What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[Quantum Windbag]

If you can carry it, you can own it.

The founders believed that, if you can own it, you can own it. That is why they never objected to individuals owning cannons, even though they couldn't carry them.

 

[Circe]

[Why do we see this every time someone starts talking about rights?

Why do we see WHAT whenever? Your question is not clear.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater has never been, and never will be, a free speech issue,

Well, of COURSE it's a free speech issue! That very example is a famous cliche of U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements on the subject of free speech! As famous as the other free speech USSC quote, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

neither is criminal conspiracy. Both are actions, not speech. I can, however, yell fire in a crowded theater if it is true, or if it is part of a performance. I can even do it if I can articulate a political motivation for my action. I can also lay out a detailed plot to blow up a subway without the government being able to step in and silence me.

I have no idea what any of the above has to do with the price of bananas.....this is a discussion thread about the Second Amendment and it's limitations, if any.

As for the Muslims, yes, that was infringement, but, as I pointed out already, the mere fact that infringement is occurring does not justify that wrong, nor does it justify more of it. If it worked that way slavery would have been justified,

Slavery was legal and justified for more than 200 years in this country. Much longer in others. Still exists in many parts of the world. There is a relevance problem here.

 

[Circe]

The question has never been if the infringement is constitutionally permissible, the question is if the government judges can come up with something to rationalize it.

Aha!!

You just said something brilliant, original, relevant, and not even rude.

If you can keep it up, we may get along.

 

[Flopper]

I can't see how there can be any real control over firearms without registration. As long as gun sales are allowed between individuals and over the internet with no controls as to who is buying them, criminals and nut cases will have no problem buying guns. The only way to reduce the number of guns going to criminals and the mentally ill is make it more difficult by requiring that both the buyer and a seller report all sales and make the seller responsible for the background check.

 

[Circe]

I can't see how there can be any real control over firearms without registration. As long as gun sales are allowed between individuals and over the internet with no controls as to who is buying them, criminals and nut cases will have no problem buying guns. The only way to reduce the number of guns going to criminals and the mentally ill is make it more difficult by require that both the buyer and a seller report all sales and make the seller responsible for the background check.

Well, Heller did allow the District of Columbia to put that burden on gun owners; the USSC did not strike down licensing and permitting. So that is a strategy for states, I suppose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I can't agree with that. Consider drugs: making them illegal DOES make them a whole lot less easily consumed than if you could buy heroin and cocaine at your local liquor store. It just does. You have to go to the ghetto, you have to deal with lowlifes, etc. Same thing with weapons. Buying grenades and submachine guns and rocket launchers at Dick's Sporting Goods would lead to a WHOLE lot more people owning them than is the case now, since they are illegal. Illegal is a deterrent more ways than one. 1: you will go to jail. 2: it's hard to find them and acquire them, takes travel and it's difficult to find the dealer. 3: very high priced, because of the illegality and scarceness. Like drugs. If legal, they'd be cheaper and easier, of course.

I'm fine with legalizing drugs, because I figure there'd be a big die off at first and then, you know, Darwin would reassert himself with the survivors who don't take drugs. But drugs are a problem for the individual who takes them: weapons are a problem for all the kids in the classrooms that get the grenades thrown into them.

Hate to burst your bubble, but drugs actually cost less and are easier to get, now than they were before the government made them illegal. I think that more than proves that banning something does not make it harder to get, despite your misunderstanding of the facts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good point

Its not. Constitutional law is clear on the matter.

The courts interpretation of the Constitution is subject to change. There is no legal reason why a new court could not reach a different decsion than a previous court.

Yes, they -could- arbitrarily overturn the two rulings w/o any sound reason.
-When was the last time the SCotUS did this?
-How would you react if some future court arbitrarily overturned, say, the Obamacare decsion w/o any sound reasson?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[Why do we see this every time someone starts talking about rights?

Why do we see WHAT whenever? Your question is not clear.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater has never been, and never will be, a free speech issue,

Well, of COURSE it's a free speech issue! That very example is a famous cliche of U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements on the subject of free speech! As famous as the other free speech USSC quote, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

neither is criminal conspiracy. Both are actions, not speech. I can, however, yell fire in a crowded theater if it is true, or if it is part of a performance. I can even do it if I can articulate a political motivation for my action. I can also lay out a detailed plot to blow up a subway without the government being able to step in and silence me.

I have no idea what any of the above has to do with the price of bananas.....this is a discussion thread about the Second Amendment and it's limitations, if any.

As for the Muslims, yes, that was infringement, but, as I pointed out already, the mere fact that infringement is occurring does not justify that wrong, nor does it justify more of it. If it worked that way slavery would have been justified,

Slavery was legal and justified for more than 200 years in this country. Much longer in others. Still exists in many parts of the world. There is a relevance problem here.

