The 2nd Amendment

[Revoltingest]

The question is whether or not you are insisting that your preference is somehow privileged over what we, as a society, decide collectively.

I don't insist anything.
I'm just discussing the matter.

 

[bicker]

Let me rephrase: The question is whether you are supporting the insistence that your preference is somehow privileged over what we, as a society, decide collectively. In other words, are you saying, "I wish most people would agree with me, but if they don't then I guess I'll have to do without what I want"? Or are you saying, "I don't care of most people agree with me or not, because I'll do what I want to do in this regard, either way"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Instead of making up self-serving nonsense to try to distract attention away....

Endless ad hominems ain't gonna inspire a considered response, fella.
Look at Luis & Dirty Penguin....see how they keep a real discussion going even though we disagree?
Gotta show some love, man. (No touching though.)
That's how it's done.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See my prior post. I explained further how I view it in an edit.

I prefer the originalist approach to law. Whatever the lawmakers intended when writing a law, that is how it should be enforced. This would supersede literal interpretation. The founders saw militia members owning state of the art militarily capable rifles, so this is what I see the 2nd Amendment addressing.

Intent is hard to confirm, but I think it reasonable to assume that the founders supported the unfettered right to state of the art military capability, not simply "state of the art militarily capable rifles". Do you disagree?

 

[Revoltingest]

Intent is hard to confirm, but I think it reasonable to assume that the founders supported the unfettered right to state of the art military capability, not simply "state of the art militarily capable rifles". Do you disagree?

It's certainly possible that they might have favored private ownership of big weapons, but the reality of the
militia was that they owned rifles (no cannons or warships). So I read their intent to be enabling what they saw.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is a "militia mentality"?

It is the idea, present in the US of A perhaps alone among otherwise stable countries, that the responsibility for taking arms to ensure the safety of civilians should be enforced to a significant degree by the citizens themselves.

Since the prez is the commander of that military, I'd prefer more separation of power.

Truth be told, there are major problems with the very size and firepower of your military, as well as its lack of transparency.

However, they can hardly be expected to apply in any realistical sense to the danger of tyrannical actions backed by your own military. How likely is the average soldier or officer to accept taking arms against US civilians? Not much, if my understanding that they are, after all, US citizens themselves.

You're thinking in terms of overseas war strategy, where we hate the funny look'n ignerunt ferriners we don't know.
Killing them with remote control weapons is easier than doing it to your neighbor.

Which is yet another reason to doubt the dangers of it happening.

But even overseas, our record of winning wars is spotty.

Is it? Vietnam is the only example that comes to mind.

That's one way to view it. Non-violent resistance can work on occasion. It also makes it easy to kill the opposition.

Let me check if I got this straight.

You believe it is necessary or at least desirable for the average US citizen to have full rights of ownership of military issue firearms, because otherwise it will be too easy for your own military to be ordered to kill dissenters in American soil?

Would that be the about the right measure of it?

I believe I got it correct. But the implications are, well, appalling.

Armed conflict, despite all it's chaos & risks, can also succeed. The 2nd Amendment is to enable this option.

It probably was, to some degree at least, back in the day. And I am willing to bet that the fear of a pro-British movement played a role as well.

Quite simply, they created the law that they found best for that point in time. Which kind of wording they would choose in the very different circunstances of the present day, we simply do not know. I think it is however at least reasonable to assume that they would acknowledge that the very different political, social and military circunstances would warrant a somewhat different text.

Hmmm....it sounds like you're supporting my point that people determined to be armed will become so.

Yes, they will... if they find that it is worth the risks involved, of course.

Only unbalanced people or criminals will make a point of buying illegal weapons, unless they believe that there is such danger present that criminal prosecution is a lesser worry. So there is a point in having laws and regulations about gun ownership, use and carry, despite a strong resistance from many citizens.

Your clever phrasing hides the point that those lawmakers were thinking of militarily capable small arms. Technology changes, so AR-15s
replace flintlocks, just as the internet replaced newspapers. Freedom of the press is similarly not about mere mechanics of putting ink on
paper, but rather communication. This is why original intent matters.

No, I'm not hiding the point.

I'm mercifully disregarding it as bollocks instead.

Even taking for granted that you are correct in assuming that the best approximation of their intent to current times would be by emphasizing keeping up with state of the art weapons technology, it stands to reason that a sane community ought to reject such lunacy.

Maybe the lawmakers of the time of the Founding Fathers would want Americans to pack major heat and have as many AR-15s in their homes as they saw fit if they could dream of the current day. Who knows?

All the same, it is an absurd idea and it is the American people's responsibility to evaluate its merits on its own. Appeal to the original intent of people who are quite literally incapable of either considering the present situation or even being consulted in the first place is a very weird mistification. Their intent is immaterial, irrelevant, inapplicable, because they are neither here nor aware of the actual present situation, while you American citizens are.

