Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:29:08 AM EDT
I think it's safe to say that most of us here (with the exception of the DUh trolls and other insurgents) agree that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, and that the RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL right. So, where do we draw the line? We likely all agree that individuals should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons (the favorite Liberal example), but where between single-shot .22 shorts and nuclear weapons does an individual's rights end? Full-auto? Silencers? Crew-served heavy weapons? Artillery? Your thoughts, please...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:34:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 10:35:52 AM EDT by SkaerE]
lemme put it this way... if i could afford an M1A1 Abrams, i think i should be able to buy one. not that i really want one, but it'd be a helluva conversation piece. i am a big fan of supressors though. dont think they should be regulated. i cant really afford to shoot anything but a full auto 22lr, but i'd like one. forgot to answer the question fully. dont really think anyone should have "weapons of mass destruction" (ie, nukes, chem and bio) and that includes the Govnt.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:35:21 AM EDT
We should not be interfered with by the government in the area of small arms. No restrictions on any rimfire or centerfire guns. Period. I think this is reasonable.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:36:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SkaerE: if i could afford an M1A1 Abrams, i think i should be able to buy one. not that i really want one, but it'd be a helluva conversation piece.
View Quote
LOL! Yeah, I bet it would! [:D]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:38:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 10:38:48 AM EDT by eswanson]
My .02: Pistols - yes. Rifles - yes. Class 3 - yes. Supressors - yes. .50 cal - yes. (Here's where it gets hazy for me) 20mm (like the Solothurn and Lahti from U.C.) - well, okay. Yes. M203? No. LAW? No. Stinger? No. Maybe the line for me is where the weapon stops being a one-shot, one kill thing (like any rifle or pistol) and goes into launching an explosive device, like a missle or grenade. YMMV.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:41:33 AM EDT
I think that suppressors should not be restricted, but I don't think that full auto weapons should be readily available to everyone. JMO
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:42:26 AM EDT
As in one of the earliest cases, Miller vs US, they (the Supreme Court) overturned, Judge Heartsill Rangons' decision on the basis that a sawed off shotgun was NOT used in military warfare, (which is was, in WWI and Judge Rangon served and knew this, which was why he declared the NFA act of 1934 "unconstitutional" in the original case held in Western district of Arkansas) and though the Federal prosecutor "lied" in presenting his case to the Supremes for overturning the Ragon decision. I firmly believe that the second ammendment protects our right to own any small arm or rifle used by the current military, FA or not. How else or we gonna be expected to throw off an "oppressive" government, if they are armed with more deadly weapons than us? I was born too late to purchase a FA Thompson from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue for $79.95, but wish those days would come again...... Mike
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:43:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SkaerE: lemme put it this way... if i could afford an M1A1 Abrams, i think i should be able to buy one. not that i really want one, but it'd be a helluva conversation piece. i am a big fan of supressors though. dont think they should be regulated. i cant really afford to shoot anything but a full auto 22lr, but i'd like one. forgot to answer the question fully. dont really think anyone should have "weapons of mass destruction" (ie, nukes, chem and bio) and that includes the Govnt.
