High Court To Look At Local Gun Control Laws

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(09-30) 07:16 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year's ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/30/national/w070523D61.DTL

[Kolesar]

1. Hypocritical Republicans claim they are for "local" rule

Except when the issue can be used to inflame the electorate. Expect frantic fund raising letters to go out from the NRA based on this case.

[brendan120678]

2. Actually I think most libertarians and...

Bill of Rights Supporters are for the "local rule" in cases where the Constitution is silent.
Liberals and Democrats should be the same way.

The 2nd Amendment gives a clear right to the people.
As does the first.

Would you have issue with a local city ordinance that forbade freedom of speech, and forced everybody to go worship according to the City's designated religion?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Hypocritical Democrats claim the Constitution applies everywhere to everyone except....

in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

[JonQ]

200. All other rights are reserved to the states

except the ones specifically mentioned in the constitution as being under federal jurisdiction. The 2nd is one that is not delegated to the states.

[slackmaster]

3. Good

It's about time to restore the civil rights of Chicago residents.

[doc03]

4. I think if Chicagoans had handguns and CCW

the crime and murder rate would drop significantly.

[zipplewrath]

15. They do

Chicagoans have alot of guns. And they are using them on each other. That's why they are trying to get rid of the guns. What you are probably alluding to WHICH chicagoans have guns. The ones you'd like to arm would tend to INCREASE the number of folks dying, they just wouldn't necessarily all be "murders". But trust me, the folks currently use them have no problems with getting into a gun fight. In fact, they'll be just as likely to shoot sooner than later, being concerned that the target is now armed. The only question really is are you trying to reduce the number of deaths, or murders.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Yes they have lots of illegally possessed handguns.

[doc03]

154. Sure the people that have guns now are using them on

each other, they are criminals, dah. Oh they are trying to get rid of the guns, the only guns they are getting rid of are the ones owned by law abiding citizens. Criminals don't give a rats ass if you make all guns illegal they will keep theirs. Yes I am alluding to WHICH Chicagoans the law breakers and the ones that obey the law. I don't give a damn about a criminals death it's the their victims.

[X_Digger]

5. Incorporation, here we come!!

The whole concept of selective incorporation needs to be revisited. It's a legacy of discrimination and bias.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. I'm not so confident.

But I am hopeful.

[doc03]

6. I recently got my concealed carry, in a class of 14

we had 6 women. Myself I may never actually use my CCW it's just uncomfortable and inconvenient to carry a gun. I'll bet every one of those ladies has one in their purse now, they carry everything but the kitchen sink in those things a gun shouldn't be any problem.

[wordpix]

10. i'm concerned pannhandlers who approach someone holding a gun might get shot

I've had some fairly aggressive panhandlers approach me but nothing serious. I'm concerned that a woman feeling a bit scared at being approached by, say, a homeless man, might let him have it.

I prefer pepper spray.

[doc03]

156. People with CCW are aware of the laws and know you just can't

shoot a panhandler. Can you cite any instance where that actually happened? I could find hundreds of cases where people have saved their life or others with CCW, several such cases are posted here on DU every week. We heard all your arguments before we had CCW in Ohio, the gun grabbers said we would have blood in the streets. Illinois and Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in America and it is no safer than other states that are armed to the teeth.

[doc03]

161. Fine use your pepper spray on the panhandler. If

you need to defend your life use your CCW. Pepper spray will only piss off a crackhead and make him more likely to kill you.

[bongbong]

7. I've no problem with the 2nd Amendment

As long as the weapons that people have match the weapons the Framers were talking about when they wrote the Constitution. Muzzle loading black powder muskets. I have no problem with those.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Girandoni Repeating Rifle. 20 shot, semi-auto. Please review your history books.

Or at least the National Archives if you want to make broad brushed statements like that.

Not to mention the idea is silly on many different levels. Would you limit freedom of the press to moveable type block presses?

[bongbong]

12. Analogy FAIL

The first amendment was talking about the concept of speech. Not the transmission method like a printing press.

Was the Girandoni available in America?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Not widely, as they were pressed into service by the Austrians as fast as they could be made.

But there were some in the US, certainly. Meriwether Lewis carried one, for one notable example. The rifle was fully capable of felling a deer, to say nothing of human beings.

And the analogy is perfect. The press is one conveyance of free speech. Individual models of firearms are inclusive of the right to keep and bear arms.

[bongbong]

20. Logic FAIL

Now you've compounded your analogy FAIL with a logic FAIL.

The Framers didn't say "Free Speech from a printing press", they said "Free Speech".

I trust I'm not typing too fast for you to understand...?

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Two can play this game.

They also said 'Keep and bear arms'.

Not flintlocks. Not breech loaders. Not even cannons (which were privately owned). Arms.


They wanted the people to have free speech.
They wanted the people to remain armed.

Both mechanisms serve to keep the populace free. As do the others, such as due process, and the right not to be forced to self-incriminate.

There is no constitutional limit on the means in which we project free speech.
There is no constitutional limit on the types of small arms we may possess.

[bongbong]

36. Nope

Now you're rewriting the 2nd Amendment. Where does it say "small arms"?

[AtheistCrusader]

42. The word 'arms' has been repeatedly interpreted as small arms by the supreme court.

Which is why firearms enthusiasts generally accept the division of crew served weapons and destructive devices from firearms (small arms).

[bongbong]

49. Logic FAIL by the SCOTUS

Why do 2nd Amendment people think that only weapons that match exactly what the gun lobby wants to endorse match the 2nd Amendment - and nothing more or less?

Pretty obvious flaw to me in their thinking to me, but then I'm a logical thinker.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. A logical person would have never made your initial argument.

[bongbong]

57. LOL

You're arguing in circles.

Either answer my point, or just say "I have no answer for you, I just choose to believe what I believe"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. You disagree with at least eight Supreme Court Justices. Logical doesn't describe you.

[bongbong]

66. More info please

Obviously you're talking about eight justices from more than one court. Thus, I am also AGREEING with a number of SC justices - the ones who wrote dissenting opinions against the opinions of those eight.

You don't know just how logical I am.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Only one who recently left the Court the others are still currently on the Court.

We don't have Sotomayor's opinon on this issue yet.

[bongbong]

71. Are you saying Heller was an 8-1 opinion?

It wasn't.

[X_Digger]

89. In the dissent..

Even Stevens acknowledges it- see here- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=241213#241266

[bongbong]

92. More than just Stevens

Four justices dissented, with lots of other arguments besides the one you linked to.

I still don't have an answer to why only gun lobby approved guns (.50 caliber semi-automatics) are OK but nothing more. Where, and more importantly, how is/was that dividing line determined???

[X_Digger]

95. Moving the goalposts, eh?

Nice.

Other guns are legal, as you've been schooled in elsewhere in this thread- they just require more paperwork.

Guns below a certain line? only a form 4473 / background check.
Guns above that line? NFA tax stamp & paperwork.

[bongbong]

98. Not just guns

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. If you look at my initial posts in this thread, they say "why can't I buy bombs and tanks?" (Look for the 'OK, great' posts from me)

I'm still curious why you can buy only gun lobby approved guns (.50 caliber semi-automatics) but nothing more. Breyer's dissent in Heller makes my point exactly. Do you have an answer for this SPECIFIC question?

[X_Digger]

106. I _can_ buy _any_ gun.. with appropriate paperwork.

You persist in making that asinine statement as though it has some validity or meaning.

Firearms below a certain point- limited paperwork (semi-autos, shotguns, rifles > 16" below .51 caliber)
Firearms above that point - more paperwork. (one set of paperwork for suppressors, full autos, short barreled guns; another set of paperwork for DD (destructive devices) / AOW (Any other Weapon))

[bongbong]

107. Not addressing the point

You say one can buy ANY gun. But you're STILL not addressing my point. Where is the paperwork located to buy a fighter jet?

[X_Digger]

113. Jets aren't prohibited....

See the post below about Star Trek's Michael Dorn who owns a few fighter jets.

[bongbong]

108. ANY GUN?

I can buy a working 280MM howitzer? Show me the paperwork for that one.

[Treo]

195. yes you can buy a working howitzer

the ammunition might be an issue though.

[Treo]

307. Not a howitzer but....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtRQHyPlbSc&feature=rec-HM-r2

[AtheistCrusader]

109. But you can buy more.

for instance, most of the flintlock muskets of old EXCEED .50 caliber. Some exceed .70 cal.

It's possible to own both fully automatic weapons, AND destructive devices like working RPG's, 20mm cannon, large ordnance like civil war cannons, all in working condition.

[bongbong]

112. More assertions

I have looked at all the links given to me about owning big weapons, and it turns out none of them allow the things you claim. They allow non-working tanks. They allow mining explosives. They allow non-working weapons.

I still can't find anything saying an American can own the things you're claiming.

[X_Digger]

119. Then you aren't looking very hard..

Weapons are regulated by _class_ not by model number.

Automatic weapons, short barreled devices, suppressors, etc are regulated by Class III/Title II restrictions.

Destructive devices (M203 grenades, grenade launchers, 20mm anti-tank rounds, tank guns, mortars, etc) are under another set of regulations that are also part of the 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act).

If you can't find one for sale, or one mentioned specifically in the ATF site, you seem to be assuming that it's illegal- the law doesn't work that way. That which isn't prohibited, is legal. Again, regulations are based on class.

[bongbong]

121. Hmm

So you're saying if somebody buys a working, fully destructive tank, they won't get arrested?

[AtheistCrusader]

123. You were linked to the Class 1 type 8 FFL that allows possession of firearms in excess of .50 calibe

r. It applies to the 80mm main gun of a Sherman. The fact it's mounted to a Sherman tank is immaterial. The tank is legal to own with no permits required. The GUN, in non-demilled condition requires the permits.

I wish we could provide you with something that states in black and white what you are asking for, but unfortunately, firearms permits for anything 'beyond the norm' are subject to a mishmash of federal and state law, and it's all arcane bullshit. You just about need a lawyer to interpret it all for you.

For instance, a flame thrower, which seems like an incredibly destructive device, straight out of WWII, would be regulated as agricultural equipment. Firearms laws are a mess. It's hard to know what is legal and what is not, and the penalty for being wrong is extreme.

[bongbong]

125. Bingo

You just made my point for me.

What you can, and cannot, own, is totally subjective. Nothing to do with the Constitution.

[X_Digger]

129. Flew right over your head, didn't it?

You _can_ own all those things, with varying amounts of paperwork and effort, some states' regulations notwithstanding.