I swear, sometimes I wonder if being subjects of the speculative ghosts of the Founding Fathers is a more appealing form of submission than being subjects of the British Crown used to be.

In any case, it is hardly freedom.

Are you arguing that you want WMDs to be available too?
Hmmmm...I don't see the Constitution's framers envisioning that.

Neither do I. Their reputation suggests that they valued security, individual freedom, and a generally civilized society.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's certainly possible that they might have favored private ownership of big weapons, but the reality of the
militia was that they owned rifles (no cannons or warships).

See Hancock.

So I read their intent to be enabling what they saw.

Obviously they were not demanding the right to own RPGs back then. They were, however, arguing against curtailing their ability to constitute an effecting people's militia. Today that would certainly mandate access to such weaponry.

 

[bicker]

Endless ad hominems ain't gonna inspire a considered response, fella.

They're not ad hominems. They're labeling your rhetorical tactics, not you.

Look at Jay, Luis & Dirty Penguin....see how they keep a real discussion going even though we disagree?

They're pursuing a different angle of the issue with you, a level on which you evidently you feel you can hold your own. I would like you to address the issues I've raised, as well, but I respect your wish not to do so, and expect you to respect my right to highlight that unwillingness just as much.

 

[Revoltingest]

See Hancock.

Obviously they were not demanding the right to own RPGs back then. They were, however, arguing against curtailing their ability to constitute an effecting people's militia. Today that would certainly mandate access to such weaponry.

I don't say you're wrong, only that I have a different take on the 2nd's intent.
But if it were to include, cannons & RPGs, I'd expect regulation to be at least at the level of assault (full auto capable) rifles.

Btw, I hope scrappers (scrap metal thieves) don't get their hands on any of those brass cannons.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm going to head through your post but forgive me for taking so long. I try to browse RF as often as I can but that is pretty limited these days for a variety of reasons and I do appreciate the time you took to respond to my argument.

No problem. Just work faster this time.

I thought I addressed this fallacy by the example of leaving a child alone with a loaded AK-47 vrs leaving them alone with a ballpoint pen. A ballpoint pen can indeed be lethal but it takes training and has many limitations. An AK-47 on the other hand takes very little training and is almost always lethal. I think this example is obvious but your argument logically assumes we have a right to own Chemical and Nuclear weapons as well. This argument is not really valid in my opinion as a handgun in the hands of most people is much more lethal than a ballpoint pen and statistics and current murder rates in the US back my opinion.

I think that this is where we have to meet each other half way as I'm not of the opinion that we should have the right to own "military grade" weapons.

I do not object to our current federal legislation regarding gun ownership and I do think that restriction of military-grade weaponry is reasonable.

My gripe is with the notion that the 2nd Amendment is not relevant, that it's been incorrectly interpreted and that Americans should not have the ability to bear arms.

Just because another event is more likely to kill you doesn't mean you should ignore or discount another event that is less likely to kill you. This is obviously a fallacious argument but I wonder if you are trying to convince you or me?

I'm quite comfortable with my views on the issue and am not interested in swaying other people in any direction. It's really simple. I want my rights to remain intact. Reasonable regulation is essential. Regulation that infringes upon my 2nd Amendment Right is not.

You quoted my argument so in china the trigger was a person and every stabbed kid lived and in sandy hook every kid died. (And some mothers have recently come forward with graphic details to attempt to drive that point into public minds and remind people that their five year old children were slaughtered)

Yes. The trigger was a person. A person committed the act. The gun or knife was a mere tool used to wreak havoc. If we really want to solve problems in our nation, in our world, we need to stop making excuses, placing blame and start looking at people, their problems and yes...the unwise decisions that people make during their lives that have an unfortunate impact on others. Because, the guns are such a small part of the issue. People are the issue.

The trigger may be a person but what tools did that person have? This is a broad argument with lots of examples from all types of people...

I know.

Yes you have the right to defend yourself and bear arms. Does bearing arms mean Sarin gas? Nukes? Do you understand there is a line that defines what arms you as an individual should be able to bear and what arms a nation or government that represents you and the collective citizens of your nation should be allowed to bear?

No. I'm with you, here.

I think your line about the disintegration of strong family units is just a distraction and not related to your core argument but everyone needs to vent.

I certainly don't have expectations for you to agree with me, but, I do believe that individual responsibility and strong communities are essential in a free society. This is lacking in the states.

Lets say one of the largest drug dealers in mexico decided to come after you and they sent 3 attack choppers to your house at midnight. Your household with assault rifles will be ill equipped to deal with this threat where as our military would down the choppers likely before they entered our air space. Do you then argue you should be allowed to own anti air weapons and radar or do you trust your government to protect you from these threats?