It is not a free speech issue, that has been made clear by numerous judges, lawyers, and legal experts. That famous cliche, as you put it, was part of the Schenck, which was later overturned. If that case still applied anyone who criticized Bush about the Iraq war would be in prison. Maybe you should get some context before you try to defend your position with quotes.

Slavery has never, and will never, be justified. It is often rationalized though, and always wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The question has never been if the infringement is constitutionally permissible, the question is if the government judges can come up with something to rationalize it.

Aha!!

You just said something brilliant, original, relevant, and not even rude.

If you can keep it up, we may get along.

Nothing i have said in this thread has been rude.

Condescending, perhaps, but definitely not rude.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can't see how there can be any real control over firearms without registration.

Yes. Background checks, especially universal bacground checks, are simply a means to that end.

 

[Underhill]

Thank you for proving my point.

Which point would that be?

That the musket argument is argued only by people who know no better.
The law is clear - the 2nd protects weapons availabe today, not just those available in 1791.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

I noticed you ignored my second question.

Good move.

Hard to argue that you support personal nukes and retain any credibility. Then again, if everyone had nukes the world would be a safer place. Everyone knows this to be true. It's common sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which point would that be?

That the musket argument is argued only by people who know no better.
The law is clear - the 2nd protects weapons availabe today, not just those available in 1791.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

I noticed you ignored my second question.

You mean this?

So you honestly believe that anyone in America should be allowed to own and purchase any type of weapon that exist?

Given that nothing I have ever said supports any such supposition, I wrote it off as rhetorical sillines. But, if you insist on an answer:
Nothing I have ever said supports any such supposition

Point remains:
The 2nd protects weapons availabe today, not just those available in 1791, and there is no way to honestly argue otherwise.

Since you have given up trying to argue otherwise, I applaud your for accepting that point.

 

[Circe]

Hate to burst your bubble, but drugs actually cost less and are easier to get, now than they were before the government made them illegal. I think that more than proves that banning something does not make it harder to get, despite your misunderstanding of the facts.

Oh, don't worry: you aren't bursting any bubbles, you are just making a completely unfounded assertion. And you call an unfounded assertion "proving" something!! I love it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hate to burst your bubble, but drugs actually cost less and are easier to get, now than they were before the government made them illegal. I think that more than proves that banning something does not make it harder to get, despite your misunderstanding of the facts.

Oh, don't worry: you aren't bursting any bubbles, you are just making a completely unfounded assertion.

Like your assertion that the laws against flamethrowers are the reason whackos don't use flamethrowers to burn up schools?

 

[Circe]

The question has never been if the infringement is constitutionally permissible, the question is if the government judges can come up with something to rationalize it.

Aha!!

You just said something brilliant, original, relevant, and not even rude.

If you can keep it up, we may get along.

Nothing i have said in this thread has been rude.

Condescending, perhaps, but definitely not rude.

Condescending is rude, of course...............so are insults and namecalling.

Probably it's hopeless. But we'll see. I hate to discard people, but fortunately the rude ones almost never have good ideas, so it hardly matters.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hate to burst your bubble, but drugs actually cost less and are easier to get, now than they were before the government made them illegal. I think that more than proves that banning something does not make it harder to get, despite your misunderstanding of the facts.

Oh, don't worry: you aren't bursting any bubbles, you are just making a completely unfounded assertion. And you call an unfounded assertion "proving" something!! I love it.

Unfounded assertions don't have evidence to back them up. The war on drugs has not done anything to decrease the supply of drugs in this country, and the drug market is competitive enough to keep the prices affordable. I can't even walk down the street anymore without encountering people selling drugs, yet you want me to withdraw my statement because you don't like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Aha!!

You just said something brilliant, original, relevant, and not even rude.

If you can keep it up, we may get along.

Nothing i have said in this thread has been rude.

Condescending, perhaps, but definitely not rude.

Condescending is rude, of course...............so are insults and namecalling.

Probably it's hopeless. But we'll see. I hate to discard people, but fortunately the rude ones almost never have good ideas, so it hardly matters.

Condescension is only rude when it is used to make people feel bad. When Obama goes to his favorite hamburger joint to grab a bite to eat he is not being rude, even though he is being condescending.

Pointing out that your arguments are stupid, idiotic, and specious, is not name calling.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing i have said in this thread has been rude.

Condescending, perhaps, but definitely not rude.

Condescending is rude, of course...............so are insults and namecalling.

Probably it's hopeless. But we'll see. I hate to discard people, but fortunately the rude ones almost never have good ideas, so it hardly matters.

Condescension is only rude when it is used to make people feel bad. When Obama goes to his favorite hamburger joint to grab a bite to eat he is not being rude, even though he is being condescending.

Pointing out that your arguments are stupid, idiotic, and specious, is not name calling.

You are correct - some people apparently do not know the difference between describing an opinion and describing the person that offered that opinion.