View Quote
Nope, I dont think you should be able to buy the latest and greatest Military goodies (heavy weapons, tanks planes etc). Its not a good idea giving a citizen without security clearance unrestricted acces to say an M1A1-3 Abrams, an F22 or JSF. Could potentially fall into the enemy's hands. Now, if you wanted to go in for security clearance, buy that JSF. Now that would be fun as all. Atlanta Traffic...NO PROBLEM. he he he [homer] droooooooooooooooooool[/homer]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:45:18 AM EDT
[b]How else or we gonna be expected to throw off an "oppressive" government, if they are armed with more deadly weapons than us?[/b] Amen! hell, thats why we have the 2nd anyhow.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:47:12 AM EDT
This is a great question. I thought hard before posting and I honestly can't say where a line should be drawn. I don't feel that any citizen needs atomic, chemical or biological weapons, although they have proved to be a deterrent to other countries coming against the U.S.A. I would certainly not want them sitting in my neighbor's basement for any reason. I just don't want to be exposed to his blunder. I like to think that if you could afford an Abrams tank one should be able to be owned. Then I thought what good would it do the average citizen? How would you practice using it? Would you get together with other tank owners and do maneuvers in the park? What good would it be to you if you were not practiced at using it? I'm thinking that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for small arms and some crew served weapons. I certainly feel that no gun including rifles and pistols that can be operated by one person should be regulated AT ALL. Also any accessories to make those weapons quieter, faster, lighter, more stable, hold more rounds, etc., etc. should not be regulated. Just some initial thoughts. It's going to be great to see this thread pan out.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:48:46 AM EDT
no lines...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:49:20 AM EDT
To me the lines are provided by the language and purpose of the amnedment. 1) The language "the right to keep and bear arms." Bearable arms are small arms, like rifles, pistols, knives, etc. It does not include crew-served weapons like tanks, GPMGs (a closer case), mortars, rockets, bombs, etc. 2) The purpose is to maintain superiority of the unified militia versus the standing army, and also to equip the miltia for its law enforcement functions. In the 20th Century semi-autos seem to be the dividing line. Let's face it FA is not very useful or necessary in most situations. But banning SA AWs is definitely uncool. I don't think it would necessarily be inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms to have licensing and background checks, so long as they're designed to ferret out foreigners, criminals and others that have always been prohibited from bearing arms. Thus, I don't mind the Class III background check requirements, but do think the cap on new registerable MGs as well as the $200 tax are unconstitutional. If the public benefits from background checks--as it arguably does, esp. in the case of MGs--then the public should bear that expense. 3) Finally, I think requirements of having to train and demonstrate proficiency with arms is totally legit under the constitution. The first federal gun laws consisted of the requirement to own a specified weapon with sufficient ammunition. Confirming that people are properly equipped and up to speed is undoubteldy a right of the govt., so long as it is not used for the purpose of banning weapons. The problem with the anti-gunners is that they have bad faith and any of these measures would be used to eventually ban all guns. If we had more societal consensus about the desirability of guns, minor things like background checks, heightened checks for MGs, and mandatory training wouldn't be resisted nearly so much. That doesn't make them bad, per se, in a better world however. After all, if it gets too bad that's what we're supposed to have the guns for.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:53:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 10:54:26 AM EDT by Zaphod]
For clarification: When I said "crew-served weapon" I meant M-60's, M-2's etc. I don't consider an artillery piece a weapon that CAN be handled by a single person, so I made an assumption. Maybe it wasn't a good one.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:00:09 AM EDT
The line should be drawn where ever the president of our great democracy tells us. Anything else would be a waste of effort and plays right into the hands of the democrats.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:02:06 AM EDT
In the grand scheme, I should be able to own anything I can afford. My ownership of inanimate objects doesn't hurt anyone, so mind your own business. My more conservative side says small arms (anything operable by one man) should not be regulated. NBC stuff is scary just for the knucklehead factor, but tanks, planes and arty? Oh yeah... Besides, if you think about it, a tank is just a tractor with some armor (and a big gun or two), lots of folk have planes, and artillery pieces...well, that would just be cool.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:03:16 AM EDT
What about when The gubment makes Android soldiers that are impervious to small arms, hows the 2nd amendment gonna protect you then. If you think im crazy check this site out. [url]http://androidworld.com[/url]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:21:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 11:21:39 AM EDT by ddubb]
What the hell will I care about the gov. after they get that Valerie, the Domestic Android going? Rrowwr... http://androidworld.com/prod19.htm
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:23:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 11:28:31 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By Zaphod: I think it's safe to say that most of us here (with the exception of the DUh trolls and other insurgents) agree that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, and that the RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL right. So, where do we draw the line? We likely all agree that individuals should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons (the favorite Liberal example), but where between single-shot .22 shorts and nuclear weapons does an individual's rights end? Full-auto? Silencers? Crew-served heavy weapons? Artillery? Your thoughts, please...
