Second Amendment

[Tony]

Exactly right. Since the purpose of the arms was to defend ourselves from our own potentially tyrannical government, the intent was clearly to allow the citizens to have the same arms as the government. It is absurd to think that we could defend ourselves with automatic pistols and assault rifles against a government equipped with jets, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons.

The Afghanis used stinger missiles against the tyrannical Soviets to great effect. I see no reason why I should not enjoy the same right. The fact that I live about 5 miles from a major airport is irrelevant. I need my stingers in case Bush continues to deprive me of my civil rights.

Personally, I think a nuclear weapon is a little too expensive for the average household but if we mass produced stingers, they would not be much more expensive that an luxury car.

I'll agree with that. The people should not be restricted to any type of weapons the government has.

 

[shanek]

I strongly object to the overuse of commas in the second amendment. We must regulate the use of commas for the sake of the children!

Those commas were NOT there in the version that was ratified, and they do not appear in the version recorded in the Congressional Statutes At Large; only the one comma separating the two clauses: "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 extra commas were a transcription error when the Bill of Rights was copied over to parchment.

 

[Art Vandelay]

CBL4

It is absurd to think that we could defend ourselves with automatic pistols and assault rifles against a government equipped with jets, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons.

So how did the North Vietnamese defend themselves against nuclear weapons? And I guess there’s no point in allowing black people to vote. I mean, it’s not like there’s enough black people to outvote white people if we decide to violate their rights.

Cain

The most strident defenders of this nonsense oppose practically all restrictions on firearm ownership -- "...shall not be infringed" is the part they like to cite.

Is that supposed to be an argument? Of course the most strident defenders of gun rights oppose all restrictions- that’s why they’re considered the most strident. The most strident promoters of gun control want to ban all guns. The most strident black advocates want to kill all white people. The most strident environmentalists want to go back to a pre-industrial society. Tarring all members of a group with the attributes of the most strident isn’t honest debate.

Luke- Free speech is about free thought. Competing ideas are necessary for functioning democracyj; they vigorate the mind and bring us to (deliberative) action.

And competing force is necessary as well. The idea that only the government should be armed is rather undemocratic.


UserGoogol

You have the right to keep and bear arms, not the right the right to freely trade arms. As long as you can still have them, the 2nd amendment rights are not being touched.

Trading them is part of having them.

No, becuase selling books is a kind of speech, whereas selling guns is merely a way to get guns to bear.

Technically speaking, selling books in not a form of speech. If we’re going to nitpick, speech is oral communication only. And selling printing presses definitely isn’t speech. So is outlawing the sale of printing presses okay? You can print anything you want on your printing press. You just can’t buy a printing press. Or ink. Or paper.

 

[Tony]

Luke- Free speech is about free thought. Competing ideas are necessary for functioning democracyj; they vigorate the mind and bring us to (deliberative) action.

Irrelevant. Our rights exist to serve us, not the state. That free speech serves to help the function of democracy is merely a by-product of a fundamental human right. We don't have free speech because it's necessary for democracy, we have free speech for the simple fact that speaking one's mind is essential to he concept of liberty.

 

[Elind]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CBL4
Exactly right. Since the purpose of the arms was to defend ourselves from our own potentially tyrannical government, the intent was clearly to allow the citizens to have the same arms as the government. It is absurd to think that we could defend ourselves with automatic pistols and assault rifles against a government equipped with jets, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons.

The Afghanis used stinger missiles against the tyrannical Soviets to great effect. I see no reason why I should not enjoy the same right. The fact that I live about 5 miles from a major airport is irrelevant. I need my stingers in case Bush continues to deprive me of my civil rights.

Personally, I think a nuclear weapon is a little too expensive for the average household but if we mass produced stingers, they would not be much more expensive that an luxury car.


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

I'll agree with that. The people should not be restricted to any type of weapons the government has.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or throw up, but on the assumption that there is serious logic in there somewhere, however limited, I have always wondered who would be the one to say when it is OK to start shooting at the US government?

Timothy McVeigh perhaps? Perhaps it would be one of those psychic things, like when all the chosen ones can read each other's minds?

