Good Reason To Have An AR-15

[Dirty Penguin]

We have the consitutional right to own an AR-15.

time.

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

 

[CMike]

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Being a gun owner I know all about that. I was asking about the area in the Constitution that says you have the "right to own an AR-15"......

 

[Revoltingest]

Being a gun owner I know all about that. I was asking about the area in the Constitution that says you have the "right to own an AR-15"......

It's in the unabridged version, which also grants rights to the M1A, SKS, Barret 50 BMG, Glock #22, & crossbows.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

it's in the unabridged version, which also grants rights to the m1a, sks, barret 50 bmg, glock #22, & crossbows.

.....

:d

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Do you think this means that you have the right to own any and every weapon?

I think it's more reasonable to interpret it as "whatever rights you have to keep and bear arms now (i.e. at the ratification of the Second Amendment) will not be diminished further."

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think this means that you have the right to own any and every weapon?
I think it's more reasonable to interpret it as "whatever rights you have to keep and bear arms now (i.e. at the ratification of the Second Amendment) will not be diminished further."

We've covered this particular aspect of this constitutional right so many times here before. Some say that the framers envisioned only muzzle loading small arms, because that was the technology of the day. They reason that the 2A (2nd Amendment) grants the right to bear only these specific weapons, not radically different new devices such as semi-auto rifles. I find that too narrow an interpretation of law. Consider the implications of this legal philosophy when applied to other amendments.....say, the 1A (1st Amendment).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The technology of the day for "the press" was ink on paper. You see where this is going.....electronic media (TV, radio, internet,phones) are the radically new different tool of the press. Let's consider what the framers' reasoning was, instead of merely the objects they saw around themselves. The 2A is about possession of militarily capable small arms for defense of self & country. Even if technology evolves, in the context of the 2A, an AR-15 becomes the equivalent of an old Brown Bess. This is just as in the context of the 1A, pixels & bytes become the modern version of ink on paper.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Question - because I've only had one cup of coffee today:

How reasonable is it to compare the 2nd Amendment rights to, say, the 14th? Women's rights, minority rights, queer rights? I doubt the framers envisioned the women of the nation having the right to vote or for blacks to own property.

My hazy thoughts at the moment are that recognizing how technological advances in weaponry helps us to look at the 2nd Amendment from another angle, much like advances in communication helped spread MLK's "I have a dream" speech, social media's importance in the Arab Spring, and advances in gender and sexology helps us in having another look into the rights and liberties of LGBTQs when it is discovered they are not a threat to the safety and security of the nation. "Separate but equal" is a meaningless restriction. Are certain types of weapon restrictions meaningless too?

Maybe it's because others have brought up the other amendments that made me post this. Maybe it's already been argued back and forth for pages and I've only just started. Maybe I just want to feel like I'm in the middle of a good rumble, too. Can somebody get me a cup of coffee?

 

[Revoltingest]

Question - because I've only had one cup of coffee today:

How reasonable is it to compare the 2nd Amendment rights to, say, the 14th? Women's rights, minority rights, queer rights? I doubt the framers envisioned the women of the nation having the right to vote or for blacks to own property.

Blacks owning property does appear to be part of the picture....except for those who were slaves. (Cognitive disonance, anyone?)
As for women voting, I still have trouble with that one. Just (ouch!) kidding!

My hazy thoughts at the moment are that recognizing how technological advances in weaponry helps us to look at the 2nd Amendment from another angle, much like advances in communication helped spread MLK's "I have a dream" speech, social media's importance in the Arab Spring, and advances in gender and sexology helps us in having another look into the rights and liberties of LGBTQs when it is discovered they are not a threat to the safety and security of the nation. "Separate but equal" is a meaningless restriction. Are certain types of weapon restrictions meaningless too?

Maybe it's because others have brought up the other amendments that made me post this. Maybe it's already been argued back and forth for pages and I've only just started. Maybe I just want to feel like I'm in the middle of a good rumble, too. Can somebody get me a cup of coffee?

How about some Kahlua?

 

[CMike]

Originally Posted by CMike
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Being a gun owner I know all about that. I was asking about the area in the Constitution that says you have the "right to own an AR-15"......

I am sorry you missed it.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Where does it say that the New York Times has a right to publish?

 

[CMike]

Do you think this means that you have the right to own any and every weapon?

Firearms

I think it's more reasonable to interpret it as "whatever rights you have to keep and bear arms now (i.e. at the ratification of the Second Amendment) will not be diminished further."

That's not what it says, is it?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Blacks owning property does appear to be part of the picture....except for those who were slaves. (Cognitive disonance, anyone?)

It's possible.

As for women voting, I still have trouble with that one. Just (ouch!) kidding!

Oh, you can deal with it. Like jock itch. Irritating but that's life. I gotta deal with hearing people loaded with that unfortunate hormone called testosterone in the same way I have to deal with my period.