View Quote
In keeping with the time of the founding fathers, the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY covers "Military Weapons", up to and including crew served weapons in private hands, which, at that time, was heavy Artillery. It would be interesting to discover just when the Feds outlawed the practice, (Artillery in private hands). At the nations founding, and for some years after, (post-civil war perhaps?), it was legal. Still is prolly, as all law "repugnant" to the Constitution is null on passage. I would say, in this day and age, reality dictates treatment of crew served ,and up weapons as we do class III now. (Were you looking for "No Compromise" from me?? [:D]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:24:07 AM EDT
I already drew my line and , no, I will not post what it is. SGtar15
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:26:15 AM EDT
It was fine just as it was "before" the AWB 1994, anything done since that sucks. The AWB sucked and did nothing, a return to before this abortion (the AWB) would make me happy.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:27:12 AM EDT
And I don'tneed a tank to kill/terrorize you. MA snipers taught us that....so did Tim McVeigh and the UniBomber Aren't you guys paying attention? Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:29:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 11:31:16 AM EDT by Zaphod]
Originally Posted By liberty86: In keeping with the time of the founding fathers, the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY covers "Military Weapons", up to and including crew served weapons in private hands, which, at that time, was heavy Artillery. It would be interesting to discover just when the Feds outlawed the practice, (Artillery in private hands). At the nations founding, and for some years after, (post-civil war perhaps?), it was legal. Still is prolly, as all law "repugnant" to the Constitution is null on passage. I would say, in this day and age, reality dictates treatment of crew served ,and up weapons as we do class III now. (Were you looking for "No Compromise" from me?? [:])
View Quote
[b][size=6]STOP THE PRESSES! Liberty and I agree on something![/b][/size=6] [;)] Frankly, I think your position is exquisitely Constitutional. I think I should be able to own ANY weapon from .50BMG on down, without restriction on function, appearances, or accessories. Truly destructive devices (such as Grenade Launchers, Bazookas, Mortars, Artillery Pieces, etc.) are another matter. What say ye of the "heavy stuff"?
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:29:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 11:31:48 AM EDT by SkaerE]
if you're gonna backtrack, i say go back until at least the machine-gun ban. to be honest, i wouldnt even care about the stupid $200 tax if i could make a new machine-gun. its just the damn 4 month wait that keeps me from getting class III things... but honestly, i dont have much want for a machine gun. im generally too poor to shoot one :) i still hate that supressors are regulated. after all, they protect your hearing and help you not bother your neighbors... un-regulate silencers..."its for the children"
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:32:04 AM EDT
the line should also include no restrictions on knives which are heavily regulated as well. knives of any length or any action should be legal at any times anywhere!
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:39:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 11:46:00 AM EDT by Yankee1911]
Originally Posted By Publius: To me the lines are provided by the language and purpose of the amnedment. 1) The language "the right to keep and bear arms." Bearable arms are small arms, like rifles, pistols, knives, etc. It does not include crew-served weapons like tanks, GPMGs (a closer case), mortars, rockets, bombs, etc. 2) The purpose is to maintain superiority of the unified militia versus the standing army, and also to equip the miltia for its law enforcement functions. In the 20th Century semi-autos seem to be the dividing line. Let's face it FA is not very useful or necessary in most situations. But banning SA AWs is definitely uncool. I don't think it would necessarily be inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms to have licensing and background checks, so long as they're designed to ferret out foreigners, criminals and others that have always been prohibited from bearing arms. Thus, I don't mind the Class III background check requirements, but do think the cap on new registerable MGs as well as the $200 tax are unconstitutional. If the public benefits from background checks--as it arguably does, esp. in the case of MGs--then the public should bear that expense. 3) Finally, I think requirements of having to train and demonstrate proficiency with arms is totally legit under the constitution. The first federal gun laws consisted of the requirement to own a specified weapon with sufficient ammunition. Confirming that people are properly equipped and up to speed is undoubteldy a right of the govt., so long as it is not used for the purpose of banning weapons.
View Quote
First, the government doesn't have [b]rights[/b], it has [b]powers[/b] granted to it by the people. Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work. If you fail to understand this basic fact, then your assertion that mandatory training and proficiency requirements are, in your opinion, "totally legit" under the Constitution falls flat.
The problem with the anti-gunners is that they have bad faith and any of these measures would be used to eventually ban all guns. If we had more societal consensus about the desirability of guns, minor things like background checks, heightened checks for MGs, and mandatory training wouldn't be resisted nearly so much.
View Quote
I don't need a consensus to exercise a right enumerated in the Constitution. If somebody is so afraid of me because I own guns and want to gun laws overturned, tough shit. That's their problem, not mine. If they don't like the 2nd Amendment, they can work to have it repealed. And if you actually believe that a "consensus" will lessen resistance to such things as heightened background checks for FA's and mandatory training, you're only fooling yourself. It isn't a compromise when one side gains nothing in the deal.
That doesn't make them bad, per se, in a better world however. After all, if it gets too bad that's what we're supposed to have the guns for.