 

[CapelDodger]

The Constitution is about how a free state is organised

You are unschooled and clueless on this issue. The constitution's original articles are indeed about how the government is organized, but the first ten amendments, i.e., the Bill of Rights, are prohibitions against government acts. To flip this 180 degrees and say the second amendment is about government organization, rather than a prohibition of government infringement on the rights of individuals, is revealing of a statist mentality utterly alien to the U.S. and fundamentally uninformed.

Limitations are part and parcel of the definition of a free state. The reference to the Militia and a free state in the Amendment clearly shows what the intention behind it was at the time, which is surely the only relevant point. Had it started "Sufficient weaponry being necessary to the defence of a household ..." its intention would also be clear, but different.

 

[Snide]

I have always wondered who would be the one to say when it is OK to start shooting at the US government?

How is this question relevant to the notion that we should be allowed to keep and bear arms?

 

[Art Vandelay]

The reference to the Militia and a free state in the Amendment clearly shows what the intention behind it was at the time, which is surely the only relevant point.

It shows what the stimulus of it was.

 

[CapelDodger]

It shows what the stimulus of it was.

Could you elucidate?

 

[Elind]

How is this question relevant to the notion that we should be allowed to keep and bear arms?

It's relevant if you read the comment to which it was posted. Try again, I'm sure you will figure it out. Maybe?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Patrick
The second amendment grants the people the right to effective self defense with appropriate arms - a militia with muskets in the eighteenth century, or for example a pistol for a woman who walks alone in dangerous areas at night. This nuke nonsense is fluff conjured by anti-gun nuts who are more frightened of real debate than they are of guns.

The 2nd ammendment says "arms." It does not say guns nor does it say 18th century arms. If you want to pretend it only applies to 18th century weapons, then "modern" guns such as the originally Colt 45 gun would not be protected because it could shoot multiple rounds without re-loading.

The fact is that the amendment said only arms because our founding fathers could not imagine modern day weapons. There is no obvious way to say what they would have done if any particular case of our current weapons. Perhaps their fear of tyranny would have allowed some of them. Perhaps their fear of the potential destruction would have banned some of them. Equally, the idea of 18th century militias is outdated. That makes it impossible to say what exactly they would do.

My point is that by following the second ammendment strictly, nuclear weapon would be allowed. This is clearly absurd which means that the second ammendment needs to looked at in a modern. For you to say a woman needs a gun to protect herself is perfectly reasonable (and I agree with it) but the 2nd ammendent is not a reasonable argument in its favor because the woman is not part of a militia and her gun is not a musket.

Read this slowly einstein

Thank you for the compliment but even my arrogance does not make me think I am as intelligent as Einstein. At least, I assume it was a compliment. Otherwise, you were forced to use insult in lieu of logic and I always assume the best of my fellow forum members.

CBL

 

[Elind]

My point is that by following the second ammendment strictly, nuclear weapon would be allowed. This is clearly absurd which means that the second ammendment needs to looked at in a modern. For you to say a woman needs a gun to protect herself is perfectly reasonable (and I agree with it) but the 2nd ammendent is not a reasonable argument in its favor because the woman is not part of a militia and her gun is not a musket.

CBL

OK. So I'll laugh instead of throwing up (on your earlier comments).

Since our courts have reviewed this many times, and concluded that the meaning is not unrestricted access to any arms (George W may not have figured this out yet), this literal interpretation focus of the second seems to me to be very similar to the fanatics who believe in (their) literal interpretation of the bible; or the khoran.

If the original constitution had included a phrase to the effect that citizens rights to any mode of transportation should not be restricted, would we now have to allow to drive anyone without a license? No; we use our brains and look at the issues in "modern" terms.

I do however still want to throw up when I hear the McVeigh types, and the NRA leadership, say it's to protect our freedoms.

For the record, I think it's fun to shoot, and reasonable to be able to have protection in many situation, or to be a gun nut and collect all the neatest things that could be afforded. I just don't have a problem with proving, to MY elected government that I can secure the weapons and handle them appropriately; but when anyone says they want have the right in order to protect our freedoms, I want to thow up.

If you are a verifiably (NRA members! Note I said "verifiably") responsible American and want to play with a chaingun at $200 bucks a second? No problem; but screw up and let anyone else get hold of it and your life is over.

