Gun enthusiasts: YOU DEFINE "ARMS"

[mudesi]

When the second amendment was written, it referred to this:



Apparently, today, it means this:



Or how about this?



Does this count?



Perhaps this?



Maybe it means this



No obfuscating or dodging. I am asking the gun lovers of DU a direct question.

Tell the rest of us what "arms" means. Tell us whether or not you have a right to own an anti aircraft missile, or whether there possibly ought to be a ban on such a thing. Give us a clear, concise definition. I am tossing this ball to you. Let us see if you can play it.

Then we can have an actual debate.

[Zywiec]

1. Why don't you tell the rest of us what it means to you

then we'll know what your agenda is and how to properly answer.

[IntravenousDemilo]

6. Because the OP wants to know if you all think there's a limit to what kinds of weapon you can own.

I think it's eminently clear.

[benEzra]

113. See post #48. (n/t)

[mudesi]

8. Let dodge ball commence! (nm)

[Dawggie]

161. I would imagine the agenda is pretty clear....

So what are "arms?"

[Bluebear]

207. Yes. welcome to DU . .

[Esra Star]

2. You forgot the nukes.

[BrotherBuzz]

100. Here you go

[Esra Star]

115. Does that come with instructions or is it too easy? nt

[northzax]

244. you put the red wire into the green hole

oops, I meant the green wire into the red hole. my bad. say hi to Vishnu for me.

[BushOut06]

3. This should be fun

:popcorn:

This is something I've been wondering awhile as well. After all, the 2nd Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment doesn't specify what constitutes arms. The writers of the Constitution could never have foreseen the types of arms that would be available today.

I would love to hear a good, logical reason why it's okay to ban certain arms - ie rocket launchers, missile pods, fully automatic machine guns, etc - and not okay to ban other arms - ie semiautomatic assault rifles or easily concealed handguns.

[IntravenousDemilo]

14. It's a badly punctuated amendment.

What's with, all the superfluous, commas in, incorrect, places?

It should read, "A well-regulated Militia being necessry to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

[SteveM]

24. "...should read." But it doesn't. (nt)

[IntravenousDemilo]

35. Well then, let's fix it.

Not you and me personally, since we have other things to do, but the people in charge of fixing such things and who get paid large amounts of money to do so.

[SteveM]

43. Actually, you would need another amendment. See Dershowitz.

This noted civil rights attorney is no friend of guns, but has said that if you want to deny people the right to keep and bear arms, you would have to repeal 2A.

[IntravenousDemilo]

45. So you can't just have another amendment amending the punctuation? n/m

[SteveM]

67. Sure. See Article V. An example of housekeeping: Amend. XXI

[BuyingThyme]

77. The history of the wording is easy enough to locate.

Truth be told, it seems that they chopped up the original wording in hopes that it would make sense to no-one, thus no-one would object.

[SteveM]

133. Similar grammatical structure is used in some state constitutions...

Rhode Island's Free Press Clause: "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty..."

The use of a "clause" in the beginning was used in other state constitutions. And no one would think to somehow attach a "communitarian" right to Rhode Island's protection of a free press.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/volokh_test.txt

The great weight of constitutional interpretation lies with the "individual right" model, not the "communitarian right" model, so much so that the former outlook is described as the "standard model" of 2A interpretation.

Laurence Tribe, the scholar most-cited by gun-controllers, has now changed his tune and sees 2A as an individual right (as of 1999).

[Xenotime]

190. Very good point

[Goblinmonger]

266. Actually

if you look into the grammar and rules of punctuation of the times, you will find that "being necessary to the security of a free State" is NOT a modifier of "A well-regulated Militia" but to the other part of the sentence "the right of the people." Rules of punctuation were not the same then as now. Nor were the use of phrases.

[IntravenousDemilo]

285. But that would mean "A well-regulated Militia" would just be hanging out there modifying nothing...

...like some subheading, which would require a colon after Militia -- "A well-regulated Militia: being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear..."

Anyway, that looks just as clunky as before, not to mention equally antiquated. So it really needs to be definitively repunctuated for the sake of clarity and modernization, and while they're at it, they can lose the capitals on Militia and State. This isn't German; we don't capitalize common nouns except at the beginnings of sentences or within titles.

[Goblinmonger]

288. It's called

a justification (or purpose) clause. More than you want to know about it here:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

My interest in this stems from being an English teacher more than a gun rights advocate (which I am not).

[IntravenousDemilo]

295. Interesting read, if a little byzantine.

It doesn't really tell me which one is the justification clause and which one is the operative clause, and why there is a superfluity of commas such as the first one in the middle of what looks like a dependant clause (we don't normally write "That, being the case,...", but "That being the case,...") and the other one that separates the subject phrase ("right of the people to bear and keep Arms" from the verb phrase "shall not be").

Could you parse it for me as you see it, please, using italics for the justification clause and boldface for the operative clause? It may be the only way I'll understand the distinction.

Thanks.

[D-Sooner]

306. Funny

This isn't exactly the argument I would have expected from this thread. :)

[IntravenousDemilo]

325. Some people are passionate about guns. I'm more passionate about English.

:)

[CTyankee]

311. As an older person, I have found that commas have been removed from much of

the text I used to read as a young college student. The comma after "Militia" should not alarm anybody. It was the way people wrote (and spoke) in the English language until recently, when (for some reason) commas became almost extinct.

The founders didn't "badly punctuate", they simply wrote the way well educated English speakers and writers wrote in those days.

[IntravenousDemilo]

326. I admit to being a grammatical, spelling, and syntactical conservative...

...and in my 40-odd years of writing and editing, I don't recall ever having used a comma to split a dependent gerund clause (I think that's what the first phrase is) in half like that, nor would I use one to separate a subject from its verb, as is the case in the last half of the amendment, except with an intervening clause of some kind. Commas have their place (in lists, separating dependent clauses from the main part of a sentence, before but and which and etc., etc.), but they should be used only where necessary for clarity's sake, since their overuse can muddy up a text. I think most of the more antiquated attitudes towards commas were dismissed by grammarians like HG Fowler (Modern English Usage) back in the 1920s, several decades before I was born. Fowler was all about elegance of expression, a good definition of elegance being "the state in which everything is just enough, no more, and no less." You may notice, by the way, that I didn't put a comma right before "being" in that last sentence.

And with that, I've probably written the dullest paragraph in DU history.

[CTyankee]

328. I am no comma expert but it seems to me that your placement of a comma, as in your

example, isn't that different (in terms of deciphering meaning) as it is in the 2nd amendment's wording. But I am also no constitutional expert! However, I do have some resources that I suggest will be helpful to this discussion: Jack Rakove's "Original Meanings" and Akhil Reed Amar's "The BIll of RIghts." This discussion has intrigued me. I will be consulting these two volumes in search of more enlightenment on this subject.

[zbdent]

127. Why is it that the bible-thumpin', gun-totin' reichies always take the First Amendment

strictly as written ("There is NOTHING IN THERE about separation of church and state") verbatim, and yet ignore the part of the Second Amendment where it says that the militia must be well-regulated?

That's what gets me ...

[hack89]

135. You are right ..

we should ignore the bible-thumpin', gun-totin' reichies and stick with the official Democratic Party position.

[SteveM]

146. Know any of those "reichies" in these threads? I haven't met one here.

[michreject]

279. Why is "the people" in the 1st a individual right

and in the 2nd a collective right?

Whatever fits your ageda, I guess.

[jmg257]

201. Full Autos are NOT Ok to be banned. Nor semis, handguns etc.

They are all common military arms. The Militia clause secures the right of the people to arms. What arms? Those personal arms that a person would be expected to provide himself in his role in the militia (as in the Militia Act of 1792). Rifles and pistols were standard in the Militia then, and they are standard personal arms in the modern military - including full-auto, semi-auto, shotguns, handguns &c. Not only is it a right of the people to be so armed, it is a duty (constitutionally).

But further, the 2nd also protects the private, personal, individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. Why? For defense of the state of course, AND for self-defense. That last is an unalienable right, and without the means would be no right at all. It is an infringment, and also unacceptable, to ban the best convenient tool one would use to defend himself at most times - the pistol. Not only would the govt be deprived an armed effective Miltia, the people would be deprived the best means of self defense.

[flamin lib]

253. So are rocket launchers, hand grenades, and for that matter

tanks, helicopter gunships, jet fighters and so forth.

[Bandit]

265. A person in the military does not have unregulated right to any weapon.

Munitions and armaments are very heavily regulated and only issued when a real need exists. I am confident that is the same mentality that was expressed in the "well regulated" part of the amendment. No person in the military is allowed (during actual combat exceptions are made) to own their own armament. They can use what is issued to them.

[benEzra]

312. The militia is not the military...

and the militia was expect to purchase and own their own weapons. Check out U.S. v. Miller:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

or read the Militia Act of 1791, which required all U.S. males of a certain age to purchase their own rifle or musket and a certain amount of ammunition, and keep it at home:

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia ... That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and esontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

No, the militia not only owned their own equipment, they chose it themselves, paid for it themselves, and could freely practice, hunt, or shoot recreationally with it as they chose. In other words, no different from the civilian AK in my gun safe, which I can take to the range whenever I want, and can keep loaded for defensive purposes if I so choose.

[Toots]

330. There was to be no "standing army"

The founding fathers were quite adamant about that. Since we maintain a "standing army" explain the need for militia..

[CTyankee]

313. I know you are sincere in your beliefs, but I still think your emphasis on

a gun and other armament collection is misplaced. You will not defeat armored helicopters and tanks. You will not defeat an air strike ordered to wipe out your nest of insurgents, no matter the truth and beauty of your cause.

I know it is all Hemingway and romanticism to imagine oneself bravely resisting the forces of evil, but I do believe that you can do better by devoting more energy to political reform and less to the "revolution." Prevent that from happening; that is better than preparing for the end times with your pitiable cache of arms in your basement against a huge military force...

[karlrschneider]

4. Instead of being annoyingly confrontational, why don't YOU read up on current

laws. However, I will say this: I should be allowed to have an anti-aircraft missile...YOU should not.

[mudesi]

11. It's a simple question

Why is it so hard to answer?

Could it be the NRA propaganda has a psychological hold on you?

I hate to pun, but you know as well as I do that my point is bulletproof.

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. No, your point isn't bulletproof at all. The *first* thing you need to do is

look up and understand the definition of "militia".

----------------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) Pronunciation Key
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.



-----------------

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
militia

1590, "system of military discipline," from L. militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).
-----------
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This militia

noun
1. civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
2. the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution
------------

Now, as we have advanced in technology, the definition of "arms" has changed, but the meaning in the Constitution hasn't. It is stated clearly that this amendment covers the "people", NOT the "military":
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


As a gun owner, I will say that there are guns that ordinary citizens have absolutely no use owning. Some are made for mass killing during war and serve no other purpose. No one in this world needs a chain-gun, gatling gun or even a fully automatic pistol or rifle for deer hunting, bear hunting, rabbit hunting, squirrel hunting, bird hunting, target shooting or anything else.

[Sanctified]

5. Whats your point?

When was the last time any of those items were used in a crime by a civilian? And it's not like civilians can't get their hands on those weapons but really who the fuck wants to drop $30,000 on a heavy ass gun that is not easy to conceal so they can go rob a 7-11 for $35.00?

[Eagle_Eye]

7. My arms are a bolt action rifle, 12 ga shotgun, and a revolver

That is all that "I" need.

However, arms in the sense you are posting, do not include crew served weapons. That leaves out the M2 50 caliber machine gun, gatling gun and the nukes.

I answered your question, now answer mine,

What is your point?

[mudesi]

13. My point is you lose

Every time someone brings up "right to bear arms" as an argument against any kind of gun control, they lose the debate.

That is my point.

[Eagle_Eye]

17. I exercise my right to bear arms, so just what have I lost?

[BushOut06]

20. Do I have a right to keep and bear an anti-aircraft missile launcher?

The 2nd amendment doesn't say the right to K&B light arms - it just says ARMS. Therefore, it's been up to the courts to decide how to interpret that. Obviously, your RKBA isn't absolute.

[Eagle_Eye]

41. My right to bear arms exists, so what have I lost?

[benEzra]

53. Do you have the right to publish child porn?

Do I have a right to keep and bear an anti-aircraft missile launcher?