View Quote
No, it doesn't make them bad...just neurotic and emotional morons. And you're right, if it gets too bad, we've got guns. Just make sure to fill out [b]Form 376892/6713A - Application for Revolution[/b], get a DNA sample taken for every participant, have every weapon "fingerprinted, and wait for the heightened background check to be completed. After all, one of the "revolutionaries" may have gotten into a playground fistfight in the 3rd grade, and people who demonstrate that they are violent shouldn't own guns, let alone take up arms against the government.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:43:16 AM EDT
I had an interesting discussion with David Burton who is a Constitutional scholar and runs the site Wallbuilders.com. He was discussing the first amendment and said that the founding fathers felt that the laws they were expressing applied to Christian men. They felt that God had given men "freedom of speech" and that meant man could speak freely. You didn't need to warn men not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. A good, honorable, Christian man wouldn't do such a thing. No restrictions were needed. I spoke with him after his speech and asked him what he thought of the Second Amendment. He laughed and said the same rules applied. God had given free men the right to "keep and bear arms" and the government had no right to restrict that right. He said that there did not need to be a limit on the size or number of weapons as "good, honorable, Christian men" would not mis-use any weapon against his peaceful neighbors. What would it matter if I had a 40mm Bofors cannon? I wouldn't harm anyone with it or use it in any crime. If I wanted to shoot up a hillside on my property and didn't place anyone in any danger, why shouldn't I? The right to keep and bear arms is an "unalienable right", given by God. No government has the right to restrict it as long as we do not harm innocent others with the weapons. And on another note:
Publius said: Confirming that people are properly equipped and up to speed is undoubteldy a right of the govt.,...
View Quote
Publius, please rethink this. The government has no such right. Does the government have the right to be sure that I am "properly equipped and up to speed" to speak about political issues? Does it have the right to be sure that I am "properly equipped and up to speed" to worship God as I please? Of course not. And it doesn't have that right regarding my possession or use of firearms, as long as I am not using them to harm innocent citizens. God gave me that right, not the government.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:48:19 AM EDT
The beautiful ambiguity of the word 'arms' clearly indicates the framer's intent when you balance the Amendment's text against the discussions in the Federalist Papers. While the Continental Congress could never have imagined technology like WMDs, Stealth Fighters, megaton ICBM's or even fully-automatic small arms, the intent is clear. They knew science would advance, and the generic use of the word would permit the intent to be carried with the advances. Now if you would ask Jefferson or Washington what their thoughts were regarding WMDs, I would speculate that they would consider such devices dishonorable because they bring about the destruction of non-combatant masses. Therefore, it's hard to say what the line would be in their perspectives. Clearly, any conventional device is up for grabs though.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:48:43 AM EDT
Someone said earlier the Second Amendment specifically covers military weapons. Really? Where does the text say that. That's totally made up and extra-textual, the same tactic of the Warren court and liberals who read a "colellective right to bear arms." Militia are light infantnry/police. Not armor, cavalry etc. Even if small artilerry and other crew served weapons were not banneda the time of the founding or thereafter, that doesn't mean folks had a constitutional right to those things. As for the govt. and powers, I hate to tell you but if the govt. is authorized to do something under the constitution it has the RIGHT to do it. Right/Property/Power, all these terms are in a sense interchangeable. What is a right? To me it's a claim to do something without restriction within certain known and defined bounds. It's true the govt obtains its rights specifically from the people, but that doesn't mean it has no rights vis a vis individual people to perform its duties. The govt. can legally arrest you for a crime. The govt. can draft you. The govt. can tax you. The govt. can seize your property, so long as it provides just compensation, etc. etc. True these are exercises of POWER, but that's true of everything the govt does. In the sense of being allowd to do it, all of these are undoubtedly the conditional rights of the govt., defined by law, custom, and the constitution. The govt. has authority over the militia. It has the right to use the state militias for federal purposes (Read your Constitution on this one). One of those ancillary powers, going back to the earliest acts of the Federal Congress, is to ensure that the miltia is properly armed, equipped, etc. Forced training is undoubtedly permitted under this power. The right to bear arms is both an individual right and a right of states against the federal govt. As a right of militias (secured by granting individuals the right to bear arms), those miltia authorities retain authority to demand your service, training, etc.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:51:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:52:13 AM EDT
Militia Act of 1792 2nd Cong. sess. I, ch. 33 (1792). Section 1. Be it enacted . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the 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 powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. . . . Section 2. [Exempting the Vice President, federal judicial and executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers, custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states.]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:54:39 AM EDT