[bongbong]

133. Nope, it flew over yours

You don't understand how well your post illustrated my thesis. That's OK.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. What you can and cannot say is totally subjective. Nothing to do with the constitution.

Again, two can play at this game. No one ever said the right to own whatever firearm is absolute and not subject to any reasonable regulation. We've accepted so much regulation one cannot possibly memorize it all. Just like the First is limited by obscenity law, slander or libel, and even threatening or hate speech.

You'd be hard pressed to justify limiting firearms ownership at 1791 levels.

[bongbong]

135. So who determined it

One court says one thing is OK or banned, and the next court overturns that.

So gun arguments based on the 2nd Amendment are ridiculous, since the court has interpreted and re-interpreted that Amendment a zillion times in a zillion different ways.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. Actually both the first and second have come under remarkably identical methods of assault.

Surely you've followed hate speech legislation, and 'OMG YOU CAN'T BURN THE FLAG RRAARGH!!' prohibitions, and their overturn, etc.

I would guess the First and Second amendments have nearly equal time sitting in courts, and have comparable reversals, and re-interpretations.


The 2nd isn't as 'overturned' as you think. Each decision clarifies or narrows the scope. It's pretty well defined, as to what we can have now.

[bongbong]

140. Never said it

I never said it was "overturned". I said that using it as an argument is beyond specious at this point.

The only value it has circa 2009 is as an excuse for people who love guns, or want guns, to own them.

The amount of legal triangulation made to the 1st is ultra-microscopic as compared to the amount done on the 2nd.

[X_Digger]

141. One would think so, but no..

There is a distinct lack of SCOTUS jurisprudence around the second amendment, as compared to the first, and most others.

There's only a handful of cases pertaining directly with the second. I was really surprised at that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

142. He said there were zillions he must be right. He's got him some logic.

[bongbong]

145. Zillions

OK, change it to thousands. My point still stands. Sheesh.

[bongbong]

143. Not just the SC

I was talking about the morass of laws & regulations that apply to weapons, not just SC decisions.

My point is that the 2nd Amendment has little to do with it anymore, and it is a joke whenever the gun lobby uses it as an excuse for their love of guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

146. Okay you think the Constitution is a joke. We understand you perfectly now.

[bongbong]

148. Putting words in my mouth

Show me where I said the Constitution is a joke.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

150. Sorry, you just think it's outdated and doesn't apply anymore. So you think it's kind of a joke.

[bongbong]

151. More words in mouth

You should read my posts before responding to them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

159. That sentiment is a compilation of your whole body of work.

[X_Digger]

153. "morass of laws & regulations" -- so it's well-regulated?

Trick question, as 'well-regulated' at the time meant well functioning / well equipped / capable. (see 'regulated pocket watch')

All regulation flows from legislation granting the state or federal government the power to do so. The base document of our legislation is the constitution and the amendments to it.

Feel free to think that the two aren't connected, that doesn't make it so; nor have you presented a cogent argument as to why you think it so.

[bongbong]

155. Yes, I did

My "cogent argument" fills this thread. As for well-regulated meaning like a clock, that is wrong. It refers specifically to a well-organized militia. Read Federalist Papers #29

[X_Digger]

160. Well, you filled this thread with _something_..

.. whether or not it's a cogent argument is questionable.

You didn't get to the point until this subthread, you danced around showing your ignorance of what a person can and can't own, and then you make an _assertion_.

Debate tip- Assertion != Argument

I've read all the federalist papers, if you want to talk about Adams' disdain for the militia, or Madison & Hamilton's response, feel free.

"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights"

(Federalist 29)

You were saying?

[bongbong]

162. Easy to refute you

Here ya go:

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." - Federalist papers 29

IOW, a "well-regulated" militia is one that is trained like an army.

Game, set, match.

[X_Digger]

166. Swing and a miss..

Hamilton didn't think militias were of much value. That has what bearing on the concept of individuals being armed?

Og wait, I see your "logic".. you're tying the second amendment only to service in a militia, in spite of historical writings and thought of the time, from almost every one of the FFs.

Only in your mind.

[bongbong]

168. No miss at all

I'm just quoting the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. You're the one who is inventing things and mind reading what Hamilton thought.

[X_Digger]

172. Here let me quote it again.. from Hamilton.. Fed 29..

"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights"

How, pray tell, could Hamilton say that and what you quoted above without acknowledging that private citizens were to have arms? Hamilton's position was that he didn't have much faith in the Militia (for the purposes of military endeavours, I noticed you left out..) but he acknowledges that having an armed citizenry would be a guard against tyranny.

How can you reconcile those two positions, illustrated by your quote and mine, without accepting the intervening notion that the population would be armed? I mean, if Hamilton had a general disdain for the militias, and thought that arms were only to be used in militia service, how can you reconcile his quote about an armed citizenry being a guard against tyranny.

[bongbong]

175. Here, I'll refute it again

Easy. He was talking about a well-regulated militia. The meaning of "well-regulated" has already been covered by me - actually by the Federalist Paper #29 - as being a highly trained one.

In fact the quote you picked actually BACKS ME UP. You quote: "...little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms,...". which actually proves my point AGAIN.

Thanks for taking the time to add evidence to my point.

[X_Digger]

182. I notice you didn't address my point..

How can a badly trained, poorly equipped militia (stipulating Hamilton's position) be a guard against tyranny?

Does the quote I posted not make more sense in the light of personal ownership outside of the militia? How else can you reconcile them?

[bongbong]

188. No idea

I have no idea. All I have all his writings to go on. He knew the situation better than you, and he was clear and plain in his statements.

No, the quote only makes sense in the way Hamilton meant it. He was clear about "well-regulated" meaning trained like an army.

[X_Digger]

193. So you agree that you can't reconcile..

.. those two quotes without the assumption of an armed citizenry? Because if Hamilton had such disdain for the militia, yet he wanted only them to be armed, rather than citizens, his protection of liberty would be impossible, no?

It's not rocket science. They're both in the same document; it's not like he could have changed his mind from the time he started the document until he finished it.

eta grammar fix

[bongbong]

196. Nothing to reconcile

The two quotes I THINK you're talking about support each other. Which two do you mean?

[X_Digger]

210. The quotes you and I posted, of course.

You know what? I've wasted hours explaining that yes, you can have automatic rifles.. and tanks.. and tank guns.. and grenades.. and grenade launchers.. and jets.. and the guns jets fire.. and..

If you don't understand by now, it's willful ignorance. Have fun with that. School's out. I'll let someone else pick up your education from here.

[bongbong]

224. Giving up so soon?

Well, the two quotes you posted supported each other.

Don't give up yet! You maybe almost proved something!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

184. It seems he uses the quotes in context while you pick and choose.

We have the well regulated part down, all able bodied adults would be the applicable group at this point in time. That's your well regulated militia.

[bongbong]

189. Nope

You ignored all the quotes from the Federalist Papers. They were VERY clear. "Well-regulated" means training like an army.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

176. Imagine that, no response.

[bongbong]

178. LOL

Patience, patience.

[slackmaster]

209. It's not subjective at all. It's clearly defined in the law. You can own just about anything.

Anything short of real WMDs like nuclear weapons, but only if you really want to and are willing and able to get the required licensing, pass background checks, etc.

You technically could own a nuclear weapon, but the paperwork and licensing would amount to a de facto ban.

And I'm OK with that.

[bongbong]

221. Really?

So you don't mind if some guy down the street has a tank, goes bonkers, and starts blowing up hundreds, if not thousands, of people?

But that's only icing on the cake. My first real point is that using the 2nd Amendment as justification for owing guns is ridiculous. My second real point is that it is clear from the Federalist Papers that "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amdendment means "trained like an army".

[slackmaster]

225. Yes, I would mind that

My first real point is that using the 2nd Amendment as justification for owing guns is ridiculous.

My justification for owning them is that I like them.

My second real point is that it is clear from the Federalist Papers that "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amdendment means "trained like an army".

Yes, I agree with you, but that doesn't negate the right to keep and bear personal arms for personal reasons. Nothing in the Second Amendment or any other part of the Constitution negates that, or makes militia membership a rerequisite for owning firearms.

This is an interesting subject. The government has largely abandoned its Constitutional obligation to arm and train the militia. There is one little piece left. You can still buy your very own lightly used World War II military rifle and have it shipped right to your door.

http://www.odcmp.com/

[X_Digger]

229. And??

You seem to assume that because both appear in the same sentence, one is predicated on the other.

"Pizza being necessary for late night study sessions, the right to keep and bear tomatoes shall not be infringed."

Does that sentence say that tomatoes can only be used for pizza?

The Bill of Rights is not a "the people can.." document, it's a "the government can't" document.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

The militia portion is not a limiting clause. That an example of a prefatory clause. It explains why the right should be protected, it does not limit the right (the SCOTUS in Cruikshank noted that the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the second amendment.)

[bongbong]

247. I bet!

Yeah, I'm sure your analogy to pizza is correct. After all, they were writing a document to govern an entire country. They probably just threw sentences together haphazardly.

LOL

If Cruickshank said the 2nd Amendment isn't about gun rights, then why does every gun nut in America rant about it?

LOL x 2

[X_Digger]

253. Christ you're dense..

If you don't understand what a prefatory clause is, I suggest you look it up. While you're there, look up analogy.

The second amendment is the _protection_ of a right, not the _source_ of it.

How dim is your bulb, anyway? You don't know firearms legislation; you don't know how the courts establish, enforce, and overturn precedent; you don't understand regulations about vehicles; you don't know about private plane ownership; you obviously can't read two quotes from the _same author in the same document_, and now even simple English is beyond you.

What, are you twelve?!?

[bongbong]

262. Insults?

I never hurled insults at any of the people posting to me.

I've already pointed out - with the support of the Federalist Papers - that the 2nd Amendment "well-regulated" means army-like training. It has nothing to do with private gun ownership. Argue with Hamilton if you want to, but his words are clear.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

278. You don't even know what a prefatory clause is, do you?

[bongbong]

289. Spin definition

That tortured definition seems to only occur in 2nd Amendment discussions. After researching it just a bit, it looks like it is some linguistic trick that gun lovers use to spin the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. If not, let me know something about it that doesn't pop up in 2nd Amendment discussions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

316. So you had to look it up. Thanks for proving my point.

[bongbong]

341. definitions

What point?