The 2nd amendment doesn't say the right to K&B light arms - it just says ARMS. Therefore, it's been up to the courts to decide how to interpret that. Obviously, your RKBA isn't absolute.

Do you have the right to publish child porn?

No?

Then any degree of arbitrary restriction on the right to free speech and freedom of the press must be OK, right?

The idea that the 2ndA is somehow more absolute than the 1stA or the 4thA is a straw-man argument. Restrictions that can pass a strict-scrutiny test are generally ruled Constitutional.

The problem is, most of what the OP and the gun-control lobby advocate (blanket ban on the lawful and peaceable ownership of handguns, bans on protruding rifle handgrips, bans on guns that can fire "multiple shots") would not even come close to passing strict scrutiny.

[magellan]

81. Cheney gets to keep an anti-missile battery at his home in Jackson Hole

So I think the answer is 'yes' if you can afford one...and you don't live near an airport. lol

[Zywiec]

22. They should lose the debate

What does "bare" arms have to do with gun control?

[mudesi]

26. oops

:blush:

[sendero]

29. Yeah...

... except nobody actually does that. So your pointless again.

[SteveM]

47. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Kind of a strawman, here...

Most 2A defenders are not against reasonable regulation (esp. in the area of concealed weapons). If you want to debate an absolutist (there are counterparts for the other rights in the BOR), advertise for such.

[EstimatedProphet]

239. No, that's not your point

Your point is not ANY kind of gun control at all. It's absolute gun control, that's what your point is.

We have gun control in this country. It isn't enforced nearly enough. what's the point in more, when what we have, if enforced, would do what we need? what's the point in more, when what we have isn't enforced, and any more has no better chance of being enforced either?

[flvegan]

9. Just in time...

:popcorn:

[JeffR]

98. Not to be a scold

but you've been sucking back the popcorn something fierce this week. You're going to get a tummy-ache.:)

[flvegan]

116. The material here lately has been so choice.

It's hard to NOT indulge.

[JeffR]

125. True that.

Just want to keep everyone healthy and ready to vote.

[DS1]

10. Janet Jackson's Left Nipple

damn near killed an entire stadium in one fell bra

[SteveM]

49. But Prince set things straight and the lion slept that night.

[AuntPatsy]

12. I am a supporter of the right to bear arms, what do you feel should this right be limited to?

[mudesi]

15. I am asking YOU (nm)

[AuntPatsy]

21. I am asking you?

[BushOut06]

27. The OP asked a valid question

The OP asked a valid question about a very ambiguous amendment. The OP asked the question first.

[AuntPatsy]

31. Since there is a law already in place that answers his question to my satisification I feel my

question has more validity at this point in time than his wouldn't you think?

I see nothing wrong with the gun laws already established, if he or she does why not name which one upsets him or her?

[michreject]

87. And doesn't want to hear answers

I have over 50 guns. All legally owned. The Government hasn't knocked down my door to take them, so possession must be within the letter of the law.

[Dawggie]

166. I knew a (wealthy) man who was convicted of felony DUI and owned a vast collection of guns.

He registered them in his wife's name who later divorced him.

He killed a man with his car. He keeps his gun(s). He's a big buisnessman in a small town and noone will challenge him on this even though he is next door to a psychotic break.

He probably has more than 50 guns.

Feel safer?

[michreject]

181. And all this means...................

what?

[Dawggie]

184. That the current set of laws don't work.

anyone with money can circumvent current laws

[michreject]

229. Which "current set of laws" ?

Those enacted in 1787?

[Xenotime]

194. Why do you need 50 guns?!? I hope I never bring my kids over to your place.

[michreject]

227. Because I can

They're all legally owned. I don't allow strange kids in the house.

[slackmaster]

256. For me, my more than 50 firearms constitutes a collection

Which by definition consists of things a person acquires for reasons not related to actual need, i.e. "an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby." (per http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/collection ).

Your children would be perfectly safe in my home, and welcome as long as they behave reasonably well.

(All operational firearms are kept securely locked up in my home.)

[Prophet 451]

324. Collector? Antiques?

If I had the money, I can easily think of a couple of dozen historical firearms I'd love to own.

[IntravenousDemilo]

16. You first. n/m

[Esra Star]

117. Wearing a Yogi bear suit. nt

[Chovexani]

18. You'll pry my Gundam from my cold, dead hands. (n/t)

[IntravenousDemilo]

30. Wouldn't a Gund be more fun?

[Chovexani]

186. I dunno

Gunds are fun but I think giant killer robots are more fun.

[Sanctified]

19. I define Arms as a gun that can be carried by 1 person and requires only 1 person to operate it.

Missles, cannons and bombs are considered Ordnance not arms.

[Tesha]

38. That's just a handy definition that supports your argument.

But it's specious. After all, there are also "arms
control" talks that have to do with things like
ICBMs and nuclear warheads.

The term is clearly broader than your definition.

Tesha

[SteveM]

51. Hell, the OP wanted a "clear, concise definition." BTW, why did the framers...

not mention a "clear, concise definition" of arms in 2A? Did they conceivably believe that technology would evolve (as in "the press" of Amendment I)?

[Tesha]

Perhaps they meant "all arms", much as we interpret "the press" very broadly nowadays. (NT)

[SteveM]

83. Possibly, they did. I think they recognized the need for flexibility...

That's why the Constitution is very spare in its definitions and overall length; greater specificity invites greater hair-splitting and speciousness. It's one thing to define the age for senate and presidential candidates, terms of office, and amendment procedures (in the Articles); it's quite another thing to nail down specifics when speaking of "the press," speech, assembly, right of the people to keep and bare arms, etc. What is often missing in the debate is the term "bare." The framers, I think, not only recognized the right to keep arms (in one's house), but to bare them, which would protect a citizen's right to carry.

The Constitution has usually been interpreted in a very liberal way. Viewing the Second Amendment in this manner means the right is probably much more extensive than most gun-controllers would want to imagine.

[Tesha]

228. So, say, RPGs would be okay, as they can certainly be carried.

Why are they illegal? Why are hand grenades illegal?
For that matter, why is a tiny little container of
ricin toxin illegal?

Tesha

[SteveM]

247. The Second, like other rights, is subject to regulation...

Actually, RPGs and hand grenades can be obtained legally, but under severe restriction. The fact they are not used in domestic crime/terrorism is mute testimony as to their unsuitability; hence, prohibition can work. I believe prohibition, if it is to work, must meet two criteria:
(1) The thing or action to be prohibited must enjoy wide, general public support for its ban;
(2) The thing or action to be prohibited must have obviously vulnerable "choke points."

The "hard" weapons you mention fall under (1) insomuch as the regulations amount to a "ban" for most Americans; and (2) because only a few manufacturers construct these items and then only under strict regulation as to transportation, inventory, authorization, etc. I would also note that neither weapon is in great demand by those who would do day-to-day crime or we would see their use.

The same can be said for the toxins.

You will find some folks who think none of these things should be regulated/outlawed; but most 2A defenders here do not fall into that category.

Please note that the Second Amendment DOES NOT give any specificity to "arms," nor does the First outline in detail what is or is not speech, press, assembly, etc. It is hard for anyone (let alone the framers) to give clear and concise lists as to what is or is not a "banned" "arm."

[Tesha]

264. So it's just as I thought: handguns *CAN* be regulated.

> The Second, like other rights, is subject to regulation...

So it's just as I thought: handguns *CAN* be regulated if
our country decides to do so. Thanks for clarifying that!

Tesha

[CTyankee]

318. Please, please it's "bear" not "bare" !

Can we not get the English language straight here? This is not a conversation about sleeveless blouses!!!

[northzax]

245. that is my interpretation

if "Freedom of the Press" extends to the internet, which has nothing to do with "press" besides a colloquial definition, then "arms" certainly extends to every possible sort of weaponry. I really can't see a good argument against that, but I am willing to listen to them.

and before anyone says "they meant hand-held firearms" I will posit that a: they also meant swords (one of the marks of a 'gentleman' in England was the right to carry a sword, commoners had no such right) and b: they included cannon in this equation, the deadliest and most expensive weapons of the day, since the Continental Congress, and the first few Congresses in the US, certainly provided letters of marque to privateers, which certainly included cannon.

[Tesha]

268. Thank you; that's my interpretation too.

This idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the
weapons currently favored by a subset of our country
seems specious at best; it either applies to all private
weapons (from all classes of weaponry) or it applies to
no private weapons.

Tesha

[Sanctified]

64. Arms Control is abbreviated for Armament Control.

[Tesha]

72. In your dreams. You're just using sophistry to mask bullshit. (NT)

[Sanctified]

76. Love it when dreams come true.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms-control

[Tesha]

230. Now go find the difference between "arm" and "armament".

And a dictionary, no matter how much it supports *YOUR*
view of thins, isn't exactly the last word on *ANY* of
this, so don't get too smug too fast.

Tesha

[Sanctified]

298. Ok, here are the defintions for Arm and Armament

Arm = http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arm

Armament = http://www.thefreedictionary.com/armament

If the founding fathers were talking about Armaments they would have used the word in the 2nd amendment.

[Hosnon]

174. The same term can have different meanings in different contexts.

Simply because the label "Arms Control" refers to nuclear weapons, or the like, does not mean that every time the word "Arms" is used when referring to weapons it means the same thing.

[michreject]

89. Finally

Someone who gets it. Missles are considered munitions also.

[Dawggie]

164. Given time and money,

I could design a thermonuclear missile that could be launched by me as I walked in the wood to a destination I coose fro my laptop.

Where do you live? :sarcasm: :)

[CTyankee]

315. Of course, but when your tyrannical government comes at you with such ordnance,

your guns will be of little help.

Clearly, in the late l8th century U.S. as the Constitution was being written, the balance between the musket of the military and the musket of the citizen was equal. Today, of course, it is not the case. So why depend on the "musket" ? You simply cannot match the firepower of the state against you.

What is the explanation for this sentiment for guns among liberals (or anyone else for that matter)? The romantic notion, embodied by Hemingway and the stuff of many other novels and movies with brave and heroic rebels is probably the reason. All very compelling on the screen or in one's mind as he reads the exiting narratives. But...reality intervenes and going down in a ditch gets less exciting as real life begins to dawn on you.

I would hope that people on this thread would wake up and realize that they have more to gain from giving lots of energy and resources to solving our problems politically. Once it gets to the dire situation they so valiantly describe, it is too late and it is a failure of mind and will to reach a politically viable solution.

[slackmaster]

23. The line between civilian and military arms was drawn correctly in 1934

With the passage of the National Firearms Act.

[Lautremont]

111. 1934 was not 2007. Reality is different to-day.

[slackmaster]

140. Yes

And?

[Lautremont]

167. The line drawn in 1934 is not applicable.

There is a greater threat. There is a greater need for greater weapons. I know from your posts that you recognize this on some level. Giving lip service to archaic rules, now so antiquated as to seem (as another poster put it) arbitrary, does no one any good.

[slackmaster]

170. I would like to see the FOPA '86 restriction on new MGs lifted, and

States compelled to allow qualified individuals to acquire and register them.

[Lautremont]

171. And that would be a start,

but you say things like "qualified individuals" and "register." These are the buzzwords of the very people who, at once, would like to grab guns and whose uinsides would turn to paste and slither down their legs if ever they were confronted with one. There are no qualifications to the 2ndA. NONE.

[sandnsea]

156. To regulate machine guns and sawed-off shotguns

Guns used by gangsters. Same as people are trying to accomplish today.

[Recursion]

191. Do you have ANY actual evidence of gangster using machine guns?

Other than in the fantasies of hollywood writers?

How often does that happen?

At any rate, machine-guns and sawed-off shotguns are already for all practical purposes impossible to obtain legally (you have to go through a whole lot of background checks and pay a lot of money). What do you propose to do to make them more illegal than they already are.

But forget that because it's getting away from my main point: what makes you think gangsters are using machine guns?

[sandnsea]

210. Are using? Today??

Are you serious?

[Recursion]

213. Yes, incredibly serious. I've literally never heard of it.

Automatic weapons. Are. Not. Used. In. Crimes.

It almost never happens.

Where did you get the idea that it does?

[sandnsea]

216. They're. Illegal. Semiautos are used all the time n/t

[Recursion]

235. They're expensive and hard to find

Semiautos are used all the time

This is what I have been trying to tell you over the course of several threads.