And Ben the beautiful ambiguity of arms is modified by the less beautiful ambiguity of "bear," as I said above. In what sense can a missle, a tank, a mortar, an artillery piece be "borne." It might make sense to permit these things--although the fact they can not be easily kept in check by ones fellow armed citizens gives me pause--but that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right. Every word must have a purpose and meaning is an accepted canon of statutory/contractual interpretation.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:58:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Publius: Someone said earlier the Second Amendment specifically covers military weapons. Really? Where does the text say that. That's totally made up and extra-textual, the same tactic of the Warren court and liberals who read a "colellective right to bear arms." Militia are light infantnry/police. Not armor, cavalry etc. Even if small artilerry and other crew served weapons were not banneda the time of the founding or thereafter, that doesn't mean folks had a constitutional right to those things. As for the govt. and powers, I hate to tell you but if the govt. is authorized to do something under the constitution it has the RIGHT to do it. Right/Property/Power, all these terms are in a sense interchangeable. What is a right? To me it's a claim to do something without restriction within certain known and defined bounds. It's true the govt obtains its rights specifically from the people, but that doesn't mean it has no rights vis a vis individual people to perform its duties. The govt. can legally arrest you for a crime. The govt. can draft you. The govt. can tax you. The govt. can seize your property, so long as it provides just compensation, etc. etc. True these are exercises of POWER, but that's true of everything the govt does. In the sense of being allowd to do it, all of these are undoubtedly the conditional rights of the govt., defined by law, custom, and the constitution. The govt. has authority over the militia. It has the right to use the state militias for federal purposes (Read your Constitution on this one). One of those ancillary powers, going back to the earliest acts of the Federal Congress, is to ensure that the miltia is properly armed, equipped, etc. Forced training is undoubtedly permitted under this power. The right to bear arms is both an individual right and a right of states against the federal govt. As a right of militias (secured by granting individuals the right to bear arms), those miltia authorities retain authority to demand your service, training, etc.
View Quote
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 12:01:49 PM EDT
Personally I draw all lines in the sand. Moreover, I think that if you can carry it on your person, you should be able to carry it on your person. If you can mount it to your car, then you should be able to mount it to your car. If you can afford it, you should be able to buy it. Bottom line. Nukes, and all.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 12:02:52 PM EDT
I feel like we may be having an unnecessary debate about semantics. How does that disprove anything I've said. The federal government is fully sovereign in its allotted sphere. The states are fully sovereign in all areas not delegated to the feds and/or retained by their respective peoples in the respective state constitutions. That does not mean the federal govt. has no rights/power over me. And the 9th Amendment just says that even though the constitution doesn't say you have some right, you may still have it. I agree with that. That's the whole point of having a federal govt. of enumerated powers. If there's nothing that says it can do something--e.g., provide agricultural subsidies--it cannot. But it does specifcially have the power to arm, organize, and discipline the miltia. Look it up. Think about what that means. To me the Second Amendment clarifies that that power does not extend to the right to disarm the people and/or create a "select miltia." But as for states and their militas (I don't think much of any of this should be done at the federal level), have you ever heard of the "police power," that is the general authority of states as fully sovereign entities?
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 12:05:41 PM EDT
Killing Machine what would that mean if that previously law abiding person with Nukes was Timothy McVeigh or Mohammad Atta? Sometimes crazy people have money you know. Your plan is brilliant and abstract. Let's get rid of all laws since people are so inherently trustworthy. I have guns b/c I don't trust people, including hte govt. And I support my government and the elimination of private individuals with anarchic intent, nuclear weapons, criminal records b/c there are some people that I don't trust and no one should trust and that we can only keep in check by uniting our efforts through the power of a govt.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 12:09:43 PM EDT
There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people. In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.
View Quote
- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 12:18:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By liberty86: In keeping with the time of the founding fathers, the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY covers "Military Weapons", up to and including crew served weapons in private hands, which, at that time, was heavy Artillery. It would be interesting to discover just when the Feds outlawed the practice, (Artillery in private hands). At the nations founding, and for some years after, (post-civil war perhaps?), it was legal. Still is prolly, as all law "repugnant" to the Constitution is null on passage. I would say, in this day and age, reality dictates treatment of crew served ,and up weapons as we do class III now. (Were you looking for "No Compromise" from me?? [:])
View Quote
[b][size=6]STOP THE PRESSES! Liberty and I agree on something![/b][/size=6] [;)] Frankly, I think your position is exquisitely Constitutional.