It is a word that is used (seemingly) exclusively by gun owners to justify their ownership on a spin of the Constitution. Why else would I know it except if a 2nd Amendment discussion came up? I don't normally spend any time on that subject.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

347. That is obvious.

[X_Digger]

363. It's a grammarian definition..

.. is it our fault that the only commonly used example is in the second amendment (and the Rhode Island Constitution- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject")?

[beevul]

344. The only one spinning definitions is you.

Here, right in the preamble to the bill of rights itself:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution



http://billofrights.org/


Spin that.

[beevul]

343. Actually no.

"After all, they were writing a document to govern an entire country."

They were writing a document to regulate and restrict the government itself.

Not the entire country.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

220. Reasonable restrictions. DUH.

[bongbong]

222. What's reasonable?

Since it has been shown on this thread that private US citizens do, indeed, own working tanks and jet fighters, it is clear that the idea of "Reasonable Restrictions" is a joke.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

230. So are you arguing for no restrictions on any Amendment?

The 1934 National Firearm's Act has been a pretty good standard for 75 years where firearms are concerned.

[bongbong]

233. My point

No, my point is that using the 2nd Amendment as justification for gun ownership is a joke - in more than one way...

which I've shown on this thread.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

246. You have shown your opinion, which you have admitted is based in fear.

[bongbong]

248. MORE words in my mouth

You just can't stop putting words in my mouth. I figured the reams of stuff I wrote in reality would be enough for you to respond to.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

258. I am responding to what your words really mean.

[bongbong]

261. mind reading?

Well, you're a better mind reader than me.

Actually, you're worse, seeing as I'm not so scared as to feel the need to own a gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

265. Kind of like you and Hamilton eh? Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[krispos42]

281. It's an arbitrary but reasonably useful dividing line.

Assuming "arms" means "small arms", then what we're talking about are guns desiged to be carried and used by a single person. Given the laws of physics, combustion, and of metallurgy, the only guns that can be carried and used by a single person and that are over .50-caliber are those that shoot relatively low-velocity payloads, such as shotguns and antique muzzleloading rifles. Otherwise either the recoil is literally bone-crushing or the weight of the gun requires more than one person to carry.

At the time the biggest rounds fired by handguns or rifles was usually some form of .45 ... the .45 Colt, the .45-70, the .45 Auto, etc. Rounding up to an even half-inch (with an exception for sporting arms like shotguns) is perfectly reasonable.


The baddest boy on the block is the .50 BMG. The rifles that shoot it are just about as big and heavy as you can get that can still be carried by a single person, and it's powerful enough that the gun has to be big and heavy and strong to be able to handle this cartridge.

FWIW, most rifles are generally of caliber .30 or smaller (7.62mm or smaller). The "fat, short, and slow" rifle bullet has been largely replaced with "lean, long, and fast" for better ballistic performance and more impact energy.

[bongbong]

287. Not just small arms

At this level of discussion "arms" can mean anything, not just small arms.

As for what is a powerful handheld weapon, you can't do too much worse than a Stinger missile.

[krispos42]

295. They're also low-recoil

:-)


However, they are not projectile weapons. I presume a different section of the US Code deals with rockets.

[slackmaster]

290. The line is an arbitrary one that was drawn by due process of law in 1934

With the passage of the National Firearms Act.

BTW, the first draft of the NFA called for outright bans on possession of large-caliber weapons, machine guns, etc. by ordinary citizens. That was amended early in the discussion, changed from banned to heavily regulated. Would you care to guess why Congress did that, bongbong?

[happyslug]

350. Wording of the Second:

Amendment Text | Annotations

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.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Notice the term used is "Arms" not "Firearms". The term "Small Arms" is a more recent invention in terminology, separating non-crew served weapons from Crew Served Weapons. Cannon, Machine guns, Mortars and example of Crew Served weapons. Rifles, Shotguns, pistols are examples of arms used by individuals and as such "Small arms".

As to what the term "arms" mean when it comes to the Second Amendment, one test is to look at what congress passed at the same time period. In the case of the Militia we have the 1792 Militia Act.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

If you notice the infantrymen of the time period was to be armed with the same weapon as the regular army (In 1792 that was the .69 caliber Smooth bore Musket OR a rifle). Pistols are ONLY addressed in Article 4 and then only in regards to "Horse" forces (At least one "Company" of "horse" per Division but no more then one "Company of horse" per brigade).

Given that a Brigade was defined as: "That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates." or 64 men per company, 5 Companies per Battalion, 2 Battalions per Regiment, 4 Regiments per Brigade or 64x5x2x4=2560 men Plus Officers and NCO. Notice Division is NOT defined (Today it is generally 3 brigades per Division PLUS Devision level support units). In 1792, 3 x 2560 = 7680. No more then 1/11 of the total forces could be "horse" thus the maximum number of men in the horse units were 698 out of 7680 (Or roughly 700 out of 7600). Remember these are nominal numbers, actual numbers would generally fall short of these numbers.

Given the only pistols authorized for the Militia were with the Cavalry forces (and then only 2 per man, AND then only on the horse NOT the trooper) you are looking at 1400 pistols per 7600 men. On the other hand, most "horse" units were "Dragoons" NOT Cavalry as those terms were used in the late 1700s. Dragoons were mounted Infantry. By the late 1700s they still carried Sabers, but they also carried Carbines (if NOT full size Muskets). Thus in every Brigade you had about 7600 MUSKETS.

My point was it was the 7600 Muskets Congress wanted the Militia to have and were told to obtain at their own expense. Pistols were ONLY to obtained by any horse units (and artillery by any artillery unit).

Now given the Smooth Bore musket (Via a long line of changes) have been replaced by the M16 today, we can argue that the ban on owning a fully automatic M16 is a violation of the Second Amendment, while a ban on pistols are fully consistent with the Second Amendment, given that Congress in 1792 ONLY authorized 1/11 of the Militia to have pistols while requiring ALL of the Militia to have the basic infantry weapon of the time period (and that the basic infantry weapon of today is the M16).

Now, I do NOT see out Supreme Court adopting this rule, in there most recent decision the Majority interpreted the Second to mean CONGRESS can not ban pistols but avoided the whole issue of automatic Weapons. The Dissent wanted to defer the whole issue to Congress, and if Congress wanted to kill the Second amendment it was alright with them.

I disagree with both positions. I believe, given the above, that the Second is a default amendment. It was designed NOT to undermined the Control over the Militia given to the Federal Government in the Constitution itself, to wit, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15 and 16 (and paragraph 12 and 13 giving control over the Army and Navy to Congress):
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

The first Congress did NOT want the above sections of the Constitution repealed by the Bill of Rights BUT also wanted to address the attacks on those sections by opponents of the US Constitution (Especially Patrick Henry who asked (paraphrased) "What would happen if Congress REFUSED to organize the Militia and then used the Regular forces to suppress the people"? Other's wrote on the same theme and it was popular at that time so it had to be addressed.

Patrick Henry on the US Constitution during the Virginia Ratification Convention:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/liberty_empire.htm

Thus the wording of the Second was a careful product, to BOTH permit the Federal Government to regulate the Militia AND to permit the states to form the militia if the Federal Government FAILED to do so (And to permit individuals to form the militias if the state failed to do so, as had been the Case In Pennsylvania at the beginning of the French and Indian war of 1754). Thus it the wording, it is NOT to permit people to have any old weapon for re-supply was found to be important during the Revolution, made easier if everyone had the same Caliber weapon (Thus the wording in the Militia act, the wording required use of French Caliber muskets, for the French Musket had become the standard weapon in America during the American Revolution). At the same time, it was well known that during much of the revolution any caliber weapon had been used (any weapon is better then no weapon). These two themes, first to maintain the Ability of the Federal Government to regulate and supply the militia AND to permit not only the State but Individuals to have the ABILITY to form Militia units if needed.

Can Congress ban any one type of weapon, yes, especially if it has no usability in a military capacity AND to a lesser degree if Congress just wants to reduce the cost of Re-supply (i.e. require everyone to have an M16 NOT an AK47, just to mean one less type of ammunition and parts the army need to resupply. On the other hand a complete ban on weapons interferes with people's ability to form a militia and this unconstitutional on its face. The argument should be the extent of Congressional and State Restrictions NOT if Congress and the States can or can not ban weapons. Should Congress ban black powder do to it being dangerous compared to modern smokeless powder? i.e. Congress can BAN the ammo for smooth bore muskets for such weapons have no military usability today AND the black powder can be dangerous if stored improperly? The answer is YES. Congress ban 5.56 mm Ammo? The Answer is no for that is the ammo used by the M16. Can Congress ban 7.62x39mm ammo? The Answer is Maybe, if the purpose of the ban is to minimize the cost of re-supply it is constitutional, if it is intended to ban people having the weapons for they can afford an AK but not a M16 then it is unconstitutional. Please note this is MY opinion on what the Second mean, others, including Justice Scalia, have taken a different approach.

Can the State and Congress ban Pistols, My opinion based on the above is YES, pistols have limited military usability and clearly secondary to rifles in that regard. I would prefer to have a Militia man with a Shotgun then a Pistol. In fact, given modern Combat situations, I would prefer a man with a Spade to a man with a Pistol (The Spade can be used to dig a fox hole, pistols range in combat situation is not much longer then a man with a spade). Scalia disagrees with me on this issue, his position is to look at how most states regulate weapons and that is what the Court should call constitutional under the Second Amendment (and this concept of looking at how the states do something is taken from "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" Cases, which Scalia generally opposes).

The dissent is also wrong, deferring to Congress and the states is like deferring to Congress and the States the issue of what is the "Press". If either hates someone's opinion all each would have to do is say that opinion is NOT speech or Press and thus illegal (Or a variation, press is those people who have a permit, no permit the freedom of the Press does not apply to you). As to Speech and Freedom of the Press, the Courts have long ruled NOT to permit the States and Congress to define those terms and the Court should adopt the same rule as to Arms. At the same time Arms should be used as that term was in common use in 1792 when the Bill of Rights were adopted, and that is the common infantry weapons of the time period subject to some general overview to minimize the cost of re-supply if the Militia unit is called up. It is simple and permits the States and Federal Government to regulate those weapons that are causing the most harm today, Pistols, while preserving the ability of the people, as a whole, to form up into militia units.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

260. Refutation FAIL

Both are conceptual

[bongbong]

263. Not clear

Are you talking about both the 1st and 2nd Amendment, or what?

[slackmaster]

11. Please turn off your computer immediately

According to the First Amendment you only have the right to make political comments with quill pens and parchment.

[krispos42]

13. Now now, slack...

...they had hand-set and hand-powered printing presses back then. I think we can give him that much.