Why are you worried about "gangsters having machine guns" when what they use is semi-automatic handguns?

[sandnsea]

282. To regulate machine guns and sawed-off shotguns

Guns used by gangsters. (then) Same as people are trying to accomplish today. (semiautos)

[benEzra]

314. Except rifles are rarely used by U.S. criminals...

rarely enough, in fact, that the use of a rifle will often make a story make national news. Shoes and bare hands account for twice as many murders as all types of rifles combined:

U.S. homicides, by weapon (FBI):

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Rifles aren't a crime problem in this country and never have been.

Semiauto rifles ARE, however, the most popular civilian rifles in America...which is the real reason why the MSM and the gun-control lobby wish to make them seem so dangerous, IMO.

[Nailzberg]

25. On a colonial ghost tour, Thomas Jefferson told me semi-auto rifles were okay by him

[SteveM]

52. You too? He told me to re-ink my keyboard and press harder (nt)

[backscatter712]

28. Restrict the Second Amendment the same as the First Amendment.

In other words, gun control laws should be subject to Strict Scrutiny.

What does that mean?

That means any gun laws must pass the following three tests: (from the Wikipedia article: )

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

This is good common sense and legal sense, in that the Second Amendment can refer to an individual's right to keep and bear arms (or more generally, the right to self-defense,) but at the same time, sanity can be maintained - the Second Amendment does not grant the right of an individual to keep and bear a nuclear device. It dovetails nicely into existing Constitutional case law, protects the rights of individuals, but leaves enough room to put in some gun control that can deal with crime and safety issues without damaging the rights of law-abiding individuals.

There is common ground to be found, folks.

[TahitiNut]

34. First Amendment restrictions apply to government as well. Parity is then the test???

After all, no distinction in the exercise of civil liberties is made in the various laws applicable to First Amendment rights so perhaps the Rights of The People should be co-extensive with the liberties taken by government, huh?

[backscatter712]

70. That's not entirely insane.

U.S. vs. Miller in 1938 ruled that a firearm covered by the Second Amendment must be one suitable for use by militias - IOW, by the military.

And you know what, would you trust George W. Bush and his government cronies with firearms? His Co Vice President got drunk and shot one of his buddies in the face...

Maybe if the .gov was restricted to having weapons with parity with those possessed by us civilians, maybe that would put a crimp in their style, no?

[SteveM]

75. I'm not sure what you mean, here. Sorry. (nt)

[slackmaster]

40. It already is restricted and regulated

Are you not familiar with the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, etc.?

[backscatter712]

44. I am familiar with those acts.

My problem with those acts is that they're pretty damned arbitrary. 18.5" barrels on shotguns are allowed, but 18" is illegal. Silencers are restricted and require Class III permits. (Note that silencers are used, and even required to be used in Europe when hunting - that way, wildlife isn't disturbed by loud gunshots.) There is a place for law-abiding citizens to own and use weapons such as short shotguns, silencers, even fully automatic weapons (I've heard that full-auto at the range is insanely fun. B-) )

I'm not saying gun control is EEEEEEEEVIL. I'm saying there should be standards as to what's acceptable and what isn't. Most of what's in the Gun Control Act of '68 isn't unreasonable - serial numbers on guns, prohibitions of firearms possession by convicted criminals & such, dealer licensing. There's certainly legal arguments that such laws are necessary. This sort of legislation ensures that firearms are legal, but only to law-abiding citizens, and that measures are in place to help keep guns from criminals. I have no problem with that.

When that's the case, these sorts of laws should be able to pass muster by Strict Scrutiny.

[slackmaster]

46. How could a law restricting a manufactured item be anything but arbitrary?

And yes, shooting fully automatic weapons is a hell of a lot of fun.

[backscatter712]

56. The whole point behind my suggestion of using Strict Scrutiny is to make gun laws less arbitrary.

Laws that restrict barrel length, or prohibit handguns in Washington DC are arbitrary. They unnecessarily punish otherwise law-abiding owners of these weapons who have never used them in anger.

By using Strict Scrutiny, we subject these laws to a test, and require the federal government and state and local governments to justify the need for these laws. It's pretty easy to justify a law banning individuals from possessing nuclear weapons - a single nuke could kill millions. Justifying a law banning handguns for law-abiding citizens is rightfully far more difficult to do under strict scrutiny.

Maybe this will bring some sanity to the gun laws. At least that's my hope - that law-abiding, normal people can have weapons, have fun with them at the range, even use them in self defense, while laws are in place that can be used to prosecute people who use these weapons to commit crimes.

[CTyankee]

320. Thank you very much. Some sanity in this debate at last. n/t

[BadgerLaw2010]

32. Arms: Anything that's not crew-served or explosive. Ordnance: Everything else.

There you go.

And POS weapons like that machine pistol should be banned as unsuitable for any military, self defense, or sporting purpose, because they are bad at all of them.

[SteveM]

86. Not a bad definition. (nt)

[IntravenousDemilo]

286. I always thought gunpowder WAS explosive. Isn't that the principle behind it?

I mean, you can certainly blow your hand off with bad fireworks. Wouldn't they, as well as ammo like shotgun shells, thus be considered ordnance, since they fall into the "crew-served or explosive" category?

[Irreverend IX]

300. Gunpowder is not explosive.

Neither traditional black powder or modern smokeless powder explode. They just burn at a very fast rate. The difference between detonation (explosion) and deflagration (burning) is that with detonation, the burn front moves faster than the speed of sound. Detonation creates energy an order of magnitude beyond what you can get with deflagration, enough to blow forged steel into dust. No gun uses powder that detonates; any gun that did use such ammunition would need an extremely thick barrel and receiver to contain the force of the explosion.

Also, unlike with explosive weapons like frag grenades and rockets, the force of the expanding gas within a gun is not directly used to do damage. It is used to propel a projectile that does damage. So firearms cannot be considered explosive weapons.

[IntravenousDemilo]

301. I did not know that.

So the powder in bullets and shotgun shells is a different kind from the powder used in fireworks, then. Well, you learn something new every day.

[benEzra]

316. The basic powder used in fireworks used to be black powder, I think...

probably mixed with other pyrotechnic (aluminum powder comes to mind). I'm not sure what they use now.

Modern firearms use "smokeless powder," primarily nitrocellulose; double-base powders also contain nitroglycerin, but in a form that will not detonate; it allows you to produce more gas for a given amount of powder. "Smokeless powder" is not really smokeless, but it does produce less smoke than black powder.

In an open container, a small amount of smokeless powder will burn very rapidly with a "whoosh" sound, but does not explode (I've seen it done). Confined, it can generate high pressures, but no detonation wave. AFAIK, it is the same stuff used in model rocket motors (like they sell at hobby shops), if you were ever into model rocketry.

The purpose of the powder is merely to produce gas to pressurize the chamber and barrel behind the bullet. For firearms powders, you want a slower burn rate than for fireworks, because you want the burning powder to smoothly increase the chamber pressure to the desired working value (30,000-35,000 psi for a handgun, 50,000-60,000 psi for a rifle), and then continue producing gas as the bullet accelerates down the barrel in order to keep the pressure up and produce the best velocity.

[galileo3000]

33. What does the other guy have? (n/t)

[11 Bravo]

36. Appendages extending from my shoulders?

[jody]

39. Arms were defined in U.S. v. Miller (1939) as individual arms commonly used by the military.

THE SIGNIFICATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE TERM MILITIA APPEARS FROM THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION, THE HISTORY AND LEGISLATION OF COLONIES AND STATES, AND THE WRITINGS OF APPROVED COMMENTATORS. THESE SHOW PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT THE MILITIA COMPRISED ALL MALES PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE. "A BODY OF CITIZENS ENROLLED FOR MILITARY DISCIPLINE." AND FURTHER, THAT ORDINARILY WHEN CALLED FOR SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.

Today the standard military individual arms are the M-16 Rife and the M-9 pistol.

Your question is misleading because the right to keep and bear arms is primarily about defense of self and property as Pennsylvania (1776) and Vermont (1777) said in their constitutions.

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Note the natural, inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is the most important. Defense of state is a distant obligation.

I've answered your question, now tell me what freedom of the press means today given the type of press used in 1790 by Ben Franklin.

[SteveM]

42. "Arms" could be attached to you, a tree, a device. It could mean a bomb...

The Second Amendment recognizes the right of the people to keep and bare arms. That right is subject to regulation just as the other Rights in the BOR are subject to regulation. Hence, full-auto weapons (including both those held in the "arms" and those needing transport) are highly-regulated, but not illegal to own once the requirements are met.

As for bombs, missiles, bazookas, tanks, naval cruisers, these are not illegal to own as far as I know. 'Seen a lot of 'em in civilian hands lately?

U.S. v. Miller (1939): The Supremes held that Miller's possession of a sawed-off shotgun was not constitutionally protected because it was not suitable for military use (the argument used by the government). When the case was heard, Miller was dead and his attorney did not show. The Court implied that had Miller been in possession of a firearm which was of military grade, he would have won the case. Ironically, all my firearms would be unsuitable for military use because they are not FULL AUTO; i.e., what armed force uses anything SHORT of full-auto? Incidentally, the Supremes were wrong about Miller's Stevens 311 SxS gun: shotguns WERE used in WWI -- ever heard of "trench guns?"

Have you seen what "the press" (Amendment I) looked like back in the day? Kinda like that ol' flintlock. But it's thrilling to know that we are both rattling away on keyboards which weren't contemplated by the framers. BTW, the writers DID NOT refer to a specific weapon. How can we "gun lovers" come up with a "clear, concise definition" when the framers couldn't/didn't? I guess the writers figured things would change -- how 'bout you, Lynyrd?

[benEzra]

48. Non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber...

has been the operating definition for many decades, by long-established compromise. Stop pretending it's about anything else.

NO ONE is advocating the de-restriction of antiaircraft missiles, automatic weapons, and whatnot.

The gun issue is about the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to continue to lawfully own and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearms under .51 caliber. NOT automatic weapons, NOT shoulder-fired missiles, and NOT ordnance.

BTW, you could play your same little game with the First Amendment. Define "speech." Define "press." Insert photo of hand-cranked movable-type press, and illustration of town crier speaking without artificial amplification...

[fascisthunter]

55. Somebody Answers

NOT automatic weapons, NOT shoulder-fired missiles, and NOT ordnance.

[slackmaster]

57. That's essentially the same answer I gave in reply #23

:hi:

[benEzra]

60. All of which have been tightly restricted by Federal law for 73 years now. (n/t)

[fascisthunter]

68. Are You Ok with the Restrictions?

Or DO you believe any regulation is equal to banning? Just gaging where you are on this topic.

[benEzra]

78. I am OK with the Title 2/Class III NFA restrictions on automatic weapons,

sound suppressors, etc. as well as with the NICS background check for purchase, the Gun Control Act of 1968 restrictions on possession by violent criminals, the 1986 ban on Kevlar-piercing handgun ammunition, and (generally speaking) the requirement of a license in order to carry a concealed weapon on your person.

I am NOT ok with the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch (e.g., outlawing the most popular non-automatic target rifles and defensive carbines in America), pre-1861 magazine capacity restrictions, bans on lawful handgun ownership, restricting armed self-defense to those with fat wallets or political connections, etc.

More here, if you're interested (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO).

[fascisthunter]

84. Sounds Reasonable to Me

I am not a gun enthusiast, don't own a gun, but I do believe in the right to own a gun with some restrictions.