View Quote
Well, Glory to God!!! [snoopy] We finally connected!! (Who KNOWS what may happen if we chatted on the phone![;D] We may save BOTH of us a lot of time replying on the board!)
I think I should be able to own ANY weapon from .50BMG on down, without restriction on function, appearances, or accessories. Truly destructive devices (such as Grenade Launchers, Bazookas, Mortars, Artillery Pieces, etc.) are another matter. [red]What say ye of the "heavy stuff"[/red]?
View Quote
I must confess, I've not considered much past those I mentioned. I think what you call destructive devices should be regulated like class III is now. If you're talking tanks, aircraft, ships, and stuff like that, hell, maybe if there was enough interest, we could set-aside a whole state, (California maybe?), as a shooting and war game range....[snoopy]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 12:21:16 PM EDT
personally, I like the idea of total unrestricted (assuming you can afford it) access to anything. however, I don't think that's wise nor do I think it's what was originally intended. for wisdom, I think there should be restrictions on OPSEC stuff, like the computer systems in an abrams or apache, etc. I also think there should be *some* restrictions on explosives. I would go so far as to say the provisions of the NFA'34 (minus the $200 tax) regarding explosive devices (not "destructive devices"), and that if you've been approved for one, you are pretty well in the clear for any others of the same. so if you got approved to buy a grenade based on the rules in NFA'34, you can buy as many grenades as you want from then on, until a flag gets put on your files saying "he's a felon, now" as far as the original intent, I think it was to allow citizens to stand a chance against the standing army. so we should have access to pretty much anything a light infantry brigade does. and of course, I would be "satisfied" if we had absolutely no regulations on any rimfire or centerfire firearm, to include accessories (like sound or flash supressors, DIAS, collapsable stocks, etc) for them.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 12:50:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 1:02:21 PM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By Publius: Someone said earlier the Second Amendment specifically covers military weapons. Really? Where does the text say that.
View Quote
Ummm the first four words??
That's totally made up and extra-textual, the same tactic of the Warren court and liberals who read a "colellective right to bear arms."
View Quote
Is it really??
Militia are light infantnry/police. Not armor, cavalry etc.
View Quote
They were indeed calvary and armour, (artillery), at the time of the signing of the document. Ships of war too........
Even if small artilerry and other crew served weapons were not banneda the time of the founding or thereafter, that doesn't mean folks had a constitutional right to those things.
View Quote
I beg your pardon??? It means, we have a right to military weapons of the time, of necessary enough power, and technology, so as to act as a deterrent to Federal, and/or state tyranny upon individual citizens. It would appear, YOU are taking the "collectivist" position.
As for the govt. and powers, I hate to tell you but if the govt. is authorized to do something under the constitution it has the RIGHT to do it. Right/Property/Power, all these terms are in a sense interchangeable. What is a right? To me it's a claim to do something without restriction within certain known and defined bounds. It's true the govt obtains its rights specifically from the people, but that doesn't mean it has no rights vis a vis individual people to perform its duties. The govt. can legally arrest you for a crime. The govt. can draft you. The govt. can tax you. The govt. can seize your property, so long as it provides just compensation, etc. etc. True these are exercises of POWER, but that's true of everything the govt does. In the sense of being allowd to do it, all of these are undoubtedly the conditional rights of the govt., defined by law, custom, and the constitution. The govt. has authority over the militia. It has the right to use the state militias for federal purposes (Read your Constitution on this one). One of those ancillary powers, going back to the earliest acts of the Federal Congress, is to ensure that the miltia is properly armed, equipped, etc. Forced training is undoubtedly permitted under this power.
View Quote
I don't know the point of most the rambling above, but I'll try to address the 1 issue I saw.. No one cares what any congress did, except the first one. At the time of the signing [b]individuals[/b] had, in their possesion, weapons in common military use at the time. [blue]The militia was expected to supply their own weapons.[/blue] Those who could afford it had cannon, and warships. Individuals were able to own any military technology available at the time. THAT is the intention of the second Amendment, and NO Congress, President, State, or Supreme court can change it, 'cause that is what the damn thing says!
The right to bear arms is both an individual right and a right of states against the federal govt. As a right of militias (secured by granting individuals the right to bear arms), those miltia authorities retain authority to demand your service, training, etc.