 

[Cain]

Art writes:

Is that supposed to be an argument? Of course the most strident defenders of gun rights oppose all restrictions- that’s why they’re considered the most strident. The most strident promoters of gun control want to ban all guns. The most strident black advocates want to kill all white people. The most strident environmentalists want to go back to a pre-industrial society. Tarring all members of a group with the attributes of the most strident isn’t honest debate.

I suggest you look up the word "strident".

Though I wrote the post a couple days ago, the sentence you quoted was part of an observation. The first part, I believe, claimed those who defend the Second Amendment on grounds of self-defense are themselves self-deluded (or terrible liars). If fire-arm ownership was purely about protecting oneself then why do the most *strident* defenders of guns oppose restrictions on the number they can own? Do they mean to say they cannot adequately defend themselves with four or five pistols, rifles and shotguns?

Of course I did not mean to "tar" all members of a group. Words have shades of meaning. If I say the "crazy" environmentalists claim global warming is occuring, then yes, that's painting a rather broad brush. This would be the case if a vast majority of proponents of the right to own guns believed in unlimited restrictions ("... Shall not be infringed.") Hell, I believe private citizens should be allowed to own a gun (with certain restrictions, of course). I do not believe private citizens should be allowed to purchase 25 guns a year. Some people can't see a difference. And speaking of such people...

Irrelevant. Our rights exist to serve us, not the state. That free speech serves to help the function of democracy is merely a by-product of a fundamental human right. We don't have free speech because it's necessary for democracy, we have free speech for the simple fact that speaking one's mind is essential to he concept of liberty.

Tony, your t-shirt philosophy grows wearisome. Let's break it down, though.

The second sentence -- "rights exist to serve us, not the state" -- refers to nothing. To borrow from your opening, this statement is "irrelevant."

This all goes back to your misunderstanding of the concept of liberty, more specificially the notorious thread where you said a government restriction on toilet bowls (to preserve the environment and save money) is the moral equivalent of video-equipment installed in private bathrooms. You equated round the clock surveillance to low-flush toilets.

Why do you think we regard free speech, free thought, and democratic institutions as "fundamental"? Free speech, I think it's fair to say, is a more central freedom for liberal democracies. But here I'm straying from the original point: The comparison to running a racist website and stockpiling weapons is false.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Could you elucidate?

I was trying to distinguish between "intent" in the sense of "what they were trying to do" and "what ultimate goal was". Yes, the ultimate goal was to have state militias, but they intended to accomplish that by prohibiting infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Let me give you an analogy. Here we have "carpool" lanes. To drive in the lane, you must have someone in the car other than the driver. The thinking is that this will encourage people to carpool. So the ultimate goal is to encourage carpooling. Now suppose I'm pulled over in the carpool lane, and I've got a passenger. The cop says "Hey, I know you've got a passenger, but I know for a fact that you just took him along so that you could drive in the carpool lane; this isn't contributing to the ultimate goal of the law, so I'm going to give you a ticket". I think we can all agree that, even if I am "abusing" the law, a ticket is unjustified. If the government allows X with the intent of promoting Y, they can't turn around and say "Oh, looks like X isn't actually prmoting Y, so we're going to prosecute people for doing X, even though we said we wouldn't". Similarly, even if keeping a gun for purely personal reasons completely unconnected to state militias does not promote the ultimate goal of the second ammendment, the intent of the second amendment was to allow this.

Elind

Since our courts have reviewed this many times, and concluded that the meaning is not unrestricted access to any arms (George W may not have figured this out yet), this literal interpretation focus of the second seems to me to be very similar to the fanatics who believe in (their) literal interpretation of the bible; or the khoran.

No, they are completely different issues. Literal interpretations of the Bible can be refuted by empirical evidence. One cannot prove that the second amendment is "wrong"; that would be meaningless. The second amendment makes no empirical claims. The fact that you are unable to distinguish between an empirical issue and a legal one, coupled with your claims of nauseau the moment someone disagrees with you, leads me to believe that you are not well qualified to discuss such issues.

Cain

I suggest you look up the word "strident".

I think I made it quite clear that I understand what it means. It means, among other things, "extreme" and "non-representative of the typical person". Which is exactly why I objected to its use. To remind you of what you said:

All the self-defense crap is just such a bogus lie. The most strident defenders of this nonsense oppose practically all restrictions on firearm ownership -- "...shall not be infringed" is the part they like to cite.