[bongbong]

14. Analogy FAIL

The Framers were talking about the concept of Free Speech, not the transmission method.

[slackmaster]

16. They were also talking about the right to keep and bear arms for security

Not any particular type of arms.

[bongbong]

23. OK, great

So why not allow people to own grenades, tanks, bombs, etc? They're for personal defense too!

And you're wrong about the "personal defense" thing anyway. I've read the Federalist Papers applicable to the 2nd Amendment and they were talking about an organized militia.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Fortunately, SCOTUS concluded that your assessment is dead wrong.

[bongbong]

27. Information please

Which assessment? Which decision? Where did they say "you can keep a .50 caliber semi-automatic gun but nothing above that size!"

LOL

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. The Heller decision clearly makes your flintlock argument useless.

[bongbong]

37. The Heller Decision

The Heller Decision was made clearly because of the republican makeup of the court. Most other courts of the 20th century would've decided it the other way.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. A republican would say the same about Roe Vs. Wade. Sour grapes, etc.

Even the dissenting liberals on the court acknowledged firearms are an individual right. You should read the dissenting opinions.

[bongbong]

47. Dissenting opinions

I read the dissenting opinions. Breyer's approaches my point the closest. Why not allow machine guns? Obviously, if you allow those, you've got to allow small cannons like a 20mm since those do about the same amount of damage as a machine gun does with HE rounds. Then you've got to allow bigger and bigger cannons, leading to tanks, etc.

Why do 2nd Amendment people think that only weapons that match exactly what the gun lobby wants to endorse match the 2nd Amendment - and nothing more or less?

Pretty obvious flaw to me in their thinking to me, but then I'm a logical thinker.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Again, the 1934 National Firearms Act has been repeatedly found constitutional.

So the dividing line between small arms and crew served weapons has long been accepted by everyone involved.

[bongbong]

79. Not by Breyer

Look at Breyer's dissent in Heller. He didn't agree with that mythical "dividing line".

[AtheistCrusader]

81. I'd be perfectly happy with overturning it.

But I think ONE justice supporting it is sort of telling, don't you?

[bongbong]

84. Breyer not the only dissent

Read the Heller decision.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. How many current justices agree with Breyer on that point alone?

[bongbong]

147. Can't read their minds

I can't read their minds, only their written opinions. Some of them might even *change* their minds!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

149. How many are of the opinion that the 2nd protects an individual right?

[bongbong]

152. Easy to answer this one!

It would depend on the arguments surrounding the question to that right.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

158. How many were of that opinion in the Heller case?

[bongbong]

164. Hardly matters

That hardly matters, as the court makes decisions that are sometimes 180 degrees from what they decided on a similar case. It all depends on the surrounding arguments and situations.

You might as well ask what some Warren Court decision was.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

174. You seem to be evading the question. The Heller decision is the law of the land it clearly matters.

[bongbong]

177. Right back

Until the next decision, anyway. Just as Heller overturned previous decisions, who knows what will happen next.

In any case, my point about the 2nd Amendment just being an excuse for gun-lovers to paint their desires as somehow related to the Constitution has been amply proven by me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

181. Since the make up of the Court hasn't changed I don't see the 2nd becoming more restricted.

[bongbong]

194. History

Then you don't know much about the politicization of the court and how their decisions have little to do with the law as an Ideal.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

214. So you see Heller being overturned in the next 4 years?

[bongbong]

226. Your answer

Only if the court loses one of the RATS - Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia - or if there is some Big Business Entity that comes in that needs it overturned.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

228. So that's a no.

[X_Digger]

186. Heller did not overturn any SCOTUS decision

The closest you'll find at that level is US v Cruikshank, a post-reconstruction case that was decided by a bunch of bigots who argued that the first and second amendments didn't apply to the newly freed slaves- yet they had the presence of mind to say- "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

In a recent case, Wiggum v. Springfield, both parties and the court agreed that the prefatory clause declares the Second Amendment's civic purpose- (ie, the most important reason why protecting the right to keep and bear arms is needed is so that a militia can be drawn from the populace.) But just like I can say "Milk should be protected because it helps build healthy bones" doesn't encompass all the benefits of milk (ie, milk also provides a source of Vitamin D), declaring why the second amendment is important does not limit the right protected solely to the purpose for which it's being protected.

Since the constitution and amendments are not, and have never been read as an exhaustive list of rights (the ninth amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") it's foolish to assume that the scope and limit of the right to keep and bear arms is wholly contained in the text of the second amendment.

After all, it's not a "the people can.." document, it's a "the government can't.." document. The second amendment is simply saying- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" (because having competent militias are important) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (people have the right to keep and use arms.)

[bongbong]

192. Not directly

It didn't overturn SC decisions directly, but it flew against the spirit of other pro-gun-law SC decisions. My point is that an session of the court can, and will, overturn precedent. They just need enough legalisms, which they can easily find loads of, to justify their bias.

[X_Digger]

206. You really don't understand how the court works, do you?

Precedents don't usually get overturned within a generation. If that happened, circuit courts would never rule on an issue based on precedence for fear that the precedent would be overturned with the next judge. The last major case to directly address the second amendment at this level is Cruikshank (1876). Cases after this point merely quoted Cruikshank (Presser, Miller- both of em)

Here's a good read- A People's History of the Supreme Court (especially good as an intro) then try Explicit and Authentic Acts: Amending the U.S. Constitution (for a good discussion about the second, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendment) and finally, The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms.

[bongbong]

216. Precedents

There is no such thing as a "generation" that you speak of in terms of court decisions. There are no hard and fast age limits for judges, thus a judge making a decision when they are in their 30's would mean, according to your argument, that nothing changes for 40 or 50 years. And multi-judge courts like the SC have a shifting population that changes over time, making your idea of a "generation" silly.

Or are you using "generation" in terms of an average generation span, like 25 years?

Actually, your lack of specificity is annoying. Are you talking only of major decisions by the SC, or of all related decisions by them, or of Appellate Division decisions, or what?

Do you have an answer about my point on the definition of "well-regulated"?

[X_Digger]

40. You can own tanks, grenades, bombs..

.. but the paperwork is longer.

[bongbong]

50. Information please

Where can you own them? What kind of paperwork do you need?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. Tons of paperwork, federal licenses and local LE approval.

[bongbong]

56. More specific info

Something more specific, please. It is easy to say "look it up yourself", but you made the claim that it is possible to own tanks, bombs, etc. Please document your claim.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. Here you go.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/fflc/ffl/ffl_types.htm

The info can be found on that site.

[bongbong]

70. Hmmmm

It appears that anything more than the gun lobby wants you to own (up to a .50 caliber semi-automatic) must be "deactivated" to qualify. Here is an example:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/101504gp-30.htm

My point stands. You can't get bombs, tanks, etc. So why not?

[slackmaster]

72. You read poorly

Try again.

[bongbong]

75. I tried again

Still can't find anything about owning bombs, tanks, etc. Everything above what the gun lobby approves (.50 caliber semi-automatics) must be "de-activated". Not much use for self-defense.

Please document your claim that you can own something like a bomb or tank. I'm talking WORKING items.

[slackmaster]

78. Link to licensing provisions for explosives in the United States Code

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=explosive&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000843----000-.html

Everything above what the gun lobby approves (.50 caliber semi-automatics) must be "de-activated".

You've obviously never heard of the National Firearms Act.

You look pretty foolish right now, coming to this discussion without any background knowledge.

[bongbong]

82. Not foolish at all

I'm not being foolish at all! I'm looking for clarification. I have been looking for clarification ever since I said "Why can't you own bombs or tanks?"

Your link is for explosives like what mining operations use. Fine, I'll go with that even though it isn't exactly allowing landmines, for example.

So where is the provision for tanks?

[slackmaster]

85. If you get the permit to own the explosives, you can make and detonate your own land mine

As long as you don't violate any laws regarding transport or use of the explosive in the process.

So where is the provision for tanks?

They're not regulated, so there is no provision.

[derby378]

104. Someone apparently brought a knife to a gunfight

I appreciate the patience you're showing with this guy, but the upshot is that cities and states may no longer be able to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't exist. This is gonna be interesting.

[bongbong]

114. LOL

If you follow my arguments in this thread, I'm not the knife-carrier.

[derby378]

117. That's right - you're the "logical" person

Your arguments have been weighed and found wanting. It's the same old same old we've had to deal with for 40 years, and it's finally crumbling under its own self-importance.

[bongbong]

120. You so silly

Weighed and wanting?

So you answer my question, if it is so easy. Why can't I buy a tank or fighter plane? I'm not talking about non-working ones, or ones using classified technology, either.

[derby378]

122. Next time...

...come to the debate armed with something valid and we'll hash it out.

You have the right to speak. You have the right to shoot. They're both in the Constitution. You get to blog, I get to own an AK. It's honestly just that simple.

[bongbong]

128. Yawn

Yes, you certainly "won" that point. What point is that, you ask?

You did, successfully, make the point that you have no counter-argument to mine other than "you lost the argument".

LOL

[derby378]

132. You didn't have an argument for me to counter in the first place

Read the Second Amendment, read DC v. Heller, and refamiliarize yourself with the debate.

Me, I'm on to bigger and better things...

[bongbong]

136. Sure I did

I asked you to answer my question in the "You so silly" post.

[backwoodsbob]

165. have you ever been to a closed circuit plane race?

they race privately owned p-51 mustangs...you know...the best FIGHTER PLANE of ww2

[bongbong]

179. Plane races

Those are cool. Are they fulled armed and ammo-ed up?

[X_Digger]

93. Anyone can own a tank.. it's the ammo/gun that requires paperwork.

Hell, they're on craigslist..

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/ap_craigslist_tankdestroyer_101908/

[bongbong]

96. I'm aware of it

I known for decades (I'm a long time car collector) that you've been able to buy non-working tanks. Maybe they can roll under their own power, but that's it. No working guns on them.

Since this is a 2nd Amendment discussion and not a Car Collector Chat, we can dispense with those types of things.

So, why can't I buy a fully working tank?

I don't think you can buy 105MM shells, for example, either.

[backwoodsbob]

167. you just blew away your own argument

you CAN own a tank.

Guns require the paperwork.

EXACTLY what everyone has been trying...and trying...and trying to tell you

[bongbong]

180. Read the posts

You came late to the discussion. Read my other posts in this thread. I could care less if you can find legal tanks or planes or even ICBMs. My point has always been that it is a joke that gun-lovers use the 2nd Amendment as justification for their guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

277. So you are ignorant about common gun laws, but supposedly a genius on Constitutional law. mmmkay

:eyes:

[friendly_iconoclast]

A Constitutional scholar who hasn't read Heller, it would appear

n/t

[bongbong]

286. Strawman

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I never made the claim.

