters firearm from the 1700s is a DEVASTATING weapon, even today.



Which is exactly the point of the 2nd amendment. Thanks for proving the point.



Yet more Americans died during the Civil War, over 150 years ago, than any other. Heck, in Rwanda, they didn't even need firearms to kill half a million people.

It would appear weapons have always been dangerous.

Also the people have become far more dangerous: who in 1790 could have predicted the sewers of violent crime...

The first well documented case of mass murder took place on February 3, 1780 in Connecticut, when the Mallory family was killed in their beds by 19-year-old Barnett Davenport, a sociopath farmhand and boarder.

Sorry, but your "modern times" argument for gun control does not hold water.

Who are you arguing with? It can't be me, since I substantially agree with your points

Yet you stated "Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted..." a laundry list of weapons which were in existence prior to the late 1700s.

I wasn't arguing with you, only pointing out your error.

 

[eflatminor]

A grenade is an explosive.

No right to bear explosives.

Naaaaah, it's a normal infantry weapon. The Second CLEARLY refers to normal infantry weapons, if it does nothing else. Nothing is clearer than that a proscription against grenades is simply unconstitutional. Yet we do it anyway.

So what about that? Is that okay with you that there is an unconstitutional ban on grenades, or do you want grenades sold at every local gun shop for anyone to buy, just like assault rifles?

What say we focus on what people DO that actually harms another, rather than on inanimate objects?

If someone wants to do harm with a grenade, it's not exactly rocket science to make one:

How to Make a homemade RGD-5 hand grenade « Explosives & Fireworks

Hand Grenades & How To Make Homemade Improvised Hand Grenades

 

[logical4u]

Yesterday there was a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rivkin and Grossman on "Gun Control and the Constitution." I didn't think it was particularly good, but it did remind me that constitutional protections of all kinds have repeatedly been infringed by the government. The authors say of abridging constitutionality that "Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important."

There has been a lot of silly talk by not-very-bright people of the kind that think it's somehow an argument to call people "idiots" and "bitches" who don't seem to get at any part of the real arguments. I find that frustrating, because this is quite an important issue, but there is little clear thinking about it.

Stupid argument 1: The government can't and doesn't infringe our gun rights ever ever ever ever and if they ever did this would be the end of the world world world!!!!!

Not so: the government has infringed this Constitutional right all along: no grenades, no submachine guns, no sawed off shotguns, no nukes. Could we please dispense with this sort of non-think?

Stupid argument 2: It's a slippery slope greased with Crisco! Butter! No. 30 motor oil!! If they take away Bubba Boy's 14 assault rifles and his 26 100-round high-capacity magazines, or even just make it illegal for the poor guy to buy the other 17 he wants, that means they'll come after the pistol everyone else keeps in their sock drawer for home defense and the burglars will kill us all!!!!!

Not so: weapons confiscation hasn't happened ever, and they banned the assault rifles for ten years already and none of that happened.

The government "infringes" on constitutional liberties all the time: speech and religion as well as the many prohibition on weapons ownership already in place.

So does anyone who is able to talk coherently on this (leaving aside, I hope, the nasty name-callers incapable of thought whom I have already or will soon discard and report, as usual) have any ideas on this difficult issue of how much and why the government is entitled to infringe on the Second Amendment? Or any Constitutional protection? We know it already does infringe, so ---- what else, if anything?

I would love to see your thoughts on why our gov't will give terrorists (the muslim brotherhood) tanks and fighters, and then turn around and state that "citizens" cannot be trusted with "assualt weapons".

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Constitution is silent as to the definition of "arms". Consequently, one must either interpret "arms" to mean any weapon at all, or to adopt common sense laws with respect to what "arms" are. I don't think that anyone would define arms as meaning only a BB gun, nor would anyone argue that they have a right to a nuclear missile. To me, and I, and I believe the majority of Americans, "arms" should not include 50 round magazines, armor piercing ammo, and automatic rifles. Yes, I know the difference between and automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle. Apparantly the gun industry does not, since they promote and sell the AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
No, people do NOTNOTNOT have grenades!!!!