Such as: can't own a rocket launcher

[Lautremont]

94. Automatic and/or shoulder-fired weapons are legitimate tools of defense.

Why is the right to use them being denied us? If the difference is one merely of size and power, I can see a slippery slope developing. It may well be that larger weapons will be required for defense against an enemy either foreign or domestic. In fact it is probable. The restriction of such weapons goes against the word and, more crucially, the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. The caliber restriction is clearly arbitrary, and a bootheel to the face of legitimate sportsmen who only want to target shoot. Conceal/carry restrictions vary from state to state, and any restriction - ANY restriction - on this fundamental right - self-protection - inhibits the ability of Americans to defend themselves. The variance across localities makes no sense - what applies to one region of America ought to apply to any other. There is no reason why not. Waiting periods are nonsense - is a thief going to wait ten days before he breaks into my house? I think not. There should not be restrictions on gun ownership for people with criminal records if they have served their punishment. A criminal does not become a non-American - he has the same rights and lives under the same Constitution as us all. If he has served his time, he has paid his dues. You can't infringe on his basic rights. The same goes for nonviolent mental incompetents. They are Americans. Are we going to presuppose that owning a gun is going to turn them into homicidal maniacs? For shame! This is nonsense. Guns don't turn people into homicidal maniacs - the restrictions on gun ownership seems to make this assumption, and it makes me sick. A mental incompetent has the same right to walk safely on the streets as us all, to shoot targets. They might need protection even more than the rest of us. The restrictions on size of gun is already very neatly handled by simple economics, thank you. You can't walk down the street and purchase a nuclear bomb, and even if you could, you couldn't afford it. So the idea of restricting ownership on yes, even nuclear bombs, is ridiculous on its face. It disgusts me to see so many here on DU, even, and in some cases especially, the responsible gun owners here, supporting these restrictions. It's like, oh, I'm all for the right to bear arms - for ME. The way I like it. Yeah, that suits ME fine, never mind the rest of you. Some of you people in this sub-thread are the worst, like all "oh, the 1934 act was wise and good!" The sound of that bill being passed was the sound of our rights being torn asunder, and just because you don't have the guts to truly follow through on what it means to have the right to keep and bear arms - a right that many fought and DIED for - you keep your blinders on and suck up to the Man - the very organization that will, I guarantee it, pry your tiny pop guns from your cold dead hands. We are going to need these larger weapons and we are going to need them now, and all of us - mental incompetents, criminals who have paid their due and legitimate citizens alike - are going to need them. STAT as the TV doctors say. Guns are what made America great. Yet you treat them as toys, shooting them at cardboard targets! Tin cans! They are tools, and they are symbols - symbols of freedom, of self-actualization. They are also weapons. Some people hide them away, under lock and key, the firing mechanisms disabled. How irresponsible. People don't realize, I guess, what it means to have and own and love a gun. What it truly means, deep inside, and to society. This is a right, it is woven into our COnstitution. Just because it was an Amendment, peol=ple think they can ignore it, and the "partial rights people," as I call many of you in this thread, are the worst of all. So selfish.

[benEzra]

108. Pragmatically speaking, the line of demarcation drawn by the NFA

is one that has been considered acceptable to all sides for 73 years. You *can* own tanks and artillery, but you have to go the NFA route to do it (and I would be OK with reopening the NFA automatic weapons registry that was closed by the McClure-Volkmer Act in '86, which would restore them on the same footing as howitzers and RPG's).

No, I don't treat guns as toys, I *do* believe the 2ndA protects an individual right to own and use guns for defensive purposes and as a deterrent to governmental overreaching, and I believe that restrictions should be subject to a strict-scrutiny test just as with any of the other amendments of the bill of rights. FWIW, I have a CHL and own a civilian AK.

BTW, I would point out that nukes are not even entrusted to the *military*, no matter what rank. There is not a single officer in the U.S. military who can detonate a nuke (google "permissive action links"). Only the President can unlock them (via the "football"), and he can't personally launch them; those who can launch them, can't unlock them.

[IntravenousDemilo]

211. So which part of Canada do you live in...

...where the US Constitution has force and is referred to as "our constitution", and where people spell "defence" with an "-se"?

[krispos42]

220. Dude. Paragraphs are a wonderful thing.

A good, passionate post, but it's awful hard to read. Makes people's eyes glaze over.

[B Calm]

50. No matter how much you gun grabbers try to twist things, owning

a firearm is a LIBERAL IDEA! Stop it!

[fascisthunter]

58. you gun grabbers? (nt)

[benEzra]

62. Speaking to the OP, who has been on a ban-more-guns kick lately. (n/t)

[SteveM]

155. It is indeed, even if some liberals AND conservatives want to restrict.

[Xenotime]

195. WTF are you talking about?

[virginia mountainman]

54. Lets apply your logic to the rest of the BofR

Wow, to use the same images twice in 4 hrs...

[mudesi]

63. Dodge ball

Don't change the subject.

[SteveM]

69. Again: why did the framers not use a clear, concise definition? (nt)

[virginia mountainman]

74. Your the one referring to ancient tech...

I am the one showing you, your FLAWED LOGIC.

For the record, the line was drawn in 1934 with the National Firearm act. I am comfortable with that line.

[Xenotime]

196. Your arguement is misleading

[Dr. Strange]

208. I am THIS close to ripping off those images!

I LOVE the first one especially!

[qdemn7]

231. No ripping necessary

They're freely available at the photographer's website. http://olegvolk.net/

[Vickers]

59. Does freedom of speech include the internet?

Does freedom of religion include Mormonism?

Are skyscrapers included under search and seizure laws?

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

61. I want the RoboCop

...nice inflammatory flame-bait post.

[BuyingThyme]

65. Was the musket as important as the sword?

Really. I don't know.

[SteveM]

73. The sword was THE symbol of arms before guns were widespread...

The sword was presented to serfs, indentured servants, even slaves, when they had "earned" the right to be a citizen in times of royalty. With the sword, the new citizen had the right to defend himself, his family, his property against hoodlums and anyone without legal authority to apprehend him or take his property. From this, the new U.S. recognized the "natural" right to self-defense and recognized the right for citizens to use arms to so defend.

[The Straight Story]

66. It meant guns back then and it does now (did not mean cannons back then either)

but then, some of us only think our government (Bush and crew) should have guns....

[Cal Carpenter]

71. This is probably the wrong topic

for me to start posting on...

But honestly, by asking the question using terms like "gun enthusiasts" and "gun lovers", you have already muddied the waters to an extent that makes having "an actual debate" impossible.

Either way, I am not a "gun enthusiast" or a "gun lover" so I suppose you don't want my opinion anyway.

[BuyingThyme]

79. Welcome to DU, Cal Carpenter!

What's your opinion?

:hi:

[Cal Carpenter]

103. Well, simply put

I have a gun and can (but seldom do) use it. I seldom even look at it. But it's there. As with many people, guns have been around them their whole lives, in the house, the farm, hunting, whatever.

I don't 'love' my gun, nor am I particularly 'enthusiastic' about it.

But that has nothing to do with politics, really, my personal belief or circumstance. Politically speaking I think guns should be legal. Prohibition doesn't work. Even if private citizens willingly give up their 'arms', the criminals and cops will always have them. That's no good either. As for the hard core weapons pictured in the main post above, the reality is that anyone who wants to use it is a criminal and will ignore the law anyway. This goes for the government itself, btw, in addition to whatever psycho criminal types would want to use such a weapon.

Besides, the companies that make weapons are among the most powerful and influential in the country, and given the symbiotic relationship between such companies and the federal government, it's not like any real prohibition would ever stick anyway.

It's pretty simple really. But it sure makes for a useful divide-and-conquer issue, doesn't it?

edit - and thanks for the welcome. Longtime lurker, first time poster and all that :)

[BuyingThyme]

106. Should children be allowed to bring pipe bombs to school?

[Cal Carpenter]

121. Of course not

What does that have to do with it?

[BuyingThyme]

123. dupe

[BuyingThyme]

124. Well, it shows you believe in prohibition.

Now we have to figure out where you draw the lines.

[Cal Carpenter]

132. My post, including the comment about prohibition

was in direct response to the questions in the OP.

Kids taking pipe bombs in school have nothing to do with it. No one has suggested that.

[BuyingThyme]

134. So how about kids taking sawed-off shotguns to school?

[Cal Carpenter]

143. Sorry,

I'm not gonna get into it like this in my first exchange here.

You'll have to find someone else to argue with.

Good night.

[BuyingThyme]

147. Good night.

Don't be discouraged. It's always like this.

:hi:

[SteveM]

158. I don't think he was intimidated by your argument, just bored...

I took a shotgun to school in 1962. There, I showed how it worked, how it was disassembled, safe operation and cleaning. No one arrested me and my teacher approved. But it was a very liberal atmosphere back then.

[Cal Carpenter]

331. Yes, intimidation was not the problem

I may be new here at DU but I've been on other political boards. My skin is good and thick. I just don't usually waste my time with people who ignore all the points i actually make and then go off on absurd tangents.

But when someone gets themself that far off-base in order to avoid my arguments, the poster loses the argument on their own. :shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

333. You didn't make any arguments, did you?

But it's interesting that you would buy into anything SteveM says, as he keep showing that he has absolutely no interest in anything that at all resembles honest debate. (He's not a big fan of the truth.)

[Recursion]

215. Kids don't have lots of Constitutional freedoms in school

It's part of not being adult and having the school behave partially in loco parentis

[SteveM]

90. Around here, "gun lovers," is pretty mild. Welcome.

[Cal Carpenter]

104. Yeah, I've been reading here on and off for

a couple years. That's why I was wary about starting off in a gun thread :)

Thanks for the welcome!

[razors edge]

80. I just want a few of these.

That other stuff is too small for me.

[Dukkha]

102. I never go anywhere without my mutated anthrax

For duck hunting ;)

[jody]

82. Come on lynyrd_skynyrd, you challenged the majority of Democrats who support RKBA for self defense

so show us what you have.

Come on, give it your best shot and you should also read and understand the Democratic Party platform that says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

The easiest out for you is to recognize the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

That's the progressive, liberal thing to do!

[BuyingThyme]

85. The Second Amendment was written to establish a well-regulated militia.

Not to make it easy for enthusiasts to own dangerous toys.

[jody]

91. Your position opposes that of the Democratic Party. What party's platform on RKBA do you support? nt

[BuyingThyme]

92. I support the Constitution. Some folks hate that.

[jody]

95. You oppose the Democratic Party platform. What party do you support for RKBA? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

99. I don't read party platforms, let alone support them. Why would somebody do something so stupid?

[jody]

120. You do not support the Dem platform so what party do you support? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

126. Oh, oh. I've seen this before.

No honest debate for you.

You lose.

[jody]

128. What's to lose? Apparently you're not a Dem so I and others want to know what you're trying to do?

Why be so secretive?

If you don't like the Democratic Party, why don't you just say so?

Obviously you aren't interested in discussing the natural, inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, which the Democratic Party supports, because you have not provided one iota of facts to try to refute the many posts to this thread pointing out the long history of RKBA.

Come on, many of us really want to know what you are trying to accomplish.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

136. I said no such thing. I asked if you are a Dem and you refused to say yes or no. You also say you

reject that part of the Dem platform that supports the Second Amendment.

You can clear things up if you answer my simple question, are you a Democratic?

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

159. Your crap is turning into dime-a-dozen flame bait.

[BuyingThyme]

337. Ahhh, projectionism. The last refuge of people who

despise honest debate.

[BushOut06]

177. What the fuck?

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone on DU must adhere to each and every one of the items in the official Democratic Party platform? Are we all supposed to be fucking robots, programmed to think only what the DLC tells us to?

[jody]

182. No, but IMO every candidate who accepts money from the national Democratic committee should either

support the Dem platform or if they oppose a plank, at least do the honorable thing and say I do not support the Dem platform on XXXXX issue.

For example the Dem platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

Some Dem candidates, as is their right, oppose "Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms" and use their high public profile to stridently rail against handguns. The sad thing is those people convince many independent voters that the Dem Party wants to ban handguns. Of course that's a lie but it's perpetuated by some Dem candidates. :puke:

Bill Clinton said a major factor in Gore and Kerry losing was the perception they would support gun bans.

[BushOut06]

206. That's not what you were inferring

First of all, I don't see any Democratic candidates in this thread.

But most importantly, you attacked another DU member, challenging his/her Democratic credentials based on one single issue. I'm not sure why his/her responses got deleted, you seem to be the one attacking and questioning.

[jody]

219. I inferred nothing, I asked a question. Do you have supernatural powers so you can read minds? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

332. The reason one got deleted and the other did not is because,

in addition to being completely dishonest, the poster is a coward.

Instead of letting the truth stand, he alerted the mods until he got his way -- until the truth was removed from this thread.

I, being far better than a coward, and recognizing the poster's inability to post constructively, let his improper comments stand for everbody to see. It says a lot about the poster. (No alerting for me.)

[WGS]

269. There is no

"gun show" loophole and the AWB was just feel good legislation, it had no teeth.