Please refrain from the Strawman. I only expect repugs to do those.

[friendly_iconoclast]

285. Delete-duplicate

[bongbong]

288. More words in my mouth

Just a Strawman from you. I never claimed to be a genius.

[friendly_iconoclast]

305. You're willing to argue USSC decisions, but don't actually cite any.

Why is that? They are available for free, transcripts of arguments, opinions and dissents at:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

http://www.scotusblog.com/

We still might not agree with you, but your arguments will carry much more weight if you can actually back them up with
some, yknow, actual quotes from Constitutional scholars...

[bongbong]

318. More Strawmen

Actually, other people keep asking me about my opinion and knowledge of SC decisions. The idea that I want to argue about them is a Strawman.

Instead, I'm quite content just discussing the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and how they make it clear the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with "gun rights".

[friendly_iconoclast]

324. Discussion of the Constitution and the 2A w/o reference to the Supremes is rather pointless.

As they are the de facto, as well as the de jure arbiters of what is constitutional, and have
been since Marbury v. Madison, at least.

You have your opinion on what is constitutional, I have mine, everyone else has theirs- but unless and until someone takes it to the Supremes, all our opinions are pretty much irrelevant.

[bongbong]

326. The SC

And any decision they hand down will be overturned if some succeeding court decides to.

Which, if you read my posts, is one of my points. Using the 2nd Amendment (or for that matter SC decisions) to justify gun love is a perversion of the words the Founding Fathers wrote.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

338. What is "gun love" anyway?

[bongbong]

340. That's easy

The love of guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

346. How many of those people do you know? I know hundreds who own guns, none of them love guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. The weapons are regulated. The vehicle is not.

There may be some DOT restrictions by axle weight, or the type of conveyance (treads are generally prohibited on public roads because it destroys concrete) but all of this stuff would just be DOT restrictions. Must have signal lights. May require a 'slow vehicle' placard like a tractor.

The flipside is, you can't buy a M1 Abrams, not because ownership is prohibited, but because the materials in the armor, communications and various subsystems are still classified, and the manufacturer has an agreement with the government not to resell or export the materials. So IF it were available for sale, and you had the appropriate permits for the main gun, and coaxial gun, and any other controlled WEAPONS on the tank, you'd be good to go.

You'd have to be careful at some bridges though, it's a heavy piece of equipment.

[bongbong]

99. OK, great

So you can't buy an M1 Abrams. So what? Can I buy a working Sherman tank?

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Yes. There are many in private ownership.

Those owners with the proper permits for the main gun to be functional are probably a small subset of the people who own them, but they do exist.

More modern stuff, the military will often cut into pieces. For instance, a military hummer would be cut into five pieces. Radio removed, etc. But you CAN weld it all back together if you want.

[bongbong]

110. Assertions

Let me see how you know that there are people - private citizens with no ties to the the gov't - that own a working, destructive Sherman tank.

You made the assertion, lets see your evidence.

Also, I hope you're joking about welding together broken-up weapons.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. welding together a broken vehicle :)

I have seen videos of privately owned tanks showing up to the Machine Gun Shoot at Knob Creek in KY, and blowing the shit out of old junker cars. (this is a machine gun shoot where you can rent not only working machine guns, but also flame throwers (regulated as farm equipment LOL).

There's a private group that brings a working, firing, russian T-34 to the Sturgis motorcycle rally. ITT I leech bandwidth:

[bongbong]

124. Funny

Does a private citizen own the tank? Is he/she also in charge of procuring and owning the ammunition?

If the answer is "yes", then you've partially answered my question. I'm still wondering about owning a working ICBM or fighter plane. You need those if you got people that own tanks. Do you have an answer for me?

[X_Digger]

134. See other post re jets..

Yes, working jets can be owned by civilians, with the proper paperwork pertaining to the guns they carry.

Now you're ratcheting up your ignorance with ICBMs?

Those goal posts must be on wheels. Otherwise they'd be a bitch to move every other post.

[bongbong]

138. No moving goalposts

You don't get it, do you? I really don't care about what particular weapon it is.

Here, I'll make my point explicitly. I've been hinting around it too much, and it seems that a lot of people didn't get it. The 2nd Admendment has nothing to do with current laws, and that whenever the gun lobby trots it out, it is only an excuse for something else to justify their love of guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. The answer was yes. a private group owns it. Not a museum or 'officer friendly' from the national gu

ard. The ammunition and the gun require special permits. They probably make thier own ammo by hand.

There are privately owned military aircraft. MIGS, F-4's, etc. I do not know what sort of permits might be required to procure something like a sidewinder, or AMRAMM, but dumb bombs and internal cannons are clearly possible to procure, and possess. Hell, a toilet dropped at +mach from an F-4 would make an impressive mess.

You're getting exotic in your requests. An ICBM.. Well.. There's no precedent for it, but there are private efforts to build vehicles that will attain orbit, I suppose if you didn't want it back, you could just make it land on something. But if you want an old NIKE missile or something, you won't find a government surplus outlet willing to sell it to you. But I suppose you could build one, if you knew how.

[TPaine7]

276. The Second Amendment talks about personal weapons,

weapons an individual can "keep and bear."

Your attempt to extend it to tanks, ICBMs and fighter planes makes sense, but only for folks like Superman and the Hulk. Of course, they don't need defensive arms anyway...

I tell you what, if you will post a video of yourself or any other human being bearing a tank, ICBM or fighter plane, I will concede that your Second Amendment argument is worthy of serious debate. Ten steps should suffice.

[bongbong]

291. Nope

The idea of "bear" implying only carryable weapons is questionable, for the following reason.

It depends solely on the strength of the person. So a huge weightlifter might be able to walk around with a weapon as big as a small cannon, while a petite, weak, or sick person might be unable to even lift a hefty revolver. Thus I would have to think your idea of "bear" meaning what a person could carry wouldn't last through Circuit Court, much less Appeals or SC.

Sorry.

[Treo]

304. Gotta give you that one. NT

[TPaine7]

306. Sorry indeed

since my point had to do with items that NO ONE can bear, weightlifter or deathbed patient. My point does not rely on the individual strength of the person in question, it covers outliers on both ends of the scale. You're dodging.

Thus I would have to think your idea of "bear" meaning what a person could carry wouldn't last through Circuit Court, much less Appeals or SC.

With all due respect, if your thoughts were based in well informed reality they would be very different. First, you would not have attempted the dodge you did. Your point about individual strength is entirely beside my point about weapons that no human being can bear. Second, if you read the Supreme Court opinions in order to actually understand them and to appreciate the arguments of both sides, you would know that the argument I made could be based entirely on Supreme Court authority:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf —p 7

First of all, the term "arms" itself signifies personal weapons, even without the reinforcement of "bear." If you can "wear" a tank or take an ICBM "into {your} hands" or use a fighter jet "in wrath to cast at or strike another," you don't need conventional arms. You need a secret identity.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.—p 8

According to the Supreme Court, my definition and reasoning are sound. "Bearable" means bearable my average people, not superheroes. If an ordinary person can carry it, a frail person is entitled to it. (Of course my point, being about items no person whatsoever can bear, was entirely missed by your counterargument.)

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “{s}urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate{s}: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”—p 10

Again, if you can "wear, bear, or carry" an ICBM, fighter jet or tank "upon {your} person or in {your} clothing or in a pocket" you don't need personal arms. You need a secret identity.

I understand that you have strong feelings about this, but your opinions do not comport with objective reality. The Supreme Court would agree with my reasoning--it's their reasoning. That is because my opinions about Supreme Court doctrine are based in reality--not in my fantasy life.

Your opinion is based solidly in wishful thinking.

[bongbong]

320. Oh boy

I'll address your points in reverse order.

First of all, I actually DON'T have strong feelings about this. I'm not fearful enough to feel the need to own a gun. The "strong feelings" on "gun rights" invariably come from the gun lovers. Project much?

As for the Supreme Court, we already know how one court will overturn the decisions made by another court. It just requires a highly politicized SC, which we've had every time a corrupt republican appoints enough people to turn the Court into a mockery, like now. I had the pleasure of attending morning oral arguments at the SC, and watching Clarence Thomas sleeping in his chair.

As for "bear arms" vs. the size of the person, you keep citing ICBMs to "prove" how crazy that is when I clearly made the example of a small cannon, or (in another post) a Stinger missile. Both are easily carried by a strong man.

The third cite you made, starting with "Some have made the argument,..." is just an assertion. With my non-lawyer knowledge of rhetoric, I have shown in other posts on this thread that the 1st and 2nd Amendments can't be used as comparisons because the 1st deals with the IDEA of free speech but the 2nd has some firm words ("well-regulated") that had well known meaning in the 1780s. Whoever said that made a serious error of logic in using the 1st as justification for his/her spin on the 2nd.

Go on throwing court opinions at me. I've no problem with refuting them, except (maybe) ones by Marshall.

[krispos42]

283. Tanks themselves are merely motor vehicles.

The ATF concerns itself with the guns and artillery that are mounted on the chassis or turrent of said tank.

You can have a tank without a working gun. You need to take it up with your state motor vehicles bureau, not the feds.

[bongbong]

292. Old news

I've been aware of that since the early 80s when I was heavily in car collecting and saw dis-armed tanks for sale at shows. Your point was covered earlier in the discussion.

[slackmaster]

61. Because state laws vary, I think "look it up yourself" is reasonable, but here is a link for you

Explore here: http://www.atf.gov/

[slackmaster]

59. Everything is subject to reasonable regulation

Grenades and bombs are regulated. As for tanks, you can certainly own one but you might have a problem getting it licensed to drive on the street.

And you're wrong about the "personal defense" thing anyway.

Kindly point out where I said anything about personal defense. (Everyone does of course have a right to it.)

[bongbong]

77. You can own a tank???

You can own a working tank??? News to me!

And my reply to you got mixed up with somebody else who had mentioned "personal defense". Sorry.

[slackmaster]

80. Of course you can own a tank, because there is no law against it!

Do you have a clue how our legal system works?

[bongbong]

86. Interesting

So you're saying if I buy a fully working tank & ammo for it I won' get arrested?

[slackmaster]

87. No, that's not what I am saying

I'm saying you can own a tank. You didn't say anything about a tank with weapons.