 

[Underhill]

That the musket argument is argued only by people who know no better.
The law is clear - the 2nd protects weapons availabe today, not just those available in 1791.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

I noticed you ignored my second question.

You mean this?

So you honestly believe that anyone in America should be allowed to own and purchase any type of weapon that exist?

Given that nothing I have ever said supports any such supposition, I wrote it off as rhetorical sillines. But, if you insist on an answer:
Nothing I have ever said supports any such supposition

Point remains:
The 2nd protects weapons availabe today, not just those available in 1791, and there is no way to honestly argue otherwise.

Since you have given up trying to argue otherwise, I applaud your for accepting that point.

So, which bit of the 2nd excludes nukes?

 

[eflatminor]

No, just pointing out the ridiculous nature of 'feel good' legislation that in no way deters criminals from obtaining that which you hope to ban.



Thanks for proving my point. Shall we ban propane tanks too?

No, why, because the Columbine kids were too stupid to test their bombs before they deployed them? That proves MY point, not yours: if people have to make something (as opposed to buying heavy weaponry ready-to-go from Walmart) MOST of them will be too stupid, like Harris and Klebold were at Columbine. Tremendous deterrent, stupidity and hard work. Another deterrent is the risk of discovery. That's why I didn't click on your link. You think people aren't watching and recording who goes to sites like that? Okay............

You still don't get it. ANYTHING criminals want, that they believe will help them carry out their crime, they will get. That's the point. Banning such items only put those hoping to defend themselves against these criminals at a disadvantage. Criminals aren't using grenades because they're not the right tool for the job. Same goes for good guys that wish to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with building vs buying.

Yea, a Google search or a trip a library is so very difficult...

Making your own grenades is so difficult that almost no one has; I've never heard of anyone committing a crime with them. Correct, because a grenade is not the best choice for criminals or good guys. They're good for subduing enemy soldiers in a machine gun nest, not for armed robberies, mass killings, or or home defense

If it were easy, people would. Wrong, again. They're not used because they're the wrong tool for the job, not because they're difficult to build or acquire or because they're illegal.


You hear of people downloading those infamous nuke instructions, but you never, never hear of someone carrying one they made onto the Mall in front of the Capitol, you know? If nukes were available in Walmart, however, that area would already be a radioactive ruin.

Now it's nuclear bombs? Good God, get a grip!

Banning is not making something less easy to obtain, its making it illegal to obtain. When you ban a firearm or they're accessories, you only put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about your regulations and have NO trouble obtaining what you hope to ban.

No, I can't agree with that. Consider drugs: making them illegal DOES make them a whole lot less easily consumed than if you could buy heroin and cocaine at your local liquor store. It just does. Wrong. Illegal drugs are EASIER to obtain than if they were sold by legitimate, and regulated, outlets. This was true of alcohol during prohibition as well. Booze, usually bad booze, was easy to obtain and harder so once legitimate business controlled it's distribution.You have to go to the ghetto, you have to deal with lowlifes, etc. Yea, right, can't get drugs in the suburbs...Same thing with weapons. Buying grenades and submachine guns and rocket launchers at Dick's Sporting Goods would lead to a WHOLE lot more people owning them than is the case now, since they are illegal. Illegal is a deterrent more ways than one. 1: you will go to jail. 2: it's hard to find them and acquire them, takes travel and it's difficult to find the dealer. 3: very high priced, because of the illegality and scarceness. Like drugs. If legal, they'd be cheaper and easier, of course.

Again, you should focus on what people DO that harms another, not the inanimate object they may own. These items you mention are not typically held because they're not desired. Again, they're they wrong tool for most jobs.

I'm fine with legalizing drugs, because I figure there'd be a big die off at first and then, you know, Darwin would reassert himself with the survivors who don't take drugs. But drugs are a problem for the individual who takes them: weapons are a problem for all the kids in the classrooms that get the grenades thrown into them.

Really, there's a weapon that got up from it's case, loaded itself, and killed a bunch of kids? We should put a stop to that...

Yet, they're easy to build. And no, they're not designed to kill 'hundreds'.

Why criminals don't use them is probably the same reason criminals don't tend to use fully automatic machine guns, they're not the best tool for the job. If you want to rob a store, a handgun is your best choice. If you want to commit a mass killing, a semiautomatic rifle is the best choice.

No, grenades would be GREAT for mass killings. Another one that has no clue about the weapons it wants to banOf course they would kill hundreds!! Toss a few of those babies into an early showing of "World War Z," watch the intestines fly! Run down hallways throwing them into every university classroom you run past, wow, you could really rack up a high score! I'm guessing you never activated a hand grenade...

You say they are easy to build. Then you must know that, right? Have you built homemade grenades? Why? Are you planning on using them? How are you planning on using them? What area of the country do you live in? Would you like to provide us with an address?

I get when you have no ability to debate using logic and reason that you'll revert to ad hominem attacks. Works every time...