[AZ Criminal JD]

101. It does?? In what Democratic platform did the party say guns

Should be banned. That is news to me. What year was that?

[benEzra]

109. It doesn't. He's saying that the Dem party platform states that the 2ndA is an individual right. NT

[AZ Criminal JD]

118. Thanks. Got it. I misread who was replying to whom.

[jody]

130. Who said the Dem platform wants to ban guns? Are you confusing me with some one else? n/t

[SteveM]

93. Most constitutional scholars say the right is individual...

In fact, the very few federal court rulings which deal with 2A cite (as in Miller, I believe) findings which define the militia as any able-bodied man (now woman, too) who is to report for duty when summoned and to BRING YOUR OWN GUN. The BYOG requirement would seem to clearly indicate the primacy of the individual right upon which the "militia clause" must depend. But the militia is not the only reason for RKBA. The context of debate over the Second was mainly to protect the "natural" right to defend oneself with an arm.

[BuyingThyme]

97. Actually, it seems they were more concerned with

protecting people from being compelled to bear arms. (As in a militia.)

[SteveM]

144. To remain gender and racially neutral, the requirement has expanded.

As a practical matter, do you really expect a government would arrest someone for NOT having a gun? The point you are missing is that the militia, however important it was at the time and however important it might be in the future, was cited in 2A as a secondary clause. This is what most scholars point to.

Read the debate among the framers when the right to keep and bare arms was considered.

[benEzra]

105. It was written to protect the right of the people to keep and to bear arms...

which is a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of a citizen militia. The militia was the desired outcome, but it is not the group that the right to keep and bear arms is recognized as belonging to. The militia are a subset of the People, but the People at large are those recognized as having the right.

The 2ndA didn't "establish" anything; it was a check against the new Federal government attempting to confiscate privately owned arms like the British did in Boston and elsewhere, just like the 4thA was written to prevent a repeat of the Writs of Assistance Act.

And BTW, shooting is certainly enjoyable, but IMHO guns aren't toys...


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[BuyingThyme]

107. Your first and second paragraphs disprove eachother.

[benEzra]

112. No they don't, unless you are reading stuff in that's not there.

The right is recognized as belonging to the People (i.e., individuals, just like the other amendments), not restricted to the militia.

The 2ndA didn't establish a militia; it prevented the government from messing with private gun ownership, which is a prerequisite for a citizen militia, but the right is not contingent on militia service.

The 2ndA was a response to the British confiscation of personally owned firearms, just like the 4thA was a response to the Writs of Assistance Act.

[BuyingThyme]

114. Your first paragraph says the Second Amendment

was intended to establish a government militia, and your second paragraph says it was intended to protect people from a government militia.

[benEzra]

119. Read it again.

Your first paragraph says the Second Amendment was intended to establish a government militia, and your second paragraph says it was intended to protect people from a government militia.

Read it again. Pay attention to the underlined parts. You do realize that a militia is NOT a government body, yes?

It was written to protect the right of the people to keep and to bear arms, which is a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of a citizen militia. The militia was the desired outcome, but it is not the group that the right to keep and bear arms is recognized as belonging to. The militia are a subset of the people, but the people at large are those recognized as having the right.

It was intended to protect the right of ordinary individuals to keep and bear arms. THAT is a prerequisite for a militia, but there is no limitation to militia members or militia service.

Second paragraph:

The 2ndA didn't "establish" anything; it was a check against the new Federal government attempting to confiscate privately owned arms like the British did in Boston and elsewhere, just like the 4thA was written to prevent a repeat of the Writs of Assistance Act.

Show me where I said anything about a "government militia." British soldiers/law enforcement confiscated people's guns in the early 1770's, not any sort of militia.

BTW, "government militia" is an oxymoron. A militia is a group of ordinary citizens; the militia were the Lexington farmers who met for drill on weekends, not the government troops, and were expected to appear bearing their own personally owned weapons, not government-issued ones.

[BuyingThyme]

122. Government militia is not an oxymoron, but it explains the difficulty you're having here.

And there were no "government troops." There was no standing army.

The Second Amendment was written to establish a government militia. (They wanted to form a militia with the intention of protecting the state.) They went as far as to debate which people should be exempt from being compelled to bear arms.

[jody]

138. You really should study American History. Congress created the United States Army on June 3, 1784

before the Constitution was adopted 17 September 1787 and before the Bill of Rights was completed in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

[BuyingThyme]

145. Sorry little person, that army was disbanded by the Union.

They specifically did not want a standing army. It didn't come back until 1791, but then to fight Native Americans.

You should work on your reading skills.

[jody]

148. As I said, the army was established and a battery remained at West Point up to 1791. Your turn now

because the facts refute your statement "there were no 'government troops.'"

[BuyingThyme]

150. There was no standing army.

When they wrote the Constitution, they decided against a standing army.

The Constitution is the definition of the country.

Understand?

[jody]

152. You said "there were no 'government troops'" but in fact there were government troops. Why don't

you acknowledge the truth?

[BuyingThyme]

153. Look, the Constitution created the government.

The people who wrote it decided against a standing army, against government troops.

Do you understand why you are not making sense?

[jody]

154. Do you admit you were wrong in saying "there were no 'government troops'"? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

334. No, but I'm glad I was able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt

that you attempted to deceive the people reading this thread by pretending that you believed people were given an individual right to bear arms so that they may protect themselves from a government army.

Because I so easily proved your comments to be dishonest, and you unwittingly agreed that your comments were dishonest, you now have to chase a silly argument having to do with timing.

But, once again, everybody sees you for what you are.

[Thothmes]

327. If they decided against a standing army

Why does Article I section 8 of the Constitution give the congress the power to raise and support an army. What they decided was to maintain a small standing army and use the militia to fill in the gaps when required. They intentionally restricted the appropriation for an army to two years, but not for the Navy. Clearly the framers were weary of a large standing army, but recognized it as a necessary evil.

[SteveM]

139. Actually, the militia is ANY able-bodied person.

Read Sanford Levinson ("The Embarrassing Second Amendment"), one of many liberal constitutional scholars who hold that the Second Amendment is foremost an individual right which, secondarily, enables a militia.

[BuyingThyme]

141. That's not what the Constitution says.

It says the militia is necessary to ensure a free state, not that arms are necessary to ensure a free person.

[SteveM]

149. Again, read Tribe, Levinson and others. You're over your head.

[BuyingThyme]

151. If I were over my head, would I get such silly responses?

[SteveM]

163. Your arguments have been decimated. Understand?

[BuyingThyme]

335. Why, because some genius listed a few names

without providing any applicable context whatsoever?

That's not the way it works, Einstein. But it explains a lot, doesn't it?

[jmg257]

197. NO way - the Militia already existed (for 150 years). The Militia of the several States

as described in the Constitution were well-known entities. Colonial/Commonwealth Miltia acts were common and well-established. The Constitution did NOT create the Militia, or define them - it was NOT necessary! It merely gave certain powers to Congress in regards to them - THE existing Militia, AND gave them vital roles to fill when in service of the federal govt. The 2nd came later.

The debates in Congress with regards to the proposed articles/amendments did indeed cover "religous exemptions" as part of the article, because it is the duty of the people to be armed. The restrictive clause had only 1 attempt at modification (in the Senate) - to add "for the common defence' at the end - it was REJECTED.

[benEzra]

249. Ummm, Congress is granted the power to "raise and support armies" in the body of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights were all limits on governmental power, to protect the individual rights of the citizens, not grants of power to the new government. The right to own and carry weapons is recognized as belonging to the same "people" as in the 1st, 4th, and other amendments, i.e. individuals.

The British troops were both standing army and professional law enforcement. The Massachusetts residents who were having their personally owned guns confiscated by British army/law enforcement in the early 1770's were just ordinary citizens.

[BuyingThyme]

336. There we have it. A poster who understands that

Britain and the United States are the same country.

Oh, wait... That's not right.

[jmg257]

185. The Constitution was written to establish a system of govt, INCLUDING THE well-regulated miltia,

an attempt of which was accomplished in A1,S8,C16. The Militia of the several States (composed of the body of the people) were required to fill very vital roles - roles vital to the liberty of the people (repel invasion, execute the laws, surpress insurrections). The 2nd was added to further secure the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms; since the Congress was given certain powers with regards to the Militia of the several States, one of which was to provide general regulations for how the people WOULD arm themselves (mandatory - & i.e. all the same caliber within 5 years &c.). Clearly it was seen how a usurption of this power could be used to disarm the people &/or the Militia of the States...Tyranny at its best - as that bane of liberty, a Standing Army would be built on the ruins of the Militia.

Not only did the 2nd reiterate the constitution's making the Militia necessary, the people's right to arms could not be infringed by ANY body.

[ileus]

88. Exactly what I'm allowed to own by today's law.

However.com if we come under attack from a foreign powers army, I'd say all those pictured would and should be legal for citizen soldier.

If all I have to worry about are your normal car-jackers, murders, thieves, drug dealers, drug users I believe I'm already properly armed for those incidents.

It's funny I'm sure you're one of the peeps that whine about police using tasers also.

same old gun grabber cryin' because you can't get your way.

[Lautremont]

110. It's very handy that today's laws square so perfectly with where YOU want to "draw the line."

So selfish. What about people who, for peaceful and fun purposes or for self-defense, want to own something larger? I suppose they're to say "Well! That guy Ilbeus is happy with owning what 'today's law' allows. I guess I should be too!"

And you think we should be waiting until "foreign" powers invade? Really? Maybe you want to think again. Domestic enemies flourish yet, ilbeus.

[BuyingThyme]

96. wrong place

[Wcross]

129. Any weapon that is not crew served.

A printing press then.



A printing press now.

Technology tends to make things more efficient.

[BrotherBuzz]

192. I guess our new 16 inch gun is out

The boys are going to be extremely disappointed, they spent the whole summer pounding an old Yugo to fit the breech of our new gun so they could fire it toward Uncle Dickie's secret bunker...

[JustAnotherGen]

142. It means

That I have the right to a rifle.

It means I have a right to a .38.

The rifle to hunt. The .38 because I've been stalked before. If that one ever comes back. . . the one who wouldn't go away, and out weighs me by a hundred pounds - a smack in the face won't work. I know there are a lot of men and women who think that bullying mean obsessive men can be handled with RO's. Guess what - had one of those. Last month? It expired. Emails me, then calls an 'old number' 10 times begging me to speak to him.


I have the right to self-defense.



And for the record - I'm terrified of Black Water. If they come for me - they are leaving witha dead body or two. Mine, and which ever one I get a shot on.

These are the best of times . . . these are the worst of times . . .

[sandnsea]

157. They always support "reasonable regulation"

Until you ask them to engage in defining the regulation, then they never have a response until they go see what the NRA has to say.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudesi]

165. They have nothing to stand on

The second amendment was written at a time when it was impossible to envision what kind of weaponry would exist today. They can't do anything about that fact. Everyone agrees that the first amendment can have restrictions, so why not the second?

[jody]

172. I've read every post in this thread and not one person supported zero restrictions on the type of

arms used by law-abiding citizens to exercise their natural, inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

You ask, "why not the second?"

The answer is restrictions already exist for RKBA.

What we pro-RKBA types oppose are BANS that absolutely prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves.

Do you oppose bans that prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their natural, inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense?

[CTyankee]

317. My niece's step grandfather used his "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms,

was shot and killed by him in when he was in a drunken frenzy. He had a permit for his handgun in Texas at the time. It was easy for him to shoot and kill her, a clean shot to her right temple. He shot his wife and my niece's mother also, altho they lived. Then he killed himself.

He got the gun to protect his household against robbery and he kept it loaded.

Sure enough. Nobody robbed him.

He robbed other people, though. My niece was 24 years old. She had been married 4 months. The pallbearers at her wedding had been the ushers at her wedding.

Well, at least he had his "right to keep and bear arms."

[jody]

322. Anyone can cite thousands of instances where law-abiding citizens have used guns to kill someone who

was determined to kill the law-abiding citizen.

Many more law-abiding citizens have used their guns to prevent murder or harm to themselves or some other person.

I'll be glad to engage you in a debate using Bureau of Justice Statistics to prove whether more law-abiding citizens have been harmed or saved by allowing law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

That approach will completely remove emotion from the debate and allow consideration of government policy on a completely rational basis.