They do. And launchers for them.
Destructive Devices
AUTOWEAPONS.COM
International Distributor of the Finest Firearms

People do NOT have mortars.

They do. And ammo.
http://1919a4.com/showthread.php?14562-60MM-mortars-for-sale

People do not have cannon.

They do. And ammo.
index

People do not have submachine guns trained carefully out their living room windows.

All kinds of people have all kinds of different machoneguns - full auto weapons may not be cheap but they are plentfiul.
MACHINE GUNS FOR SALE - AUTOWEAPONS.COM

People do not have whiz-bang shells to fire in light artillery.

You have no idea what this means.

People do not have flame-throwers, a popular weapon in WWI, be sure.

There are no federal laws regarding the manufacture, purchase, transfer, ownership. posession or use of flamethrowers.

THE LAWS HAVE STOPPED PEOPLE LIKE ADAM LANZA FROM BUYING AND USING THESE WEAPONS AND KILLING HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AT A TIME.

Clearly, as the laws do not prohibit the manufacture, purchase, transfer, ownership. posession or use of these things, they have done no such thing.

One of these days, you might post something that doesnt embarass you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution is silent as to the definition of "arms".

Constitutonal law is not.

To qualify as "arms" and this enjoy the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for militia service, and be part of the ordinary military equipmentin common use at the time.
US v Miller
United States v. Miller

DC v Heller expands this to include firearmd in commom use for the traditionally legal purposes people have for same.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Circe]

Grenades existed well before the 1700s. Grenades first came into use around the 15th century.

So did short barreled shotguns. They we called a blunderbuss, an EXTREMELY effective close range weapon.

Actually, the first machine gun was invented by James Puckle in 1718. Who knew???

Military weapons? Sure they had 'em.

No, but they had weapon designed to kill multiple victims at once, so what's the difference? A double barrel close quarters firearm from the 1700s is a DEVASTATING weapon, even today.

Which is exactly the point of the 2nd amendment. Thanks for proving the point.

Yet more Americans died during the Civil War, over 150 years ago, than any other. Heck, in Rwanda, they didn't even need firearms to kill half a million people.

It would appear weapons have always been dangerous.

Who are you arguing with? It can't be me, since I substantially agree with your points

Yet you stated "Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted..." a laundry list of weapons which were in existence prior to the late 1700s.

I wasn't arguing with you, only pointing out your error.

Reminds me of Bertie's Aunt Agatha in the P.G. Wodehouse stories, when Bertie corrects her on some minor point of fact, and she says,

"You. Thought. I. Would. Like. To. Be. Corrected?!"

"Oh, no! No, of course, I know you don't like to be corrected, I don't know what I was thinking of!" he says.

In any case, as I have remarked before, you are completely wrong. If all these wonderful modern weapons were available in 1789, surely they'd have been used in the Napoleonic Wars, 1800 to 1815? Ol' Napoleon, at least, was no slow-top about war, they say, surely he'd have wanted to use all these grenades and assault rifles and machine guns and everything you say they had right along, that Ben Franklin could have bought at his local hardware in Philadelphia or at a shop on the Palais Royale in Paris either one?


I googled this question:
What weapons did they use in the Napoleonic War?


Napoleonic Warswww.yahoo.com/Everything to do with Napoleonic Wars


Answer:

The British infantry used the Brown Bess Musket. Some units had the Baker Rifle. Cavalry carried straight swords or sabres. Napoleon thought the rifle too slow to reload. The French & others used lancers as some cavalry, Uhlans in German. Artillery varies in calibre from 3 to 64 pounders, though in the field a weight of shot larger than 12 pounds was uncommon, unless used in a siege role.

Muskets in this era were flintlocks; a piece of flint struck a steel frizzen to ignite a pan of powder, the ignition of which ignited a powder charge in the barrel, which forced a round lead ball down a smooth bore with a great deal of windage (the barrel was larger than the ball so that fouling would not make it impossible to load). These weapons were almost all loaded by ramming the ball and the powder down the muzzle end (artillery and small arms included).