If you want a tank gun, that's going to be classified and regulated as a destructive device. So will the ammunition. Both are regulated under the National Firearms Act.

[bongbong]

91. What good is it?

If you have a non-working tank, it is just a boat anchor and has nothing whatsoever to do with 2nd Amendment arguments.

So, we're back to my original point. Why can't somebody own weapons more powerful than what the gun lobby approves of (.50 caliber semi-automatics)?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

185. They can, we have established that over and over.

[X_Digger]

187. and over and over and over and over and.. n/t

[bongbong]

197. Silly

Unless you're trying to be a smartass, you know this discussion has moved way beyond this. Just look at my "Bingo" post for my real point.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

217. So now you admit you are wrong on that point. Finally.

[bongbong]

227. Nope

I was NEVER "wrong" on my point. I asked why an American can't own tanks, jets, etc. The clarification was given that, yes you can own them. Which led directly to the point I was always trying to make. See my "bingo" post and further down in that sub-thread for elucidation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

231. So the reasonable restrictions of the 1st Amendment make it meaningless also?

[bongbong]

234. No

Nope, it's apples and oranges. The 1st Amendment pertains in intent to (mainly) politically tinged speech which a government might regulate.

The 2nd Amendment talks about a well-regulated militia, which the Federalist Papers make clear is regulated in the sense of "trained like an army".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

249. That's not in keeping with the militia of the time or the opinion of SCOTUS.

[bongbong]

264. Nope

Read Federalist Papers #29 for what "well-regulated" means.

In short, it means being trained and disciplined like an army.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

267. Who comprised the militia of the time?

[bongbong]

268. Meanings

I don't know. That doesn't even matter when talking about the Constitution. The US was in an embryonic stage, so the situation there certainly doesn't reflect what the Founders knew would be happening in the future when they wrote the Constitution.

As I've shown, the Federalist Papers say "well-regulated" means army-like training.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

269. Imagine that evasion of a simple answer that contradicts your opinions.

[bongbong]

293. Not clear

I'm not sure what you're saying. I've been pretty clear in all my points in this discussion, including the clear meaning of "well-regulated" that the Federalist Papers give.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

275. So you are ignorant about who comprised the militia of the time of Madison....

but you are sure you are interpreting what he wrote in the correct context. That's really logical of you. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That's some funny shit.

[bongbong]

294. Nope

Actually you laugh, but you just took this discussion all the way back to my very first post, about allowing muzzle loading black powder muskets and nothing more.

Do you want to use all the definitions as they existed in 1780, or do you want to pick-n-choose definitions to make the 2nd Amendment read the way you want it to?

Now it's my turn to :-) :-) :-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

315. Who comprised the militia of the time? Your answer, "I don't know."=Ignorance

[bongbong]

321. Not important

It's not important. Again, do you want to use just 1780-era definitions of terms or a mixture of modern and colonial terms so you can spin the 2nd to anything you want it to say?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

327. You want to use them to spin it your way, but don't when it goes against you.

[bongbong]

329. Nope

I'm interpreting the Constitution, via the Federalist Papers, the way it was originally written. I'm being consistent.

It is you and the other gun lovers who are picking and choosing which modern definition to use, which modern SC decision to use, and what fragments of the Constitution you want to use to justify your desire to own a gun.

I have no problem arguing from "your side", but that basically amounts to saying anything you want with vague references to the words the Founding Fathers wrote.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

336. You used the argument about flintlocks but then not about who made up the militia.

You have willful blindness concerning the issue.

[bongbong]

342. My conclusion

I think it MUST be clear by this point that my original post about muzzle loading guns was tongue in cheek. I said several times I really don't care about whether you can buy tanks, jets, etc.

Look again at my "bingo" post. It is at the start of the subthread bringing out the two points that I really want to make:

1) using the 2nd Amendment to justify gun love is wrong, because
2) "well-regulated" meant trained and disciplined like an army to the Founding Fathers

[beevul]

345. Ah...no.

"I'm interpreting the Constitution, via the Federalist Papers, the way it was originally written. I'm being consistent."


Unless you're reading the bill of rights, of which the second amendment is a part, as the preamble to the bill of rights states that it be read as, you fail.


Completely.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

339. Your ignorance of the facts of the time is certainly important to making an educated decision.

[slackmaster]

207. What are you blathering about now?

A tank without weapons is just a vehicle. The vehicle is not regulated, the weapons are.

You're the one who kept going on about owning a tank. You never specified that you were talking about a tank with weapons.

So, we're back to my original point. Why can't somebody own weapons more powerful than what the gun lobby approves of (.50 caliber semi-automatics)?

People can own weapons over .50 caliber, and automatic weapons. You just haven't done your homework.

[bongbong]

239. Moot

Never my real point. Read my "Bingo" post for elaboration.

[naaman fletcher]

73. I find it hard to believe that..

You read the Federalist papers and concluded that. As a matter of fact, the Federalist Papers are the main argument used by gun rights activists, as they specifically describe the militia as "all able bodied men".

[bongbong]

88. Yes, I did

I got in a discussion with a repug gun nut on some other chatboard and found by reading the actual Federalist Papers (on line of course :-) that the "pro-gun" conclusions they got from them were actually the opposite.

[krispos42]

282. 10 USC 311

Congress created two militias, the organized militia known as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia comprised of all males between the ages of 17 and 45. As a 33-year-old male, I'm a militiaman by definition.

I guess the real question is... why do you only want men to own guns?

[bongbong]

296. Federalist Papers

An "unorganized" militia does not fall under the 2nd Amendment, as it states "well-regulated". The meaning of that phrase is clear from the Federalist Papers #29: "well-regulated" means trained and disciplined like an army.

[krispos42]

301. It states "the people"

Not "members of the Militia". The part about Congress outfitting a militia is not in the 2nd, it's in Article One, IIRC. OF COURSE the militia has the right to keep and bear arms... it's not much of a militia if it's armed with harsh language! The 2nd is about everybody.

[bongbong]

322. Nope

No, the 2nd is about a "well-regulated" militia. The Federalist Papers, #29 in particular, make it clear that "well-regulated" means trained and disciplined like an army.

[krispos42]

325. "the right of the people"

I agree that a "well regulated Militia" is important, and that "well regulated" means military training, military equipment, military organization, military chain-of-command, and military drill.

However the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on being in a militia, well-regulated or otherwise.

If Congress wants to add to the requirements of being in the unorganized militia, such as annual training or at least organizing on paper units and members, they are of course able to do so. In fact, Thom Hartmann speaks favorably of National Service, one form of which would be a stint in the military.

[bongbong]

330. Ummmm....

I'm don't think your conclusion is right. Why did the Framers use a comma to connect the two parts of the key phrase in the 2nd Amendment? To come to your conclusion ("However the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on being in a militia, well-regulated or otherwise."), it would have been more logical to use a period.

I think my interpretation makes more sense.

[X_Digger]

333. Arguing intent based on commas..

Is like arguing the intent of a stop sign based on the position of the bolts.

Weak tea.

[krispos42]

335. I understand that the Founders didn't want a standing army

but rather a citizen militia, and they pushed that rather hard. However since the two halfs of the amendment don't reference each other it is not possible to link them.


"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".


I read this as:

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.


If "the people" had been replaced with "its members" for example, then they would be linked in a way that one bears on the other. I just don't see where the right to keep and bear arms is linked to the condition of being in a well-regulated militia. And I don't see where any combination of puncuation marks can make it so.

[joeybee12]

163. For a well-regulated militia...nothing about individual ownership..

...nothing, nada, zilch.

[X_Digger]

171. Oh really?

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/RiConstitution/C01.html

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject"

Compare to:

"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."

Now, would you assert that Rhode Islanders are only free to publish sentiments regarding the security of the state?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. And the framers talked about keeping ARMS, not flintlock muskets.

Deny all you want, but as unusual as it may be for ANY analogy to be valid, this one is.

[bongbong]

24. OK, great

So why not allow people to own grenades, tanks, bombs, etc?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. People can own grenades, tanks, artillery, etc.

[bongbong]

38. Nope

Not that I know of. Where are you talking - Somalia?

[X_Digger]

41. More paperwork, but yes.

They're called Class III / Title II. You can own tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, land mines, a GE mini-gun if you want (and have $235,000).

[bongbong]

54. Information please

Where can you own them? What kind of paperwork do you need?

I looked up Class III/Title II and it appears that only means machine guns. Where are the provisions for tanks, bombs, etc?

[slackmaster]

74. There are no provisions for tanks because they are not regulated

For explosives, see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=explosive&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000842----000-.html

Also see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=explosive&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000843----000-.html

[bongbong]

115. Yawn

Of course mining operations use regulated explosives. Tell me something I didn't know already.

I was talking to Joe down the street, and he said he wanted to buy a working F-101 Starfighter (he is a pilot). Why can't he?

[slackmaster]

213. He can buy the plane with no hassle if he has the money and can find one for sale

The weapons require extensive paperwork, but it can be done.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. You are completely wrong.

There are some STATES where various classes of destructive devices, automatic weapons, and crew served weapons are not legal, but at the federal level, it's just a matter of permits and background checks.

You really should do some research on the subject if you are going to make such easily falsifiable statements.

[bongbong]

58. More specific info

Something more specific, please. It is easy to say "look it up yourself", but you made the claim that it is possible to own tanks, bombs, etc. Please document your claim.

[slackmaster]

64. How about YOU providing information showing that a person CAN'T own those things

Everything is legal except things that have been specifically prohibited.

Explosives are regulated at the federal and state levels.

Tanks are not regulated. Anyone can own one.

[bongbong]

94. HMMMMM?

Are you saying that you can own a fully working tank?

[X_Digger]

101. you can.. with a LOT of paperwork..

Christ, lead isn't this dense..

http://www.autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html

Search for mortar, 40mm.. they sell both replicas and the real thing.

e.g.- http://www.autoweapons.com/photos07/nov/lmtgl.html

Tank guns rarely come up for sale, but they fall under the same regulations / paperwork requirements that grenade launchers and ammo do.

Tanks themselves pop up on for sale boards often, without guns.

[bongbong]

118. Thanks for the info

That's great. I just talked to Sam down the street, and he bought a bunch of those.

I wanna buy a tank and a fighter plane to defend myself against him. You know, superior firepower and all that. Where do I buy those? I also want to buy a radar-guided cannon. Where can I get those?