[CTyankee]

329. I clicked on the website you provided. Where are the stats thatyou mention?

I'm happy to look them up for myself. It does seem to me that it is difficult to accurately assess statistically a non-event than an event that actually happened (crime involving usage of a gun vs. an event that was "averted" by the presence of a gun used for protection).

[SteveM]

173. Your sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[-..__...]

189. Those restrictions are based on an abuse of a right/behavior.

Perjury, inciting to riot, issuing death threats, etc is a behavioral/abuse of a right (freedom of speech), which we have laws against.

Limitations on devices, implements that can be potentially used to abuse that right are not restricted or banned, which we do not have laws against.

Murder, assault, armed robbery, etc is a behavioral/abuse of a right (the right to keep and bear arms), which we have laws against.

Limitations on devices, implements that can be potentially used to abuse that right are restricted or banned.

So, by your analogy, when the first amendment was written at a time when it was impossible to envision what kind of technology would exist today, shouldn't we place restrictions/ban devices that simplify the abuse of first amendment rights?

[krispos42]

221. The Second can and does have restrictions

You know it, I know it, everybody in this thread knows it.

OWNING FIREARMS IS NOT AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT

There, see, now you know it in big capital letters.

Can we move on here? Must I bookmark this response so I can copy the URL every time you post "Everyone agrees that the first amendment can have restrictions, so why not the second?" from this point on?

And, incidentally, the 4th Amendment has been expanded to cover things like computer files, email, and telephone calls, things which were NOT in existence in 1787, nor conceived, nor even fantisized about. Yet, mysteriously, those inconceivable things are magically covered! Wow!

[jody]

168. IMO most who are pro-RKBA support aggressive enforcement of existing federal laws and stiff

sentences for convicted offenders.

What specific change would you make to 18 USC 922 and 26 USC 5681.

Please don't just quote the Scary Brady Bunch and other fronts for the Joyce Foundation.

[sandnsea]

175. The OP was directed at gun enthusiasts

Answer it. That's the point.

[jody]

178. The OP has been answered. What changes would you make to 18 USC 922 and 26 USC 5681? n/t

[sandnsea]

180. Which post?

I didn't see your answer.

[jody]

183. # 39 and #168 n/t

[sandnsea]

187. Ah, change the subject, I see

Divert to a 2nd Amendment debate instead of an arms debate.

[jody]

193. My #39 answered the OP precisely with a SCOTUS decision. Are you having a problem reading tonight?

[sandnsea]

198. So which of today's weapons apply?

Be specific.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

[jody]

200. Apply to what? I said in #39 that the M-16 rifle and M-9 pistol are standard individual arms used by

active duty, guard, and reserve troops.

Most states have some part of their "unorganized militia" organized so a governor can activate them for emergencies. See State Guard Association of the United States, Inc. for some information and links to state "unorganized militia" units.

A few states train part of their "unorganized militia" to use individual arms, e.g. M-16 rifle and M-9 pistol.

I don't know whether some states provide individual arms to part of their "unorganized militia" or whether individuals are expected to provide their own individual arms.

In either case, Congress, under our Constitution is required "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" and it has not done that job for the "unorganized militia".

[sandnsea]

202. So those are the only ones? n/t

[jody]

204. Only ones? Do you mean M-16 and M-9? Answer, they or versions of them are standard individual arms

for DoD but there are other individual arms used for special purposes.

I was merely pointing out current military arms that could be be used if SCOTUS' decision in Miller were applied literally.

I'm not aware that any court or government agency has tried that approach for its "unorganized militia" but I vaguely recall some state, it could have been Tennessee, was exploring ways for members of its "unorganized militia" to obtain semi-auto versions of the M-16 to be used as "unorganized militia" when activated by the governor. That may or may not be true. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

205. Oh. What "could be used"

Which isn't what the OP asked. You won't come up with your own list.

[jody]

217. The OP asked for arms for the second part of RKBA, defense of state. Using Miller my list is M-16 &

M-9 because they are current standard DoD individual arms.

As I pointed out repeatedly, the most important part of RKBA is self-defense.

PA and VT said defense of self is a "natural, inherent, inalienable right" and "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state". PA and VT citizens have that right protected either explicitly by the Second Amendment or implicitly by the Ninth Amendment.

IMO under stare decisis SCOTUS will say the natural, inherent, inalienable right defined in PA and VT constitutions applies to all states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Handguns are the most effective/efficient tool for self-defense, the choice of over 800,000 sworn law-enforcement officers.

IMO handguns are also the most effective/efficient tool for law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their natural, inherent, inalienable right of self-defense.

[jmg257]

209. More likely any arm fitting the desired caliber would be accepted.

M16 & M9 for sure, but the govt was never very specific about "brand" or "model" when coming up with general regulations regarding arms the members of the milita would provide themselves - only caliber. I think any arm that fired the .223 or .308, the 9mm, the .45, the 12ga would be acceptable. I know uniformity is the whole idea when giving Congress those powers in A1,S8,C15, but with the people providing the weapon and the ammo (initially) - a specific bayonet and a required # of mags for YOUR weapon could also be included in your accoutrements.

[jody]

218. Makes sense to me. n/t

[sandnsea]

203. dupe

[qdemn7]

232. The problem is your definition of "reasonable restrictions"

On guns is like an anti-choicers definition of reasonable restrictions on abortion.

For the record, my definition of ARMS are:

(1) ANY Non-full automatic / burst fire handgun, rifle or shotgun with a bore diameter of less than 51 caliber.

(2) Possession of any shotgun covered in (1) with barrel over than 18".

(3) Possession of any rifle covered in (1) with ANY barrel length. In other words, what is currently classified as a short barrel rifle without any NFA rules applying.

(4) No restriction on type or quantity of ammunition for any of the above weapons.

Now, beyond arms, what I consider "reasonable restrictions" are:

(5) Shall issue CCW in ALL states that applies in with complete reciprocity, with complete background check, mandatory training and periodic re-certification.

(6) Repeal of the 1986 Hughes Amendment that prohibits registration of new machine guns under the NFA.

(7) Current NFA rules concerning short barrel shotguns, machine guns and destruct devices, excepting as in (6).

(8) Strict enforcement of the violation NICS, meaning jail time for criminals TRYING to buy guns.

(9) Full Federal Funding of states transmission of all records concerning criminal and mental health to NICS. Federal penalties to states that do not transmit data.

(10) State preemption laws that prohibit cities or counties from passing their own stricter gun laws.

[-..__...]

160. Christ on crutch.

Give it up already.

No one is going to put an ICBM silo in their backyard or grow ebola virus in petri dishes underneath their bed if that's what concerns you.


However... if you know anyone that has numbers 4 and 5 available at a reasonable offer (I'm willing to negotiate), then have them IM me.

[Dawggie]

169. Since law can now consider an automobile a weapon

I guess that taking away a license after DUI's should be unconstitutional?

[jmg257]

176. Ahh that's easy. All the terrible implements of war are ours by birthright,

but since the intent of the Militia Clauses (A1,S8,C15&16) were to provide the feds with a more effective Militia, they secured the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of the well-trained militia of the several States so the people could serve as the desired alternative to a standing army. And since the people were to provide their own arms, it was usually expected they would provide "personal" arms. (crew-type weapons were usually, but not always, provided by the govts) Any personal weapons would be included - but firearms specifically would be those that matched whatever Congress said was standard (currently .223 & .308, 9mm, .45, 12ga I would say). Definitely M16s, M4s, SAWs, Hk93s, M14s, &c, current issued shotguns of various barrel lengths, Beretta 92s, 1911s SIGs, Glocks, &c, & various sniper rifles at the minimum would be included in "military arms in common use" as approved by the USSC.

Now, since the 2nd further secured that right, declares the Militia of the several States necessary, and explicitly protects the individual right of the people as well, any arms that could be used by the people for defense of themselves and/or the State/United States would be secured - absolutely. Pretty much the same as above, but with no restriction as to caliber.

[Recursion]

179. Fairly easy, and already defined in law

"Arms" are individual infantry equipment that do not have significant fallout.

This was codified by the NFA in the 1930's to mean weapons that are:
explosive-pressure-propelled (ie, "guns" in the common sense of the term, not rockets, etc.)
non-crew-served (ie, rifles, shotguns, pistols, and carbines)
semi-automatic (ie, one trigger squeeze = one round fired) or slower
.50 caliber or less (except for some shotguns; this gets kind of into the gun-geek-tech-y side of it)
impact-based munitions (ie, not grenades)

This seems to fit with what seems to be the intention of the lawmakers, namely, that the militia (ie, us) could provide our own arms when called up, and that roughly describes the common armament of modern light infantry worldwide.

[jmg257]

212. So you are saying you would happily go up against foreign

invaders armed with full auto AK-47/74s armed with only a semi-auto? How about when executing the laws of the Union? Surpressing insurrections? Whew - not me brother! Doesn't seem like the militia would be very effective if we were constantly out-gunned by the opposition.

[Recursion]

214. In 7 years in the Corps I never put my M-16 on "burst"

Though I grant your point in general.

[jmg257]

233. Agreed! While the use may be questionable - it is still a nice option! Semper Fi!

[Xenotime]

188. To them it means all of the above. If it goes "BOOM" it's protected.

[jody]

199. I assume you include the Democratic Party which says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment

right to own firearms".

[cgrindley]

222. First, tell us why you hate the constitution (nt)

[Azathoth]

223. The ED209 kicks ass

I'm not a "gun lover", but I'd certainly make an exception if one of those things was on sale at the local Kmart. (the real thing, not the toy of course:))

[krispos42]

224. I wish more criminals would carry that Tec-9 pistol

Even if it wasn't prone to jamming, it's about the least-efficient pistol design out there.

Moving the magazine forward of the trigger (a characteristic that was forbidden for sale during the 1993 Ban, by the way) reduces the barrel length of the gun, and thus muzzle velocity and energy. It also makes the gun nose-heavy, and difficult to use in a holster or conceal in a pocket or waistband.

But, you see, it looks scary and military, so the anti-gun people use that fact to sow fear and make statements like "These weapons don't have any legitimate purpose! Harrumph harrumph!"

This is a Glock with a 32-round mag.





See what I mean? And a regular 17-round magazine does not protrude from the grip, making easy to carry and conceal, whereas a similar-sized magazine in the Tec-9 still protrudes plenty to make carrying and concealing difficult.




But to answer your question: arms are weapons designed to be wielded by a single person. That means carrying, marching, aiming, loading, and shooting.

A club is an arm. A battering ram is not.
A crossbow is an arm. A ballistica is not.
A rock is an arm. A trebuchet is not.
A rifle is an arm. A howitzer is not.

It is something that you, individually, are armed with. After all, we are talking about an idividual right, yes?

This is what the essentially unrestriced arms are. Oh, and I'll throw in a little bit about how, as a public safety measure we move weapons that can kill without deliberate aiming for each shot, like explosives and full-auto weapons, out of the "generally unrestricted" area and put them in the "get a federal permit" area.

[Cobalt-60]

225. I believe it refers to personal weapons

that musket was the standard military weapon of its time.
I think it would be anything up to the latest 'assault" rifle".
As the intent was that every citizen be immediately ready for war, military arms are included.
I think a practical line can be drawn at belt feed and explosive projectiles.
Crew served weapons and artillery pieces including the Light Rocket shown above would be over the line . And so on.
This of course is a liberal interpretation of the law.

[ThomWV]

234. Your quite reasonable (intelligent) comment certainly was welcome here.

It is nice to see a reasonable person express a reasonable view.

[Mythsaje]

226. I ain't playing that game...

To me the second amendment translates to mean "The Right of Self-Defense." If evil motherfuckers have guns, then there's no excuse for disallowing them to remain in the hands of law-abiding citizens, except maybe to deliberately throw them to the wolves for the sake of a false sense of security.

Last I checked, no one was running around the streets with RPGs, howitzers, or surface-to-air missiles and no one I know has EVER suggested we should have the right to own them.

And I'm not even a "gun lover." I'd just as soon they didn't exist. At all. But, as some people have said, guns are a democratizing force. It makes a 100 lb woman, at least in theory, the equal of a 250 lb man. There is nothing else known to humankind that does that.