Rifles were slow to reload because the round had to fit tightly so that the barrel's grooves would spin the bullet. This was effected by the use of a leather patch, and the whole had to be pushed down very hard. Fouling made it nearly impossible to reload rifles after very few shots, so they had to be cleaned constantly. Rifles were uncommon and unpopular, and were used by only two British Regiments (the 95th and 60th), a number of Prussian and Austrian Jager units, and American woodsmen.

Artillery consisted of guns (cannon), which fired directly at the enemy and delivered either solid iron balls, or 'canister' (a hail of smaller balls); howitzers, which generally fired indirectly and delivered explosive rounds; and mortars, which used indirect fire to attack entrenched positions, or the interiors of fortresses with usually fuzed explosive bombs.
*********************************************************************

Don't you think Napoleon might have used modern weapons if he could have got his hands on them? Have you read Turtledove's "Guns of the South" in which South Africans time travel to give Robert E. Lee AK-47s so he can win the Civil War, and he does? (Though interestingly, MREs play nearly as large a role, supplies being what they were.)

Face it. They didn't have modern weapons in the Old Days, because, you know, those were the Old Days!!

Now things have changed and we and gazillions of crazies and slum dwellers have easy cheap access to at least SOME modern weapons. Do you want them to also get access to the other great stuff Napoleon would have sold Josephine to get hold of, the machine guns and grenades and so on?

 

[Underhill]

They could imagine assault rifles far more easily than cable news, cell phones and the internet.
Yet, the Constitution still covers these things.
Hmm.

It can cover broad concepts.
But "arms" as described in the constitution is a bit different.

How does one retain a well-regulated militia, intended to assist or resist the standing army as necessary, with the weaponry available in 1790?

You don't. This is why the SCotUS ruled as it did in Miller and Heller, in that the 2nd protects weapons available today, whenever today may be.

The musket argument is dead; it is argued only by people who know no better.

No, it is argued by people who don't think their neighbors should be making home made napalm for a fire works show.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Constitution is silent as to the definition of "arms".

Constitutonal law is not.

To qualify as "arms" and this enjoy the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for militia service, and be part of the ordinary military equipmentin common use at the time.
US v Miller
United States v. Miller

DC v Heller expands this to include firearmd in commom use for the traditionally legal purposes people have for same.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Then this decision needs to be overriden. That is one reason that I vote for a president who believes as I do, since he nominates Supreme Court justices.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It can cover broad concepts.
But "arms" as described in the constitution is a bit different.

How does one retain a well-regulated militia, intended to assist or resist the standing army as necessary, with the weaponry available in 1790?

You don't. This is why the SCotUS ruled as it did in Miller and Heller, in that the 2nd protects weapons available today, whenever today may be.

The musket argument is dead; it is argued only by people who know no better.

No, it is argued by people who don't think their neighbors should be making home made napalm for a fire works show.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Circe]

I would love to see your thoughts on why our gov't will give terrorists (the muslim brotherhood) tanks and fighters, and then turn around and state that "citizens" cannot be trusted with "assualt weapons".

I'm no fan of it, of course. A lot of people in Congress don't care for it either.

As long as the right-wing military was in control in Egypt, it was a good ....investment, clearly, since it kept Egypt out of war in the Mideast.

That ship seems to have sailed, however, and like you, I am dubious about arming these enemies of Israel with modern weapons we make and pay for.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution is silent as to the definition of "arms".

Constitutonal law is not.

To qualify as "arms" and this enjoy the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for militia service, and be part of the ordinary military equipmentin common use at the time.
US v Miller
United States v. Miller

DC v Heller expands this to include firearmd in commom use for the traditionally legal purposes people have for same.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Then this decision needs to be overriden.

Please describe/explain how these decisions are unsound.
You'll need to read them first, BTW.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Constitutonal law is not.

To qualify as "arms" and this enjoy the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for militia service, and be part of the ordinary military equipmentin common use at the time.
US v Miller
United States v. Miller

DC v Heller expands this to include firearmd in commom use for the traditionally legal purposes people have for same.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Then this decision needs to be overriden.

Please describe/explain how these decisions are unsound.
You'll need to read them first, BTW.

I am not an attorney, so I can not argue whether or not a decision is sound or not. My position is that the decision is not good for the country. The Dread Scott decsion may, or may not have been sound. It was, nevertheless ,overridden, to the benefit of the nation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then this decision needs to be overriden.