View Quote
Yep!![:D]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 1:17:47 PM EDT
Milita is the citizens army therefore should be allowed whatever the regular army can have.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 1:26:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 1:36:43 PM EDT by Publius]
I realize part of the origins of our disagreement. You are something of an originalist. I'm more of a textualist. I think the text controls and "originalism" should only matter to define "terms of art." Thus "quartering of soldiers," "grand jury," and other technical terms in the constitution had specific meanings for which contemporary sources should be consulted. But if the founders didn't forsee, for example, that the first amendment's text plainly protects pornography or the anarchist's cookbook, it doesn't really matter. If the words plainly protect those things, then they're protected. (I don't want to get into resolving this dispute, this is just by way of illustration). So, in the second amendment context, I sayt he words control and that only "bearable arms," i.e., small arms are protected. Even if the militia of the 18th century permitted nonbearable arms, and the purpose generally of the amendment is to protect the militia, it only protects the milita in a specific way, by securing the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," which was never extended to such heavy arms, nor did it permit individuals to raise "private armies." Indeed, under the common law and the British Bill of Rights it didn't extend to exotic weapons that might "cause an afray," which also formed the basis of various 19th Century courts permitting laws prohibiting Bowie Knives among other things. My only point is that the text controls regardless of certain founders individual intentions. Their only knowable collective intention is formed by the agreed upon language of the constitution, not what one or more of them said in a letter or pamphlet. Even the preamble of the second amendment, i.e., the text announcing that "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" does not modify or restrict or otherwise reduce "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." At most it informs what kind of arms are included. And to me "the right of the people" is not modified by the militia preamble to the amendment. Thus women not in the milita and the infirm have the right to bear arms too. The militia is protected by an overbraod amendmnet that protects the right of the whole people's right to arms. But "arms" is further understood by "and bear," which seems definitely to reduce arms to individual weapons and not crew served weapons. (As in other areas of "line drawing," courts are well-equipped to resolve which are which in the grey area, or at least no worse equipped than they are in saying when an arrest happens, what's "probable cause," or in applying any of the other vague concepts built-in to the constitution. Thus there are easy cases at both extremes AR-15s yes, Nukes no, with some tougher areas in the middle like .50 cal. MGs and Shoulder-Launched-Rockets).
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:06:28 PM EDT
You can draw the line after I get my armor car. ED
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:15:48 PM EDT
The only limit to me would be how much you could afford. I could care less about full auto, suppressed, short barrel, folding stock & crap like that.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 7:55:12 PM EDT
No restrictions for any weapon or sound / flash supressor, including full-auto, magazine or belt fed, individual or crew served, no caliber restrictions. (Think BB guns to electric gatling guns and everything in between. Just as long as the projectile does not explode to produce casualties.) Weapons that would fall into the above catagory would include the following. M-16, M249, M240G, M2HB, GAU2B, and other similar weapons regardless of manufacturer or country of origin. Destructive devices such as mines, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, mortars, artillery, TNT, C-4, Comp B, Det Cord, should be available to citizens who have attained ALL of the following: 1. Received an Honorable Discharge from the US Military or National Guard, and 2. Can pass a current class III type background check, and 3. Pass a written and a practical examination for each type of DD. These weapons and their ammunition would be subject to random inventory and inspection by the government, and certain security / storage measures would have to be followed as well. LAV's, Amtracks, Tanks, Surface Ships, Submarines (Non-nuclear powered), Helicopters and High Performance Jets, would also be available with the proper operators liscense. If the vehicle is capable of launching or deploying a Destructive Device, then the DD requirements will also apply. NBC weapons would be available only to the Federal Government.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:09:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SkaerE: [b]How else or we gonna be expected to throw off an "oppressive" government, if they are armed with more deadly weapons than us?[/b] Amen! hell, thats why we have the 2nd anyhow.
View Quote
Another, Amen
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:13:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Well, Glory to God!!! [snoopy] We finally connected!! (Who KNOWS what may happen if we chatted on the phone![;D] We may save BOTH of us a lot of time replying on the board
View Quote
LOL! You're probably right, you know! I did some reading tonight that may have illuminated my mind to some of your other ideas. I think I'll start a thread about it tomorrow. Stand by!
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:41:08 PM EDT
Line???
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:12:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 10:20:03 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By Publius: Someone said earlier the Second Amendment specifically covers military weapons. Really? Where does the text say that. That's totally made up and extra-textual, the same tactic of the Warren court and liberals who read a "colellective right to bear arms."