How about some Kahlua?

That would make for some interesting posts. The last time I had Kahlua was when I found out I liked Black Russian drinks and then woke up on somebody's lap. Don't take that as an invitation, though. I'd rather have coffee right now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not what it says, is it?

It says what it says. I think my interpretation is a lot more reasonable than the interpretation "you can own whatever gun you want without restriction", which isn't what the Second Amendment says either.

 

[CMike]

It says what it says. I think my interpretation is a lot more reasonable than the interpretation "you can own whatever gun you want without restriction", which isn't what the Second Amendment says either.

It's not an interpretation, it's making up your own law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We've covered this particular aspect of this constitutional right so many times here before. Some say that the framers envisioned only muzzle loading small arms, because that was the technology of the day. They reason that the 2A (2nd Amendment) grants the right to bear only these specific weapons, not radically different new devices such as semi-auto rifles. I find that too narrow an interpretation of law.

There's another possibility: that "the right to bear arms" is intended for certain purposes.

For instance, if "the right to bear arms" was intended to provide a reasonable level of security in a society where many people lived on the frontier, a day's ride away from the nearest town, in danger of attack by Indian raiders, then it would be reasonable to ask whether that level of security has already been exceeded in a place with no bandits or raiders, where the police are only minutes away.

Consider the implications of this legal philosophy when applied to other amendments.....say, the 1A (1st Amendment).
The technology of the day for "the press" was ink on paper. You see where this is going.....electronic media (TV, radio, internet,phones) are the radically new different tool of the press. Let's consider what the framers' reasoning was, instead of merely the objects they saw around themselves. The 2A is about possession of militarily capable small arms for defense of self & country.

Actually, as I've pointed out in other threads, there's strong evidence that it was about possession of weapons that were fit for putting down a slave revolt... but that's a side issue here.

I get the impression that you do agree that the Second Amendment wasn't about granting carte blanche to own any and every weapon, but was only intended to protect weapons for a specific purpose. Correct?

 

[Apex]

There's another possibility: that "the right to bear arms" is intended for certain purposes.

For instance, if "the right to bear arms" was intended to provide a reasonable level of security in a society where many people lived on the frontier, a day's ride away from the nearest town, in danger of attack by Indian raiders, then it would be reasonable to ask whether that level of security has already been exceeded in a place with no bandits or raiders, where the police are only minutes away.


Actually, as I've pointed out in other threads, there's strong evidence that it was about possession of weapons that were fit for putting down a slave revolt... but that's a side issue here.

I get the impression that you do agree that the Second Amendment wasn't about granting carte blanche to own any and every weapon, but was only intended to protect weapons for a specific purpose. Correct?

Or how about we go with the interpretation our supreme court has stated. That seems most reasonable to me instead of playing more of "Penguin's What If Game".

 

[Revoltingest]

There's another possibility: that "the right to bear arms" is intended for certain purposes.
For instance, if "the right to bear arms" was intended to provide a reasonable level of security in a society where many people lived on the frontier, a day's ride away from the nearest town, in danger of attack by Indian raiders....

This purpose does not eliminate the others I mentioned.

.....then it would be reasonable to ask whether that level of security has already been exceeded in a place with no bandits or raiders, where the police are only minutes away.

Cops do not protect us. They only take reports, chalk outlines of bodies, & put up their yellow tape.
Self-defense is inherently about the self.

Actually, as I've pointed out in other threads, there's strong evidence that it was about possession of weapons that were fit for putting down a slave revolt... but that's a side issue here.

I'd say "bogus" instead of "side".

I get the impression that you do agree that the Second Amendment wasn't about granting carte blanche to own any and every weapon, but was only intended to protect weapons for a specific purpose. Correct?

I'd pluralize "purpose", but yes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not an interpretation, it's making up your own law.

So you do think the Second Amendment means "you can have any gun you want without restriction"? Who's really making up their own law?

BTW: the Supreme Court disagrees with you:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.

Annotated Constitution Prototype

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This purpose does not eliminate the others I mentioned.

It also doesn't eliminate your need to justify why you think the intended right entails what you claim it does.

Cops do not protect us. They only take reports, chalk outlines of bodies, & put up their yellow tape.
Self-defense is inherently about the self.

Are you in as great a danger of attack by an Indian raiding party as a homesteader on the Virginia frontier in the late 18th Century?

I'd say "bogus" instead of "side".

Because when you don't have a good response to an argument, you might as well make fun of the name of the person putting it forward, right?

I'd pluralize "purpose", but yes.

Okay.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or how about we go with the interpretation our supreme court has stated. That seems most reasonable to me instead of playing more of "Penguin's What If Game".

If you have something in mind, feel free to put it forward and defend it.