Holy granola bar. THIS scenario should become a movie.

I wasn't going here at all in my arguments in favor of rights to bear arms. Military grade weapons do not belong in the grubby hands of the American citizen.

I get you want your house to be safe. By your own argument I could ask you to train more with ballpoint pens since they are just as effective as handguns according to your argument. Instead I am saying I understand you needing a shotgun for protection but don't think anyone needs a semi-auto assault rifle or full auto weapon at home for everyday protection.

I agree with you.

If a knife or a pen could pose just as much threat as a gun then why not keep a few pens and knives around? Why do you want the right to defend yourself with a gun and what kind of gun do you want? (A musket? Blunderbuss?).

I keep blue ink pens on my person at most times. Multi-purpose Godsends.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a glock as I have nail color to match.

This is pretty fair. In the event of a crisis where government protection and services may be interrupted you may find yourself in need of additional protection and I think having a shotgun or pistol at home would serve that need just as well as having an assault rifle. If you were going to face an extended situation where having an assault or full automatic weapon would be required then I find it hard to believe you would have no warning so head to the gun club and pick up your weapon to transport back home and go all american revolutionary gangster if it floats your boat.

I'm with you.

Seriously keep your guns at home. Keep your assault and military weapons at the gun club. My argument had nothing to do with not being allowed to keep your gun under your pillow but rather to keep your assault rifles and full automatic weapons at the gun club. Home defense is not usually about holding off a squadron of armed assailants as your example of defending against one guy obviously implies you already realize.

In fairness, I've made false assumptions in this thread. My primary stance is that reasonable, across-the-board regulation is the way to go. No, we don't need to keep automatic weapons in our bedrooms to protect us from the boogeyman.

I firmly stand against those that argue the relevence of our rights to bear arms and would favor a ban on guns.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't say you're wrong, only that I have a different take on the 2nd's intent.

I do not see how you can argue that the intent was anything less than to insure the freedom to constitute an effective people's militia in the face of tyranny.

But if it were to include, cannons & RPGs, I'd expect regulation to be at least at the level of assault (full auto capable) rifles.

What would it mean to regulate such things as cannons, RPGs, mines, etc., "at least at the level of assault (full auto capable) rifles"?

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not see how you can argue that the intent was anything less than to insure the freedom to constitute an effective people's militia in the face of tyranny.

I've nothing to add to my view that the framers intended to enshrine the relative level
of weapons capability which they saw the militia members possessing at the time.
If you argue that we should be able to possess greater capability, I'm open to hearing it.

What would it mean to regulate such things as cannons, RPGs, mines, etc., "at least at the level of assault (full auto capable) rifles"?

Assault weapons licenses are difficult to obtain. As I recall, it's a federal license with more stringent requirements, requiring approval of the local sheriff too.
(Some time back, I looked into buying a Lewis gun for display.) I'd expect that citizens wanting to own mines & such would be subject to greater scrutiny...wouldn't you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've nothing to add to my view that the framers intended to enshrine the relative level of weapons capability which they saw the militia members possessing at the time.

Revoltingest, please be serious. The clear intend was to insure the unfettered ability to constitute "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." Your argument (if one can call it that) devolves to claiming that the 2nd Amendment is about the right to own muskets.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest, please be serious. The clear intend was to insure the unfettered ability to constitute "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." Your argument (if one can call it that) devolves to claiming that the 2nd Amendment is about the right to own muskets.

Perhaps you think I'm not serious because you missed my posts wherein I addressed the general
case of weapons capability covered under the 2nd Amendment, rather than just "muskets".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps you think I'm not serious because you missed my posts wherein I addressed the general
case of weapons capability covered under the 2nd Amendment, rather than just "muskets".

No, I think you're not serious because you persist in denying/distorting the context and intent of the amendment. It's a disingenuous argument maintained solely because it is less consequential than the alternatives.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I think you're not serious because you persist in denying/distorting the context and intent of the amendment. It's a disingenuous argument maintained solely because it is less consequential than the alternatives.

So it's more than a mere difference of opinion....I'm "disingenuous", eh?
Oh, well...I can't connect with everyone.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I prefer the originalist approach to law. Whatever the lawmakers intended when writing a law, that is how it should be enforced.

The problem is all you political agenda types have your own intepretations of intention.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is the idea, present in the US of A perhaps alone among otherwise stable countries, that the responsibility for taking arms to ensure the safety of civilians should be enforced to a significant degree by the citizens themselves.

OK.