[AtheistCrusader]

126. Well, you can grow your own if you grab that FFL license.

Otherwise you're going to need that license, and a willing seller. There are some F-4 phantoms in private ownership IIRC.

[bongbong]

131. Yup

Are the F-4 jets armed?

Look to my "bingo" reply to you for my final conclusion on "gun rights".

BTW, I've been an atheist ever since I asked the priest "who created god?" when I was 4 years old.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. They can be.

As a tank can be. All you need are the weapons, and the appropriate permits to possess or manufacture them. Few owners would go to such lengths. It's expensive enough jut to get the working aircraft.

[slackmaster]

211. No

I've never said any such thing.

[bongbong]

237. Moot

It's a moot point. Other posts have shown that you can own a working tank.

But as I said in my "bingo" post, that was never my real point.

[Thothmes]

223. Reread the 1st amendment

"free press" that is a specific transmission method.

[bongbong]

250. It's FREE

And so "free speech" means what? A prepared speech? Shouted ranting? What?

And what does your idea of a "specific press" mean? Printed papers? Magazines? Books?

My point stands, yours doesn't. Free speech, free press, etc as the Founders used them are metaphors.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[bongbong]

30. Nope

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "You can have anything your adversary has".

[slackmaster]

90. It also doesn't say you can't

:hi:

[naaman fletcher]

22. Exactly..

And I have no problem with the first amendment as long as we are talking about the mediums the Framers were talking about when they wrote the constitution. It shouldn't apply to radio, TV, or the internet.

/think before you type.

[bongbong]

32. Analogy FAIL

The Framers were talking about the concept of Free Speech, not the transmission method.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. They do offer courses on logic and critical thinking, you should probably attend them.

[bongbong]

39. Respectful reply!

My point, and logic was clear. If you disagree about my ideas, say so. If you don't have a counter argument, then just say "I choose to believe what I want to believe"

Just don't stoop to repug tactics and throw insults out.

[naaman fletcher]

63. Yes,

and they were talking about the right to bear arms, not the specific rifle used. You lose.

[bongbong]

100. OK, great

If they were just talking about "arms", why can't I own a working, armed tank or working, armed fighter jet?

[X_Digger]

111. You get schooled on tanks, now move to jets..

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

"Dorn owns several aircraft, including an old Air Force T-33 Shooting Star trainer jet, an F-86 Sabre, and a North American Sabreliner. "



The Sabre carries six M-2 browning machineguns, which fall under Class III/Title II regulation. The bombs / rockets that it carries would fall under the DD (destructive devices) regulations.

[naaman fletcher]

26. Also..

The rifles that were kept in the home then were the standard military weapons of the day, so in fact what you have is a good argument for select-fire semi-auto weapons, which are in a roundabout way basically illegal today.

[bongbong]

34. Nope

Now you're re-writing the 2nd Amendment to say "you can have what the standard military weapon currently is"

[X_Digger]

44. No, that's the legal precedent of Miller

Dicta in Miller purported to say that only those arms useful for maintaining the militia were protected (regardless of the fact that short shotguns- what Miller was pinched for- were in use in WWI as 'trench brooms'.) A logical extension of that would be that banning weapons that serve a useful purpose in the military would be unconstitutional.

[bongbong]

51. OK, great

So you're saying that we should be able to have any weapon the military has?

Just so I'm clear on your point...

[X_Digger]

127. Oh look, words jumped right up into my mouth..

I said that was the precedent that the dicta of Miller set. I didn't say I either agreed or disagreed with it.

Right now, I can own any weapon that the average infantryman has access to, with more paperwork for some of it. You've been schooled on tanks, then jets. Care to ratchet up your ignorance?

The point I was making was that a logical application of Miller would invalidate the Chicago ban, were the second applied to the states (because the military uses handguns, banning handguns would run afoul of Miller.)

[Treo]

201. How about anything on the TO&E for an 11B NT

[bongbong]

203. Code

You're speaking in code. Can you use English?

[Treo]

205. It's militarese

TO&E Table of Ordnance and Equipment A soldier''s basic load out.

11 B Basic Infantryman

IOW (In Other Words) I should be able to buy anything (that isn't classified) currently issued
to an infantryman. M-16 A1, A2 M4 M249 Squad Automatic Weapon M26 grenade IOW point effect select fire weapons. I might even go for a LAW (I just dated myself) or a claymore. Indiscriminate area effect weapons (Artillery, Bombs, NBC (did it again) should be owned by the government.

[bongbong]

235. Not my point

Whatever you want to own isn't my point. It never was. I was using it as a device to show my main point, which is that using the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership is a joke.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. The supreme court settled this over a hundred years ago.

A sawed off shotgun was found NOT to be a protected weapon for civilian ownership BECAUSE the military didn't use them.

(which was erroneous, the military DOES use short-barreled shotguns, but the defendent went and died, and failed to appeal)

[bongbong]

52. What is your point?

Is your point that we should be able to have any weapon the military has?

[naaman fletcher]

67. you are changing the subject..

The subject is whether or not arms not yet thought of when the constitution was written are protected by the 2nd amendment. Having lost that argument, you are now changing it to what various posters think "ought" to be allowed.

Let's get back to the subject: Do you agree that your point that only black powder weapons should be protected because that is what existed at the time is a silly point, particularly in light of the fact that we don't apply that same standard to other parts of the bill of rights?

[bongbong]

103. Nope

Certain parts of the Constitution apply to ideas, like Free Speech. No transmission method is specified.

Of course my "black powder" argument was fatuous. D'UH! But my point in making that "argument" becomes clear when I ask my real point: why can't an American own certain weapons but not others?

[slackmaster]

83. Wrong and wrong

US v. Miller was decided in 1939, and the decision said that in the absence of evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was a militia weapon they couldn't say that owning one was protected by the Second Amendment.

They didn't say it wasn't a protected weapon, they said they couldn't say whether or not it was.

[naaman fletcher]

65. you are re-writing the first-amendment

to say "and it applies to future forms of communication and transmission".

[bongbong]

105. You miss the point

I'm not rewriting the 1st Amendment, you are.

The Framers said "free speech". Either that means literally only the spoken word, or the IDEA of free speech. Seeing as how they were busy publishing many broadsides at the time, they were referring to the idea or concept of free speech.

[DrCory]

359. And What...

Do you think those firelocks you mentioned in post #7 were at the time the BOR was penned?

"Now you're re-writing the 2nd Amendment to say "you can have what the standard military weapon currently is""

[Pavulon]

169. So I can have cannons? That would be cool. Slaves too?

framers pov not always a direct translation to 2009

[Treo]

190. I agree

The people should have the same weapons the framers were talking about arms of equal effectiveness as the army.

BTW does your freedom of speech only count if you're writing on parchment W/ a quill?

[bongbong]

198. Keep up

I answered this question a long, long time ago. Try to keep up.

[Treo]

202. Took me a while to catch up NT

[bongbong]

204. Bingo redux

No problem. Look at my "bingo" post for my point.

[Treo]

208. You're absolutely right

The U.S. Constitution has no bearing on my right to keep and bear arms. I would have that right if the entire document were repealed tomorrow. It merely enumerates a preexisting right to self defense.

[bongbong]

236. No, no self-defense in there

If you're talking about the 2nd Amendment, I've already provided plenty of evidence that the Founders were talking about training like the army goes through when they said "well-regulated".

[Treo]

271. The second amendment

Based on everything I've read and heard about the second amendment I believe the militia clause merely states the rationale for the declarative statement prohibiting the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I believe that the intent of the framers was that the citizenry be able to maintain parity of arms W/ the government. That intent wouldn't be achieved if all we were allowed was musketry (although three hundred million muskets wouldn't be anything to sneeze at)

Now we're each have opinions and the both have equal merit, your's works for you , mine works for me. the difference is mine is backed up W/ a gun and your's is backed up W/ good intentions. You do know what happens when unarmed people stand up to armed people right?

[bongbong]

297. Not up to you

You can believe anything you want about the Constitution, but that doesn't make it right.

[Treo]

302. I was merely stating My opinion and stated it as such

The specific event that triggered the American Revolution (the actual first shots) was an attempt by the government to confiscate the arms of the civilian population of Lexington. I suspect a similar occurrence in this day and age would lead to a similar result.
Typo

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

279. So your interpretation of part of one man's writing is now plenty of evidence? LOL.

[bongbong]

298. Not me

It's not my "interpretation", and there are more references to the meaning of "well-regulated" from colonial times than the Federalist Paper #29.

If you think that somehow what was written in F.P.29 can refer to anything BUT army-like training and discipline, feel free to post your spin here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

317. and you think that F.P. 29 is the only source worthy of Constitutional consideration. LOL

[bongbong]

323. I'm not stopping you

Feel free to cite others if you want to.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

328. The cites in the Heller case are sufficient. It is settled law now.

[bongbong]

331. One main point

That doesn't mean it has fidelity to the Constitution. Not at all.

One of my two main points is that using the 2nd Amendment to justify gun love makes a travesty out of the Constitution. Gun lovers should just say "You can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers!" instead of "You can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers because the Constitution says so!"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

337. That isn't what the liberal members of the Supreme Court believe.

[Treo]

191. I agree

The people should have the same weapons the framers were talking about arms of equal effectiveness as the army.

BTW does your freedom of speech only count if you're writing on parchment W/ a quill?

[Thothmes]

219. using your logic ,since Radio, TV, the internet

were not around when the constitution was written, they should not be covered by the 1st amendment?

[bongbong]

238. Already covered

I already covered this "argument".

[Lorien]

357. Agreed. nt

[damntexdem]

48. Will the RW majority on the SCOTUS decide to ignore state and local rights?

And vote to make all of us that much-more unsafe? I worry for this country and its idiotic obsession with guns -- and I worry for myself and my family in a nation full of armed gunnuts.

[slackmaster]

68. States and localities have no rights. Only people have rights.

Governments have powers.

[Pavulon]

170. SO my state can ignore roe v wade. It would if it could..(nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

274. Now I wonder why they didn't respond.

[hack89]

173. Can states have their own voter laws while we are at it?

make it easier to keep certain people in their place?

:sarcasm:

[naaman fletcher]

183. Do you really worry..

that the local plumber or something with the NRA sticker on his van and who is a handgun enthusiast and goes to the gun club one night per week is going to shoot you?

[bongbong]

199. Yes

If he's the teabagger who's running around screaming his lungs out about Obama being Hitler, and I have an Obama bumper sticker on my car - yes.

[Treo]

212. Perhaps you should get a gun. NT

[bongbong]

240. Illogical

Illogical. More guns doesn't guarantee anything, especially my survival.