View Quote
On several other posts I have stated that the 2nd Amendment RKBA specifically includes 'military-style' weapons and that the SCOTUS has acknowledged that fact in both the Miller (1939) and Lewis (1980) cases. The 'militia' clause of the 2A specifically prounounces a [u]military purpose[/u] for the arms that people have a right to bear.
Originally Posted By Publius: Militia are light infantnry/police. Not armor, cavalry etc. Even if small artilerry and other crew served weapons were not banneda the time of the founding or thereafter, that doesn't mean folks had a constitutional right to those things.
View Quote
'splain that one again???? Where in the Consitution does is state that there is no right to own artillery??? What passages states that the people do NOT have a right to bear artillery??? The word "artillery" doesn't even occur in the Constitution... sooooooooooo... [b][i]"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."[/b][/i]
Originally Posted By Publius: As for the govt. and powers, I hate to tell you but if the govt. is authorized to do something under the constitution it has the RIGHT to do it. Right/Property/Power, [red]all these terms are in a sense interchangeable.[/red]
View Quote
Only to those who vacillate the meaning of the word "is" [brick] Again, go back to the Constitution. Show me ANY passage stating the Gov't has ANY 'rights'. [b][i] "All legislative [red]powers[/red] herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States... "The Congress shall have [red]power[/red] to... "...and all other [red]powers[/red] vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States... "The executive [red]power[/red] shall be vested in a President... "The President shall have [red]power[/red]... "The judicial [red]power[/red] of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and... "...the [red]right[/red] of the people peaceably to assemble... "...the [red]right[/red] of the people to keep and bear arms... " The [red]right[/red] of the people to be secure in their persons... "...the accused shall enjoy the [red]right[/red] to a speedy and public trial... "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain [red]rights[/red], shall not be construed to deny or disparage others [red]retained by the people[/red]. The [red]powers[/red] not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."[/b][/i] Seems clear that the whole Constitution is all about delegating specific [red]powers[/red] to the Federal Gov't - not RIGHTS. Our rights and our freedoms come from GOD - He did not give "Governments" any rights. Let me put it this way. [b][size=4]ALL rights and ALL powers are ultimately held by THE PEOPLE.[/size=4][/b] These people (the "We the people") ratified this Constitution as a means of DELEGATING some of their powers (but not their rights) to the Gov't. in order to "form a more perfect union, establish justice...yada-yada."
Originally Posted By Publius: True these are exercises of POWER, but that's true of everything the govt does. In the sense of being allowd to do it, all of these are undoubtedly the conditional rights of the govt., defined by law, custom, and the constitution.
View Quote
You are confused about the difference between a "right" and a "power". A "right" is inalienable - it can NOT be taken from anyone. Sure, your rights can be trampled upon, ignored an infringed, but never TAKEN from you. But you can GIVE UP your rights - like when you commit a felony. People have rights given by God. Gov'ts have powers delegated by the people.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:18:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 10:58:47 PM EDT by Dave_A]
What's reasonable: Any man-portable weapon, and some of the smaller CSWs.... I'd say 20 or 40mm (i.e. Bofors, not M203) should be about the upper limit, and no indirect-fire weapons, also no missiles... Anything over FA or over .50 cal should be regulated, but ammo vor large-bore weapons should not be taxed $200/rd (maybe require proof of legal large-bore ownership, but not a $200/rd tax)... As for vehicles (tanks/planes/etc), these should be OK if de-milled.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:38:22 PM EDT
"the power to tax is the power to Destroy"- Some SCOTUS justice Supporting the NFA tax scheme is the same as supporting the AW Ban in my book. ====== Ways you should interpret the Constitution (the way the Founders wanted it to be defined): Powers are to be narrowly defined Rights are to be broadly defined If a power is not specifically given by the People to the Government, then that Power does NOT exist for government use
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:50:03 PM EDT
The purpose of the 2nd was to protect private ownership of military type weapons. Clearly, any small arms -- full auto, explosive wareheads, etc., is protected by the 2nd. Where do we draw the line? I'm fine with heavy weapons -- tanks, artillery, warplanes -- being owned by civilians, but I'm not sure the 2nd applies. Weapons of mass destruction? I oppose private ownership of these. I'd oppose all ownership, but I recall that it was nice that the US had "the bomb" back in the Cold War days.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top