Truth be told, there are major problems with the very size and firepower of your military, as well as its lack of transparency.
However, they can hardly be expected to apply in any realistical sense to the danger of tyrannical actions backed by your own military. How likely is the average soldier or officer to accept taking arms against US civilians? Not much, if my understanding that they are, after all, US citizens themselves.

As history shows, taking up arms against our own country is a rare thing indeed. But no matter how unlikely the possibility that it will happen,
it is part of our legal system to be somewhat prepared. Will the day come when we repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to put all our eggs in
one basket? Perhaps, but until that day, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution. And I distrust politicians who would void this
right by unconstitutional fiat.

Which is yet another reason to doubt the dangers of it happening.

I don't know what will happen. I only address preparing for possibilities, even unlikely ones.

Is it? Vietnam is the only example that comes to mind.

We didn't win in our proxy war against Iran, or our war against Afghanistan.
Even the Iraq war can't be called a "win", since it isn't clear what will happen there.

Let me check if I got this straight.
You believe it is necessary or at least desirable for the average US citizen to have full rights of ownership of military issue firearms, because otherwise it will be too easy for your own military to be ordered to kill dissenters in American soil?
Would that be the about the right measure of it?
I believe I got it correct. But the implications are, well, appalling.

Clever use of inflammatory language you have there, fella.
I'll give you a 75% "yes" answer.
Now, let me ask if I have your position straight....
You believe it is necessary or at least desirable for the average law abiding US citizen to be denied the right to own of military firearms,
because we can't be trusted with them, but we can trust our government to always be benevolent, & never tyrannical for all of time?

It probably was, to some degree at least, back in the day. And I am willing to bet that the fear of a pro-British movement played a role as well.
Quite simply, they created the law that they found best for that point in time. Which kind of wording they would choose in the very different circunstances of the present day, we simply do not know. I think it is however at least reasonable to assume that they would acknowledge that the very different political, social and military circunstances would warrant a somewhat different text.

We have the ability to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but we've not chosen to do so.
As I see it, as long as it is law, the intent of the framers shall rule.
Was the 2nd of greater value then than now? I'd say so.
But is it obsolete in this age? I don't think so.

Yes, they will... if they find that it is worth the risks involved, of course.
Only unbalanced people or criminals will make a point of buying illegal weapons, unless they believe that there is such danger present that criminal prosecution is a lesser worry. So there is a point in having laws and regulations about gun ownership, use and carry, despite a strong resistance from many citizens.

No argument from me on this.

No, I'm not hiding the point.
I'm mercifully disregarding it as bollocks instead.

Tsk, tsk...such language!
And to think I was just citing you as an example of civility.

Even taking for granted that you are correct in assuming that the best approximation of their intent to current times would be by emphasizing keeping up with state of the art weapons technology, it stands to reason that a sane community ought to reject such lunacy.

I understand your perspective, ie, seeking security by putting all faith in government, & not trusting your fellow citizens to
defend themselves. To me, that is lunacy. But does it serve civil discourse to call each other lunatics? Nah...let's not do that.

Maybe the lawmakers of the time of the Founding Fathers would want Americans to pack major heat and have as many AR-15s in their homes as they saw fit if they could dream of the current day. Who knows?
All the same, it is an absurd idea and it is the American people's responsibility to evaluate its merits on its own. Appeal to the original intent of people who are quite literally incapable of either considering the present situation or even being consulted in the first place is a very weird mistification. Their intent is immaterial, irrelevant, inapplicable, because they are neither here nor aware of the actual present situation, while you American citizens are.

As I pointed out already, original intent is a foundation of the law. But we are not slaves to a law,
since we may change it any time we choose. But we've so far chosen to leave the 2nd intact.

I swear, sometimes I wonder if being subjects of the speculative ghosts of the Founding Fathers is a more appealing form of submission than being subjects of the British Crown used to be.
In any case, it is hardly freedom.

It beats living in Brazil, where legal gun laws are more restrictive, but gun violence is even worse than here. OK, OK...that was a cheap shot.
But freedom is a subjective thing. While you lean more towards gov't provided security, I prefer a less intrusive gov't & more individual
responsibility for defense. I don't say you're wrong, only that I favor a less statist approach.

Neither do I. Their reputation suggests that they valued security, individual freedom, and a generally civilized society.

Woo hoo...detente!

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is all you political agenda types have your own intepretations of intention.

Oh, puleeze....as though anyone in this forum is without a political agenda, & without their own interpretation of the framers' intentions.
These differences are what we're here to discuss.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh, puleeze....as though anyone in this forum is without a political agenda, & without their own interpretation of the framers' intentions.
These differences are what we're here to discuss.

Right, so when you say "Whatever the lawmakers intended when writing a law, that is how it should be enforced," all you're really saying is that the law should suit you. And that's fine, I guess I just never heard it called the "originalist approach."