[Treo]

270. It would sure as Hell level the playing field. NT

[bongbong]

299. Still illogical

Just like in Wild West movies, there's always somebody faster on the draw.

To be more realistic, there is always somebody with a bigger gun, a better aim, more personnel in their group, more ability to "cheat" and do things like shoot somebody in the back, or any of a thousand other reasons. Having a gun doesn't do much for self-defense except in very limited situations like having a gang of people surround you - but you have to make sure nobody in that group has a gun themselves.

[Treo]

303. I'm an illogical person

I'll take my chances

[Pavulon]

215. Worry about a kid texting

smashing your skull open while you sit at an intersection. The bodies are stacked by drug violence and suicides, not plumbers or otherwise legal healthy gun owners.

[bongbong]

241. Current Events

Tell that to the victims of the Unitarian Church massacre or the Health Spa massacre.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

252. Homicides are in a pretty consistent downward trend.

[bongbong]

256. And...?

The fact that crime corresponds mostly to socioeconomic factors is well established. That is why homicides are down...but if history is any guide, crime will be going up in the Bush Depression we're going through.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

272. Your fear is irrational.

[bongbong]

300. Yawn

I've already refuted your "your fear" Strawman.

[Pavulon]

255. None measure up to the death

dealt by tired doctors and teenage drivers..

[bongbong]

257. Your point?

So if one thing causes deaths, we might as well just give up trying to stop other deaths.

That seems to be your point here.

[Pavulon]

259. Deal with root cause, all else is a bamboozle

we know that gun control is a joke. chicago is a disaster and there are no guns there (right?). So finish up a weed and hooker ban before trying to eliminate rights that normal people should be able to retain.

You want to do something useful, deal with what makes people act. All else is a booze ban joke.

[bongbong]

266. Miss the point

My point isn't about gun control. Read my "bingo" post and beyond to understand me.

[Pavulon]

355. No, you can respond here in context

this thread is about gun regulation and law in 2009. Not your personal interpretation of the framers intents. It is not about understanding your personal concerns.

Lets be realistic, gun law is just a lazy mans excuse for not doing any heavy lifting. You see it is easy to try and ban or restrict access to big black scaaarry guns and then claim victory. "We did something to help, now get back to your ghetto and die".

I call bullshit, and so do the real victims the poor and inner city crime victims. Gun death is caused by suicide (lack of mental health care) and drug related violence.

Root cause is what stacks bodies.

[naaman fletcher]

218. well..

If you look at the death statistics you will see that your worry is misplaced. There are a kazillion other things more likely to kill you.

[bongbong]

242. Statistics

You don't understand probability. The best way to show it is that the likelihood of you winning the lottery is close to zero, but somebody ALWAYS wins it.

[naaman fletcher]

244. I do understand probability...

Your chance of being shot by a law abiding gun owner is near zero. Now if you want to worry about everything, fine, but if you are worrying about this over worrying about lots and lots of other things, then your worry is misplaced.

[bongbong]

251. Read my posts

You need to read my posts before responding to them. I said in the specific case of some right wing nut job screaming about Obama being Hitler, and me having an Obama sticker on my car.

Otherwise, I'm not scared. I don't need guns to feel secure. The gun owners are the scared ones.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

232. Okay, you live in constant fear. That explains so much.

[bongbong]

243. Nope

I live in absolutely no fear. I don't have guns.

The gun owners are the scared ones.

[naaman fletcher]

245. You just contradicted yourself.

Earlier you said that you are in fear of getting shot by a gun owner, and now you say that you live in no fear. Which is it?

[bongbong]

254. Read my posts

You need to read my posts before responding to them. I said in the specific case of some right wing nut job screaming about Obama being Hitler, and me having an Obama sticker on my car.

Otherwise, I'm not scared. I don't need guns to feel secure. The gun owners are the scared ones.

[fascisthunter]

352. You Single-Handedly Destroyed the Pro-Gun Lobby here

bravo...

And thank you for reminding some about what the Second Amendment actually says, counter to how they have warped it.

[X_Digger]

362. Repeated regurgitation of the same inanity..

.. you call that victory? Riiiiiight.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

273. Great news.

[Kablooie]

280. Just what we need! More guns in the hands of Obama hating crazies!

America is so great!

[krispos42]

284. The Obama-hating crazies already have all the guns they need

Now the Obama-supporting sane people can fight back.

[Dr Fate]

308. We have a "community standards" test for the 1st amendment, why not for the 2nd?

If conservatives are okay with local & community standards (akin to "States Rights" no?) involving speech, then why not community standards as to their **well regulated** militias?

[slackmaster]

309. I'd make it even more granular than community standards, as is the case with speech

Each individual or family decides what kind of speech is permissible in their own home. Material that would be considered obscene in a public setting may be perfectly OK in a private one.

I'm pro-choice on speech, and pro-choice on firearms.

[Dr Fate]

310. That may be what Justice Slackmaster would do. Even still, I think it's an interesting argument.

SCOUTS has ruled that *community standards* are determinative as to what speech is deemed "obscene" and therefore not protected...

Thus, the local community can essentially place limitations on a right- for better or for worse.

Indidual standards may work great on your own private property, but the idea is to protect the community at large.

That's great that you are consistent as to opposing community standards in both instances- but I doubt the conservatives on the court will be.

[slackmaster]

311. I am not opposed to community standards per se; I say they must only apply to public conduct

Not private conduct.

Nobody should be able to tell me I can't enjoy a little albino midget porn in private, nor should they be able to tell me I can't keep a handgun in my home or dictate how I store it.

The states can and do determine standards for permitting people to carry concealed weapons in public. Here in California that is further controlled at the local level. In some counties it's nearly impossible to get a concealed weapons permit, but some sheriffs have policies that are practically shall-issue. I'd rather see a strict but fair and uniform objective standard statewide.

[Dr Fate]

312. I think you have a good argument. I doubt SCOTUS will make a comm. standards analogy anyway.

I've just always wondered what would happen if they did.

You have a great point- CS really only applies to obscene material in the public arena- in those cases, maybe a porn store selling or openly displaying certain materials would not be allowed in one community, but would be allowed in others.

A CS as to the 2nd Amend. that was consistent with 1st Amendment rulings could possibly be applied to gun stores, or to carrying a gun in public, but not to having a gun in your house- great point, Justice Slackmaster.

[friendly_iconoclast]

313. That would be fine with me, as in some states I would *be* in the militia

States like Pennsylvania, where *all* citizens (and green card holders) betweeen 17.5 and 55 years of age are considered to
be in the militia.

The Feds say "males between 17 and 45"

Anyway, it's currently a moot point, as Heller removed the militia requirement.

[Dr Fate]

314. I have no problem with a rural area that has lax gun laws....

...just as I have no problem with an inner-city county having more strict gun laws.

I once lived in a community where people drove around with gun racks- no big deal there. Most of the residents were hunters, etc. The guns simply were NOT for shooting people, hold ups, etc.

Then again, ever been to the Tenderloin? The last thing that neighborhood needs is people flashing guns of any kind.

I realize it's all a fine line, and I admit I dont have all the details worked out, but I also like the idea of some sort of limited community standard test as to what is acceptable.

Maybe not a moot point in that the "well regulated" language is still in play as it is. I was merely quoting what the amendment says- and the word "militia" is certainly still there no matter what Scalia & Roberts tells us.

[friendly_iconoclast]

319. What of states with 'preemption' laws, like California, PA and Ohio?

There has been some friction between the state of Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia.

Same with the state of California and the city of San Francisco.

Or (ISTR) the state of Ohio and the city of Dayton.

[bongbong]

332. Just wait

Just wait till a more Liberal court overturns Heller.

[friendly_iconoclast]

334. Ah, but *which* part of Heller do you see getting overturned?

FYI, there was more than one part, and the majority decision was just one of them.

So I ask again: Which part do you see getting overturned?

The finding that the Second Amendment confirms (NOT grants) an individual right to keep and bear firearms "in common use",
which *ALL* of the justices, even the 'liberal' dissenters, concurred with, or the majority decision that
DC's gun laws were unconstitutional?

An important point, and that's why you need to actually read all the arguments, the amici briefs, and the dissents
if you want to hold an informed discussion on Supreme Court decisions

[slackmaster]

351. Restricting the choices people can make in the privacy of their homes is not a liberal value

:argh:

[defendandprotect]

348. Yeah . . . we need more GOP/NRA "Wild West America" . . . concealed weaspons . . and ..

especially more GOP nuts toting guns at political meetings --!!

Sadly funny thing happened the other day at the health care hearings . . .

One of the Dems was talking about our rank of 17th in mortality --

One of the Rethugs said the figure wasn't really that bad if you took out

car accidents and gun shot deaths . . . and he actually added that we have

a whole lot of those!!! "Americans love their guns" !!

The Dem pointed out we'd still be 17th . . . !!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

349. It really helps to read the OP before posting.

[defendandprotect]

356. Perhaps you should have read it . . .

The court said Wednesday it will consider a challenge to Chicago's ban, and even gun control supporters believe a victory is likely for gun-rights proponents.

If the court rules that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't allow the city's outright handgun ban, it could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws that limit who may own guns, whether firearms must be registered and even how they must be stored.

The court last year moved in the direction of voiding tough gun control laws when it struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well. The court will hear arguments in the case early next year, and a ruling probably would follow in the spring.

This is simply more GOP/NRA nuttiness, combined with the extreme right wing nuttiness of
the SC --

GUNS are now going to be beyond the reach of State or Local governments to regulate them!!

In fact, if they continue to pursue this 2nd amendment fanaticism, perhaps the public will begin
to work harder to reverse this insanity --

[fascisthunter]

353. I wanted to buy a tank

but for some reason I wasn't allowed to... something to do with "well regulated militia"... oh well.

PS - militias aren't allowed to buy tanks, nevermind... schucks, I live in a rough neighborhood... I'm scared.

[Pavulon]

354. no you just gave up, and did not do the paperwork

you can own some main battle tanks, mortars, and other crew served as a citizen depending on your state law.

[Lorien]

358. I have got to get the fuck out of this country

I can't take the insanity anymore. I honestly can't. We're in control, and still EVERYTHING is being handed to far Right Whack jobs.

Canada may be cold, but at least they don't rank 17th in mortality.

[Rizzel]

360. Right Wing Nut Jobs??

Yo Bong Bong, I have two AR-15s, and might buy another in your honor

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

361. Don't let the door hit you.