You are opposing all sefl-defense arguments on the basis of people who, by your own admission, are not representative of people that make the argument. You call the argument "a bogus lie", and "nonsense". And what is your evidence? That there are some wacky people supporting it. My point is that this "argument" can be used against pretty much any opinion.

The first part, I believe, claimed those who defend the Second Amendment on grounds of self-defense are themselves self-deluded (or terrible liars). If fire-arm ownership was purely about protecting oneself then why do the most *strident* defenders of guns oppose restrictions on the number they can own?

Are you seriously claiming that there is a significant number of people who deny that guns are used in hunting? You're changing the subject. First you say "grounds of self-defense", then you say "fire-arm ownership was purely about protecting oneself". Those are completely different ideas.

Do they mean to say they cannot adequately defend themselves with four or five pistols, rifles and shotguns?

You're just changing the subject yet again. The law in question does not deal with amount of guns owned, it deals with amound purchased. Can you seriously not imagine a situation in which a person might feel that purchasing more than one gun in a single month is important for self-protection? Suppose I get a death threat, and decide that I want a gun both at my house and my office (after, if I carry one from one place to another, I might get charged with a felony). Should I tell my enemy "Excuse me, would you mind waiting a month before attacking me? I'm still working on getting my second gun". If I complain about the law, will you tell me "Hey, you could have started stocking up years ago. Why don't you already have several dozen guns"? Do you really expect everyone to buy half a dozen guns just in case someday they're needed? If so, how is encouraging people to stock up on guns a sound policy?

 

[billydkid]

Not again.

An interesting twist on this one is to argue that it would be perfectly acceptable to bear nuclear weapons as (personal) arms.

(just trying to help)

Oh God, not this crap again. Whip out the old personal nuclear weapon routine. I had an interesting debate on another forum with someone arguing - "How would you like it if your neighbor had a flame thrower?!!!!" As it happens, private ownership of a flame thrower is perfectly legal. Funny, we haven't been seeing a bunch of people going on flame thrower rampages.

 

[Sushi]

Re: Not again.

Oh God, not this crap again. Whip out the old personal nuclear weapon routine. I had an interesting debate on another forum with someone arguing - "How would you like it if your neighbor had a flame thrower?!!!!" As it happens, private ownership of a flame thrower is perfectly legal. Funny, we haven't been seeing a bunch of people going on flame thrower rampages.

Also, it's possible to make your own home-built flamethrower.

 

[SezMe]

The second amendment grants the people the right to effective self defense with appropriate arms - a militia with muskets in the eighteenth century, or for example a pistol for a woman who walks alone in dangerous areas at night. This nuke nonsense is fluff conjured by anti-gun nuts who are more frightened of real debate than they are of guns.

Gee, Patty, I've read the second amendment numerous times and I just can't find the highlighted phrase. Gimme a hand, will ya?

 

[Cain]

Art writes:

I think I made it quite clear that I understand what [strident] means. It means, among other things, "extreme" and "non-representative of the typical person". Which is exactly why I objected to its use. To remind you of what you said:

... among other things. The loud and shrill types on these forums are not exactly representative of most people. But... if you insist...

You are opposing all sefl-defense arguments on the basis of people who, by your own admission, are not representative of people that make the argument.

No, if I recall correctly, I quoted a comedian mocking the sort of gun wackos we see here; then I said, "all the self-defense crap is such a bogus lie." Here is amended version to please you (and to fully express my opinion): All the nonsense coming from "gun rights" crowd here, the sort of people who want to stockpile dozens and dozens of guns for reasons of self-defense, is a bogus lie."

The idea is not the least bit esoteric. How many guns do you need to defend yourself?

You call the argument "a bogus lie", and "nonsense". And what is your evidence? That there are some wacky people supporting it. My point is that this "argument" can be used against pretty much any opinion.

That's not the argument at all. The sarcasm -- mocking a person who claims they need umpteen rifles -- is funny.

Are you seriously claiming that there is a significant number of people who deny that guns are used in hunting? You're changing the subject. First you say "grounds of self-defense", then you say "fire-arm ownership was purely about protecting oneself". Those are completely different ideas.