The only thing I trust as little as I trust a Republican is someone who's opposed to the right of self-defense. I'll surrender that right the minute I stop breathing and not one moment sooner.

[Perry Logan]

236. Gun violence costs each American $500 a year. We're all paying for the gun guys' fun.

[jody]

237. Explain how me exercising my natural, inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense costs

you or any other American $500 per year?

On the other hand, SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody. That means self-defense is a personal problem.

It seems more plausible that each law-abiding citizen who exercises her/his inalienable right of self-defense by keeping and bearing arms is saving government thousands of dollars per year.

IMO it would cost government several thousand dollars per year per citizen and restrictions on many other inalienable rights; e.g. privacy, search; if government was obligated to protect every American. The more likely result of such an obligation is government would do nothing leaving Americans unarmed and defenseless against armed criminals. That's precisely what has happened in D.C. and that's why SCOTUS has decided to hear District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

Those who tout banning arms that Americans use for self-defense apparently allowing government to defend each citizen should also allow government to take over speaking, voting, thinking and other natural, inalienable rights enumerated in the BOR as well as unenumerated natural, inalienable rights protected by the Ninth Amendment.

[jmg257]

240. Seems a cheap price to pay to protect one's liberties. But, then we should charge the criminals for

their actions. Make it alot more costly for those bastards to conduct their wrong-doings (and not just financially).

[SteveM]

243. Where is your source on this? Who are the "gun guys?"

There are over 80,000,000 gun owners, many of them "gals." Are they the ones who are costing us $500 a year?

[karlrschneider]

252. Do you have some evidence for that number, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

???

[Perry Logan]

260. Cleaning up after gun mayhem costs us billions a year. It's covert socialism by gun owners.

ECONOMIC COSTS OF GUN VIOLENCE

Medical costs of gun violence put a terrible burden on health service providers and governments. When indirect costs of gun violence - loss of productivity, mental health treatment and rehabilitation, legal and judicial costs - are figured in, gun violence costs the US over $100 billion annually.

Medical Costs
In a recent study, the average costs for treating gunshot wounds were:

- $22,400 each for unintentional shootings
- $18,400 each for gun-assault injuries
- $ 5,400 each for suicides.

Over the course of these victims' lives, medical treatment will amount to $1.9 billion.<1>

Other Indirect Costs
Along with direct medical costs, gun violence involves loss of productivity, mental health care, emergency transport, and insurance administration. A 1997 study estimated direct and indirect medical costs at:

- $2.8 million per firearms fatality
- $249,000 per hospitalization for gunshot wounds
- $ 73,000 per emergency room visit and release for gunshot wounds
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=econ



Not to mention its terrible effect on murders and suicides:

Guns in Homes Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide
In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of suicide in the U.S., researchers at HICRC found that suicide rates among children, women and men of all ages are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the April 2007 issue of the Journal of Trauma.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/

[-..__...]

270. I wonder what the medical costs to society are for...

smoking and alcohol related diseases and deaths?

How about the loss of productivity and associated costs?

[benEzra]

271. The overwhelming majority of shooters in criminal violence

Cleaning up after gun mayhem costs us billions a year. It's covert socialism by gun owners.

The overwhelming majority of shooters in criminal violence are legally barred from so much as touching a gun (Bloomberg says 90% of shooters in NYC homicides had prior criminal records). Gun possession by criminals is already banned. Criminals can't pass a background check to buy a gun, and can't obtain a license to carry a gun.

Your focus on ownership by the law-abiding, rather than criminal misuse, suggests to me that reducing criminal violence is an excuse, rather than a goal. I suppose you could make lawful gun ownership as illegal as pot ownership, but it would be no more effective than pot prohibition, and would only exacerbate the criminal market--and you'd have to fight a civil war to take the nearly 300 million guns already in U.S. homes.

BTW, where do you stand on alcohol prohibition? Alcohol kills 100,000 Americans per year, far more than guns, per the CDC...

Guns in Homes Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide
In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of suicide in the U.S., researchers at HICRC found that suicide rates among children, women and men of all ages are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the April 2007 issue of the Journal of Trauma.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/

Ah, a study bought and paid for by the U.S. gun-control lobby...you do know that the HICRC was established by a grant from the same group that funds the Brady Campaign and the VPC, for the express purpose of creating pro-gun-control PR for the MSM, yes?

Fact is, the U.S. suicide rate is among the lowest of industrialized nations, below that of such gun-ban utopias as the UK and Japan, and even lower than Canada's, despite our abysmal mental-health care and the fact that we work the longest hours with the crappiest benefits in the industrialized world. If you want to use the associative fallacy, you might as well say that gun access reduces suicide risk... :eyes:

[jmg257]

272. Wow - the costs associated with automobile accidents must be HUGE. Can we ban them? Their

possession isn't even secured by the supreme law of the land. And our right to self defense wouldn't be affected at all.

We could save a TON of money for a little inconvenience, and ALOT more safety. (43,000 deaths annually - who knows how many injuries!)


Hmmm...I also wonder what it is about having more guns in a state that make people want to kill themselves more? Really don't see the correlation.

[CTyankee]

321. The purpose of automobiles is not to kill. The purpose of guns most often is.

That is the difference, my dear. Sorry you don't "get it."

[slackmaster]

278. There is a logical disconnect between criminal BEHAVIOR and lawful ownership of firearms

I will not accept responsibility for the misdeeds of people over whom I have no control.

[krispos42]

284. So, if they were injured by knives, hand, feet, and clubs...

Would that be cheaper?

Seems to me that in a blunt-force-weapon fight, an awful lot of the blows are aimed for the head. Where the brains and 4 out of 5 senses are located. Isn't that, like, more expensive than sewing up a couple of holes in the skin and internal organs?

Just saying...


And the underlying assumption here is that if guns were removed, all of the crimes committed by criminals with those guns would simply not happen. The criminals would not use any other weapon, they would just stay home and play XBox 360.

Since that's not true, you'd be replacing gun crime with non-gun crime.

If a politician were to advocate for a ban on the sale, transfer, and posession of black-painted passenger vehicles, I'd be a lot of money that deaths and injuries related to black cars and truks would go down dramatically.

After all, don't you know how much society pays every single year in black-painted car deaths and injuries? There is, of course, not legitimate reason for a person to own a black-painted car, nor is there a Constitutional protection for that right.

But if that politician then waved those numbers around on national TV that the highways of America were safer because he had removed the scourge of black-painted cars, I'm pretty sure we'd all think he was nuts. "Look at the decline of black-car deaths and injuries! I'm proud to run on my record of drastically lowering black-car-related carnage! Vote for me!"

The UK has done an excellent job at lowering the gun-related homicide rate in their country. Their homicide rate is at all-time highs, but THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT!!!! People aren't being killed by guns anymore, and that is the important goal!!!

[Tejas]

283. Perry, lay off the Republican koolaid

Quoting gun-grabbing Republicans (Brady) again eh?

[EstimatedProphet]

238. Arms have different classifications

So the answer is: all of those and more are arms. Only some of them are available to the citizenry. It was always like that. "Arms" may have meant a musket in Colonial times, but it also meant cannon and explosives, which the average citizen didn't have either.

[jody]

241. OP asked “Tell the rest of us what ‘arms’ means” so “we can have an actual debate”. Unfortunately

the OP focuses only on the second part of the RKBA issue, defense of state as given in Clauses 15 and 16, Section 8, Article I of our Constitution.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Note, if the Second Amendment was only about the militia, the 2nd would not be needed because the Constitution gives congress 100% of the authority and power needed for a militia made up of all the citizens with exceptions for specific tasks.

Many posts to this thread have defined arms narrowly for the militia part of RKBA but arms for law-abiding citizens to use when exercising their natural, inalienable right to defend self has not been discussed so “we can have an actual debate”.

lynyrd_skynyrd authored the OP so it would be nice if he started a new thread on DU’s General Discussion forum using the words of the OP so “we can have an actual debate” about arms for self-defense.

The new OP could read, “Tell the rest of us what arms means for self-defense.”

[jmg257]

274. Careful, the Militia clauses give congress very specific powers

with regards to THE Militia; the Militia of the several States that already existed.

They were to come up with general regulations with how the people would arm themselves, how they would be organized and disciplined(trained), and of course how they were to be called forth in service of the federal govt. NO power was given to recreate or redefine or federalize the Militias. NO power was given to disarm or disband them (they couldn't anyway - they are of the States). Duties were assigned to Congress to make sure the Militia would be uniform & more effective - otherwise the recourse was a (larger) standing army.

The Militia were still of the States. And now they had VERY important roles to fill when in the employ of the feds for protection of our liberties. The states could not disarm or disband the Militias either, 'cause to do so would deprive the federal govt of the entities REQUIRED by constitution to preserve liberty.

One could clearly see how a usurption of power could be used to disarm the people, &/or to render the Militia ineffective, and so the 2nd was added to explicitly make THE militia mandatory, and to explicitly protect the right already secured in A1S8; that right is for THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. I like to say that the Constitution secured the militia the right to arms, the 2nd made it personal.

Clearly we have the private right to keep and bear arms. Our association with the Militia is what limits the "compelling interest" or "reasonable restriction" BS that is used to try to infringe on that right.

[jody]

296. I've quoted repeatedly that Pennsylvania and Vermont declared the right of self-defense to be a

natural, inherent, inalienable right.

PA/VT constitutions of 1776 and 1777 also separated defense of self from defense of state by saying "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".

I'm not worried about the militia because PA/VT recognized the right of self-defense before they entered the social contracts; Articles of Confederation, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

The language of PA/VT constitutions is unambiguous and serves as complete choke point of thought from which one can debate subsequent laws but the meaning of "natural, inherent, inalienable rights" when the PA/VT were adopted is absolutely clear.

One does not have to discuss the source of rights or what this or that world renown philosopher wrote or said because PA/VT declared certain rights to come from "nature".

[aikoaiko]

242. To be more precise, are you asking me to define 'arms' in the context of the 2nd Amendment?

If you are, then the founding fathers were talking about weapons equivalent and less to those issued to the standard infantry soldier. People needed to keep and bear arms suitable for self-defense of self and state.

I think the same standard should apply to today.

[harun]

246. Arms in that case would be

all conventional weapons minus biological, chemical, nuclear, landmines, and any other un-manned weaponry, like bombs, trip wire bombs, drones, etc. The people have to have enough fire power to over throw the government if it is no longer serving the will of the people.

So this would be ok:



And this would not:






(Ok, I admit it, this post is simply to antagonize the OP and I am not *that* serious)

[-..__...]

251. Actually...

It's perfectly legal for a civilian to own a functioning artillery piece like that... B-)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6_vufc1ns

Having a steady source for the shells (and cost), and having to pay a $200.00 tax for each one is another matter.

[MNDemNY]

248. In my opinion

ALL if those are include, since the second amendment was meant to give "the people" the ability to defend themselves from a government turned tyrant. As much as i don't like it(and I don't) if we want "gun controls" to be expanded we need to amend the constitution.I would ad tanks and combat aircraft to the list as well. On edit...I am NOT a "gun lover"

[jmg257]

250. OK . So YOU got a few good answers. Where is "THE DEBATE"?

Seems that "personal" firearms (and accoutrements) in common military use (including full-auto) is a typical response here (and the correct one also - it gets more general when describing those arms protected for personal use).

So where is the debate you mentioned? Can we start that now? Any thoughtful commentary? Anything to disprove our definitions??

[FunkyLeprechaun]

254. I think that's a very good question

And nevertheless the "right to keep and bear arms" group will not answer the question (like in the thread above). Believe me, I posted a good question regarding the aftermath of Virginia Tech, would UK gun laws apply to the US?

It was attacked as draconian.

However, another question on my mind... it may seem like a silly question. If non US citizens are in this country legally (Visa-holders, Residents, and even tourists), do they have the right to bear arms? After all, there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says that tourists from the UK can't purchase a handgun while visiting the US.

[slackmaster]

257. Laws and regulations hold that legal resident aliens have most of the rights of citizens

They can't vote, but they can legally buy guns other than ones covered by the National Firearms Act.

If you are in the country on a work or student visa, you can buy a gun. If you are a tourist, you can't.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

261. Aha

So there's a line drawn. Certain people in the US can purchase arms but certain others can't.

If you restrict certain types of people from owning a gun, theoretically you're restricting their right to bear arms.