Please describe/explain how these decisions are unsound.
You'll need to read them first, BTW.

I am not an attorney, so I can not argue whether or not a decision is sound or not.

Then you can not describe a sound reason to overturn them. Thank you.

My position is that the decision is not good for the country.

Court decisions are based on the law and sound arguments, not a subjective perception of what is "good for the country"

Dredd Scott and Plessy were overturned because they were bad -- that is, unsound - law, not because of some subjective perception of what was good for the country.

 

[Circe]

A grenade is an explosive.

No right to bear explosives.

Naaaaah, it's a normal infantry weapon. The Second CLEARLY refers to normal infantry weapons, if it does nothing else. Nothing is clearer than that a proscription against grenades is simply unconstitutional. Yet we do it anyway.

So what about that? Is that okay with you that there is an unconstitutional ban on grenades, or do you want grenades sold at every local gun shop for anyone to buy, just like assault rifles?

What say we focus on what people DO that actually harms another, rather than on inanimate objects?

If someone wants to do harm with a grenade, it's not exactly rocket science to make one:

How to Make a homemade RGD-5 hand grenade « Explosives & Fireworks

Hand Grenades & How To Make Homemade Improvised Hand Grenades

[ You are moving the goal posts, but no wonder. We KNOW what people DO, they buy the most powerful, scariest weapons they possibly can and then they shoot up the high school! If the Columbine boys had done a little more training and experimentation, their SEVERAL propane bombs, at least two of which were the big propane tanks, they had to make two or more trips to carry in all their weapons, the estimate is they would have killed maybe 600 kids --- they place the bombs in the cafeteria, carefully timed for the lunch crowd. None of the big bombs went off, however.

If people can't just go buy them, most are going to be too stupid to make them. Or too smart, in the sense that they leave a trail that may very well be noticed: Even Mrs. Lanza might have noticed there could be a problem if Adam had been mixing up grenades on the kitchen table. I am not clicking on those links (are you kidding? bad move) but I know a lot of explosives are highly controlled now and the government is watching. After the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing I went to the feed store to buy my usual one or two sacks of ammonium nitrate I'd been buying forever in the spring, it's granulated like a coarse salt, and they wouldn't sell it to me!! I had to have "a number" from the government. S'okay, urea is just as good for fertilizer. But it was something to think about.

I think your point is that if people really, really, really are determined to harm a lot of people, they may be able to do this, like Muslim terrorists sometimes do, if they don't get caught first. Okay, that's true. But why make it EASY? Why make it possible for any high school student mad at his mother to go to a WALMART and buy grenades over the counter?

I appreciate you all being willing to talk about grenades. It's the quintessential case: they are certainly covered by the Second Amendment as normal modern military equipment; they are nevertheless very illegal; they would kill HUNDREDS at a time if crazies got hold of them. So they are a good discussion case.

 

[Underhill]

How does one retain a well-regulated militia, intended to assist or resist the standing army as necessary, with the weaponry available in 1790?

You don't. This is why the SCotUS ruled as it did in Miller and Heller, in that the 2nd protects weapons available today, whenever today may be.

The musket argument is dead; it is argued only by people who know no better.

No, it is argued by people who don't think their neighbors should be making home made napalm for a fire works show.

Thank you for proving my point.

Which point would that be?

We had some guys in a trailer a few miles up the road blow themselves up doing exactly that. Their neighbors house caught on fire as a result.

So you honestly believe that anyone in America should be allowed to own and purchase any type of weapon that exist? That this is the intent of the founders and is a good idea for the well being of this country?

 

[eflatminor]

Who are you arguing with? It can't be me, since I substantially agree with your points

Yet you stated "Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted..." a laundry list of weapons which were in existence prior to the late 1700s.

I wasn't arguing with you, only pointing out your error.

In any case, as I have remarked before, you are completely wrong.

Oh really? So hand grenades were NOT invented in the 15th century, the blunderbus was not in existence prior to the late 1700s, and James Puckle did not invent a machine gun in 1718?

In the finest tradition of the Clean Zone, you are not speaking the truth. Good luck with that.