The first sentence is unclear. The second is bizarre. Notice I'm referring to the Second Amendment in your quote. Hunting is more of a secondary, non-essential benefit. It's also a restrictive argument: If people say they need a rifle to hunt, then they leave themselves open to attack (so to speak) on the grounds that the govt. could regulate handguns and full automatics. Instead it's better to say that from a philosophical perspective we have gun rights to protect ourselves from the damn gubmit.

You're just changing the subject yet again. The law in question does not deal with amount of guns owned, it deals with amound purchased. Can you seriously not imagine a situation in which a person might feel that purchasing more than one gun in a single month is important for self-protection? Suppose I get a death threat, and decide that I want a gun both at my house and my office (after, if I carry one from one place to another, I might get charged with a felony). Should I tell my enemy "Excuse me, would you mind waiting a month before attacking me? I'm still working on getting my second gun". If I complain about the law, will you tell me "Hey, you could have started stocking up years ago. Why don't you already have several dozen guns"? Do you really expect everyone to buy half a dozen guns just in case someday they're needed? If so, how is encouraging people to stock up on guns a sound policy? [/B]

Are you serious? Going off your thought example, and ignoring the current political climate and laws, let's say people are allowed to *purchase* one gun a month, but they can apply for special permit to carry that weapon. Or, what the hell, you can make *two* gun *purchases* fewer than thirty days apart one time every five years.

It's fair to say the gun people on this forum would still oppose it. As far as I know they believe they should be allowed to own/purchase as many guns as they can buy. This is, ahem, insane.

Now, there are sensible people who believe in sensible gun-ownership (meaning restricting the number of purchases, requiring background checks, outlawing certain models and designs, licensing etc). I've always maintained that. But according to your argument, your artistic rendering of an off-hand comment, I should then logically include this category of persons with the more strident folk.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Re: Not again.

I had an interesting debate on another forum with someone arguing - "How would you like it if your neighbor had a flame thrower?!!!!" As it happens, private ownership of a flame thrower is perfectly legal. Funny, we haven't been seeing a bunch of people going on flame thrower rampages.

I really don't understand what the big phobia about flame throwers is. I mean- yeah, fire is scary, but which would you rather have coming towards you: flames, or bullets? People seem to think that flamethrowers are some sort of death spewing instruments of destruction, but unless your target is in an enclosed space (such as a bunker), it's actually rather difficult to kill someone with a flamethrower. I don't imagine that sneaking up with someone while carrying a flamethrower is very easy. If my neighbor wanted to kill me, I think he would find it easier to run me over with his car than to use a flamethrower. Certainly easier to deny premeditation.

Cain

All the nonsense coming from "gun rights" crowd here, the sort of people who want to stockpile dozens and dozens of guns for reasons of self-defense, is a bogus lie."

Perhaps I'm too demanding, but I'm still not pleased. Are you saying that all "gun rights" people want to stockpile dozens and dozens of guns? Are you saying that everything these people say is nonsense and a lie? Am I a member of the "gun rights" crowd?

The idea is not the least bit esoteric. How many guns do you need to defend yourself?

How many abortions do you need?

The sarcasm -- mocking a person who claims they need umpteen rifles -- is funny.

But that's not really what's happening. What's happening is that the comic took someone who claims that they should be allowed to buy guns when they want to, and pretended that this position is the same as claiming that one needs umpteen rifles, and then mocked this strawman.

The first sentence is unclear. The second is bizarre.

First sentence: you said "If fire-arm ownership was purely about protecting oneself..." The implication is that there is a widely held belief that guns have no use other than self-defense. Or, in other words, no hunting. No sporting events. Nothing but self-defense.
Second sentence: what is bizarre about it? Is not going from "self-defense" to "only self-defense" changing the subject?

If people say they need a rifle to hunt, then they leave themselves open to attack (so to speak) on the grounds that the govt. could regulate handguns and full automatics.

That doesn't make any sense. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does a justification based on self defense mean that hunting is not protected? Why does a justification based on hunting mean that self-defense is not protected?

It's fair to say the gun people on this forum would still oppose it. As far as I know they believe they should be allowed to own/purchase as many guns as they can buy. This is, ahem, insane.

Well, this looks like moving the goalposts to me. And I'm not clear on what you mean by "the gun people". Finally, I don't see how this position is "insane".