How about you in other countries? Like say Canada? Could you say to the mountie, "Hey, I've got my constitution here, I've got a gun licence, I've got the right to bear arms!" and still be allowed into Canada?

I willing to bet not.

[slackmaster]

262. I am not now, nor have I ever, argued that the RKBA is absolute

We regulate and restrict rights all the time, including the right to live. But it has to be done by due process and within the framework established by the Constitution.

[porphyrian]

255. Gun owners aren't the problem, the military industrial complex is.

Don't blame individuals for defending what they interpret as their Constitutional rights, blame the corporations responsible for dumping their product on us in quantities unnecessary outside of a warzone. They aren't meeting a demand, they're creating it.

[AZ Criminal JD]

263. So if we own guns we are stupid people

who have been taken in by the corporations. Well that is a new one. I guess the media have created a demand for information and we have all fallen for it. Get rid of the First amendment too.

[porphyrian]

267. I didn't say that, Unnecessarily Defensive Person.

Talk to me when your paranoia meds kick in.

[benEzra]

292. Except the military-industrial complex isn't in the civilian gun business...

Don't blame individuals for defending what they interpret as their Constitutional rights, blame the corporations responsible for dumping their product on us in quantities unnecessary outside of a warzone.

Except the military-industrial complex isn't in the civilian gun business, because there is so little money in it. You don't see the big defense contractors making civilian guns; if you don't believe me, go down to your local gun store and ask to see a Lockheed rifle, a General Dynamics pistol, or a Boeing shotgun.

Most gun companies are very small operations by most standards, often small family-owned business, with relatively small revenues and tight profit margins. Even the largest U.S. gun companies (Ruger, S&W) are quite small by most corporate standards, and make only civilian guns, not aircraft, tanks, or missiles. I believe that there may be one major contractor (ATK) making ammunition for civilian shooters, FN-USA does make the M16 for the military, and Colt may still have the M4 contract, but that's about it, AFAIK.

One reason that the civilian gun market is not hugely profitable is that even though there are 80 million gun owners in the U.S.--a huge potential market--a gun will last a thousand years if taken care of, and quality civilian guns (because they are non-automatic) rarely wear out. My oldest gun is 105 years old, and works just as well as it did when new; it should still function just fine in the hands of my great-great-grandchildren.

They aren't meeting a demand, they're creating it.

Not nearly as much as the Brady Campaign/VPC are. AR-15 type rifles were moderately popular prior to 1994, but the 1994 Feinstein ban tripled AR-15 sales (or more) after '94, and they are now the most popular civilian target/defensive rifle in America...

If you want to sell a gun in America, sucker the VPC/Brady Campaign to do some scaremongering and get a few gullible legislators to call for bans, and you'll have your market. Look at what the Brady BS did to sales of the FN FiveSeven pistol, which went from overpriced and underpowered .22 to something highly sought after; .50 caliber target rifles, which have probably seen sales grow tenfold in the last couple of years due to the VPC; the popularity of the Glock (which became the most popular civilian/LEO pistol in America) after the gun-control lobby tried to ban it due to its newfangled polymer frame; etc.

[porphyrian]

308. You're talking about gun dealers, I'm talking about gun makers.

Guns are not made by small ma and pa shops, nor are small businesses responsible for the proliferation of, as you say, civilian gun on the streets. Larger forces are at work, and they don't have the best interests of everyday people in mind.

[benEzra]

309. No, I'm talking about gun MANUFACTURERS.

Most gun makers are small, often family-owned businesses, and have nothing to do with the "military-industrial complex." Rock River Arms, Springfield Armory, Kel-Tec, Bushmaster, DPMS, Colt (worker owned, I think), etc. Ruger and S&W are larger (and S&W is publicly traded), but both are still small by most corporate standards. A number of gun companies are also based in Europe and South America (Glock, Taurus), and Beretta (Italy) is the oldest company in the world, in business since 1526 and still owned and operated by the Beretta family.

The civilian gun industry has little or nothing to do with the military-industrial complex, and everything to do with the purchasing decision of us "everyday people" who choose to buy and own guns, and comprise ~40% of U.S. households. Some companies also cater to police departments, and a few make occasional military/government sales (Rock River has sold some carbines to the DEA, for example), but ordinary citizens are still their primary market.

Like I said, if you think the big defense contractors are involved in the U.S. civilian gun market, then show me the guns they make. GD, Boeing, Lockmart, Halliburton, etc. aren't in the business of civilian small arms--there's not enough money in it.

[porphyrian]

310. Whatever. -n/t

[phusion]

258. You are ALL WRONG

This is what our Founding Fathers meant by "bear arms":



www.bustedtees.com

[dysfunctional press]

259. if the founding fathers had meant "arms" to mean muskets, they would have said "muskets"...

but they used the word "arms" because they knew that weapons do and would change over time.

[BurningDog]

273. You have no desire for actual debate.

quote : "my point is you lose. Every time someone brings up "right to bear arms" as an argument against any kind of gun control, they lose the debate."

Declaring that any protection of rights by the 2nd amendment is null and void if people shouldn't be allowed to own a Doomsday Machine isn't an actual debate.

[ryanus]

275. That's easy: When the 2nd was written, the King's Army carried this:

therefore the arms that an the individual had MATCHED that of the army.

The Founders warned about the dangers of a standing army and wanted the POWER of the people to be in the MILITIA. There are two types of militias: organized (like a state militia, ie National Guard), and unorganized militia (every able-bodied man between the ages of 16 and 45).

If you think times have change and that because we have standing armies, police, etc that the individual citizen should not had the same arms that the police and army do, then you have to change the constitution because the 2nd amendment says that you can't infringe on the right for an individual to be armed.

Don't try to play games with the definition of who the militia is either:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

[ryanus]

277. btw: you might want to have the same arms as Blackwater mercs do

just sayin

[Beelzebud]

276. I should be able to have armed nuclear tipped ballistic missles.

They will go nice in my lair under an active volcano.

Now if only my sharks with frigging laser beams would arrive.

[LanternWaste]

280. ...because in the end, the only difference is in degrees.

...because in the end, the only difference is in degrees.

(Personally, I think every hunter should own their own anti-deer bazooka, and three grenades for every fishermen :sarcasm: )

[LanternWaste]

281. ...because in the end, the only difference is in degrees.

...because in the end, the only difference I think, is in degrees.

(Personally, I think every hunter should own their own anti-deer bazooka, and three grenades for every fishermen :sarcasm: )

Edited for clarity

[Milo_Bloom]

287. The definition changes over time....

Just like much of the constitution. What is considered "cruel and unusual" today is very different than what was cruel and unusual then.

It is important to remember that there are no rights in the constitution that are absolute, which is why we can have very strict gun control.

[benEzra]

289. ...and very strict speech/press control, and warrantless searches of the innocent...

It is important to remember that there are no rights in the constitution that are absolute, which is why we can have very strict gun control.

...and very strict speech/press control, by that logic. And warrantless searches of the innocent, and indefinite detention without trial, and torture as a means of interrogation. How is that view of rights any different from that of Alberto "No Habeus Corpus" Gonzales, or the Bush Administration? The idea that any infringements the government can get away with are OK?

Your logic is flawed, in that you are introducing a false dichotomy; it is not an all-or-nothing situation. The fact that the 2ndA is no more absolute than the 1stA does NOT mean that the 1stA and 2ndA allow the rights to be infringed with impunity. Rather, they require proposed restrictions to pass a strict scrutiny test, or should, despite the attempts by the neocons and other authoritarians to slip that leash.

To put it another way, the fact that the government can ban child porn does not mean it has carte blanche to ban anything the Moral Majority disapproves of, and the fact that the government tightly controls artillery pieces and automatic weapons does not mean it has carte blanche to ban any NFA Title 1 civilian guns that the Brady Campaign disapproves of.

[Milo_Bloom]

290. To some extent YES.

The test you are thinking of is a compelling interest test.

Strict gun control works because the state can assert a compelling interest.

It's up to the courts if they believe the compelling interest is sufficient and whether the method taken is the least restrictive.

[jmg257]

293. Not really. Not with the people's right to defense, and their role in the Militia

Any government's most "compelling" interest is to protect its citizens in the enjoyment of their lives, liberties, and property. That is why our government was formed. The primary means for our government to do this constitutionally is the Militia. Disarming the people not only renders them defenseless personally, it also renders the Militia ineffective. Restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms via the "compelling interest" test fail.

[Milo_Bloom]

302. That is one argument.

The reality is that the court decides whether the test fails or not.

If the compelling interest is to keep citizens safe from firearms in the hands of other citizens, it can easily pass the test, which is why we will likely continue to have strict gun control now and in the future.

[jmg257]

305. Thanks for the info (2x). Is there a "burden of proof" necessary to prove such ideas?

i.e. gun control makes the people safer.

[Milo_Bloom]

307. Perponderance will do.

And that is the discretion of the court. Its generally "more likely than not", but these standards are often silly terms that mean nothing.

In a case like this, both sides will present "evidence". The "evidence" will be contradictory and ultimately the court will decide what it believes or what it WANTS to believe.

This is why there is no answer to giving a clear concise definition of "arms" or what constitutes free speech for that matter. A phrase you may be free to speak today, you might not be free to say tomorrow depending upon different facts and circumstances.

[benEzra]

297. No, I'm thinking strict scrutiny, of which compelling interest is only one component.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

The Bush administration can claim "compelling interest" for everything they've ever done--torture, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, secret watchlists, denial of habeus corpus, warrantless surveillance, or whatever. That doesn't justify it.

Gun laws should be subject to the same judicial review as search and seizure rules, speech and press, and whatnot. Strict scrutiny, not just rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny.

The problem is, most of what the gun-control lobby considers "strict gun control" or even "reasonable gun control" (bans on protruding rifle handgrips, for example) would pass neither the narrowly-tailored test, nor the least-restrictive test, even if they would pass a compelling-interest test. That is largely because most gun-control proposals over the last decade or so have been aimed squarely at the law-abiding, with the invocation of criminal violence primarily as an excuse. Rifle handgrip bans and pre-1861 capacity restrictions are a perfect example.

[Milo_Bloom]

303. Of course it can and it DOES justify it.

If the court says it does. That is the way the system is set up.

[jmg257]

291. All the rights are (supposed to be) absolute, otherwise Madison wouldn't have suggested them...

"Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided."

Obviously HE thought they were "or he would have avoided them", and most of the framers agreed I am sure - since they approved them. What the hell is the point of securing rights if they can be "strictly' infringed? (w/o due process)

[Milo_Bloom]

304. But, they aren't.

The state has the absolute right to override ANY of the rights granted in the constitution with compelling interest and a narrowly drawn law that it finds to be the least restrictive method to achive the compelling interest.

Strict gun control exists because the state can assert a compelling intest and argue that the law is narrowly drawn and is using the least restrictive methods.

Some people won't agree, but that is where the court decides.


The DC ban will likely be overturned because it is a ban, but that will do absolutely nothing for the issue of gun control, which will continue on.

[One_Life_To_Give]

294. Why would any weapon be absolutly illegal?

If a responsible person wants to own a Patriot Missile and will take proper care to ensure it's not used illegally. Then why shouldn't they have a right to purchase one? The process may be highly regulated but not categorically illegal.

Then again there are few places in the US where there is not some level of requirement to obtain any type of firearm. And the requirements vary with the amount of firepower, ease of concealment, etc.

[leaninglib]

299. When the 2nd Amendment was written muskets and long rifles were state of the art small arms.

The right to bear arms has not been amended; thus, it is abundantly clear that "arms" include today's state of the art small arms.

[ShaneGR]

319. I'm not even a gun "enthusiast"

But the reality is that the constitution supports ownership of them and I personally believe that I shouldn't favor the first ammendment over the second ammendment. They all deserve equal protection.

[Prophet 451]

323. OK, working definition

"Arms" shall be taken to refer to: A man-portable firearm ("firearm" including but not limited to rifle, shotgun and pistol; and excluding high-explosive rockets and other such destructive devices), hand-loaded through individual rounds or magazine (i.e. not belt-loaded) and incapable of fully automatic fire.


I think I've phrased that in such a way that genuine sporting weapons will pass but machine pistols, shoulder-launched rockets, artillery weapons and such won't. Can anyone find a loophole in that?