Political stunts in regards to gun reform

[HumblePie]

This has nothing to do with a victory or not, it has to do with a correct understanding of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter. Humblepie said that banning a type of weapon was an infringement on the 2nd amendment, I clearly showed how SCOTUS disagrees.

No, I stated it has not ever once disagreed with what I have stated. I stated the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They stated the only restriction is the definition of the term Arms. Which I have stated several times. One's right to bear arms shall be infringed. Nuclear bombs are not considered arms for example. So the right to bear nuclear bombs is not protected. Thus access to nuclear bombs by the government is legal according to the Constitution.

A semi-automatic rifle, regardless of how many rounds one can use in it without reloading, meets the definition of Arms.

 

[geniusloci]

This has nothing to do with a victory or not, it has to do with a correct understanding of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter. Humblepie said that banning a type of weapon was an infringement on the 2nd amendment, I clearly showed how SCOTUS disagrees.

Banning any such common weapon is an infringement on the second, regardless of what SCOTUS rules one way or another. The whole 'shall not be infringed' part was pretty clear in the constitution.

 

[HumblePie]

Please provide the exact quote from the Heller decision that you think says this.

Just read, they have links to the foot notes..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I pulled that quote from the Wiki. But here is the PDF if you want to read it too of the ruling.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2008/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2008.pdf

The only restriction that can be occurred is upon the definition of the terms arms. With Heller, they laid to rest that the right to bear arms is a personal right. They mentioned that the comma is declaring a second clause, as it was originally a semi colon before a scribe screwed up right before it went into the Bill of Rights. That the 2nd amendment has always been viewed as a 2 part law.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I stated it has not ever once disagreed with what I have stated. I stated the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They stated the only restriction is the definition of the term Arms. Which I have stated several times. One's right to bear arms shall be infringed. Nuclear bombs are not considered arms for example. So the right to bear nuclear bombs is not protected. Thus access to nuclear bombs by the government is legal according to the Constitution.

A semi-automatic rifle, regardless of how many rounds one can use in it without reloading, meets the definition of Arms.

And your definition is flatly rejected by the Heller ruling. You have previously stated that 'arms' are any weapon that was wielded with your arms and may be 100% controlled by the user. And yet here's another explicit quote from Heller:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Short barreled shotguns clearly meet your previously stated definition of arms, yet Heller explicitly states that they are not protected.

Have you ever actually read this ruling?

 

[fskimospy]

Banning any such common weapon is an infringement on the second, regardless of what SCOTUS rules one way or another. The whole 'shall not be infringed' part was pretty clear in the constitution.

You're welcome to your opinion.

 

[geniusloci]

You're welcome to your opinion.

My opinion revolves around the fact that people in the government, given the opportunity, always stretch their power over others into morally reprehensible action.

The fact that the US government, has on numerous occasions felt it was ok to experiment on the American public should give any liberal pushing for more gun control pause to reflect and reconsider.

Intentionally placing military men far too close to atomic weapon testing in order to track long term the effects of radiation exposure, the tuskegee syphilis experiments, the spraying of the poor of st. louis with radioactive particles should cause any normal American to defend the Second, not tear it down.

 

[HumblePie]

And your definition is flatly rejected by the Heller ruling. You have previously stated that 'arms' are any weapon that was wielded with your arms and may be 100% controlled by the user. And yet here's another explicit quote from Heller:



Short barreled shotguns clearly meet your previously stated definition of arms, yet Heller explicitly states that they are not protected.

Have you ever actually read this ruling?

Yes, because it was argued that short barrel shotguns are not 100% controllable. There has been the argument that once the barrel of the shotgun is too short, that the spread pattern is too wide to allow the operator to be at effective 100% control. It's a bunch of bullshit, but that was what the argument was for to allow it to be restricted. The same argument was used for short barrel rifles. That the lack of adequate length of the rifle didn't allow for enough twist rate to stabilize bullets. Again, it's a bunch of a bullshit, but that was the argument for the restrictions of short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns.

Have you not read the history of this?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

My opinion revolves around the fact that people in the government, given the opportunity, always stretch their power over others into morally reprehensible action.

The fact that the US government, has, on numerous occasions felt it was ok to experiment on the American public should give any liberal pushing for more gun control pause to reflect and reconsider.

Intentionally placing military men far too close to atomic weapon testing in order to track long term the effects of radiation exposure, the tuskegee syphilis experiments, the spraying of the poor of st. louis with radioactive particles should cause any normal American to defend the Second, not tear it down.

Unfortunately, all too many people do not study history and just get their facts from state sanctioned media like FOX, CNN, and MSNBC while they sleepwalk through Partisanville. We have to educate everyone on what has happened and what the trends of right now mirror historically. It's good to know that so many people do see it already though, and I am glad I live in a place where so many people believe in this country.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, because it was argued that short barrel shotguns are not 100% controllable. There has been the argument that once the barrel of the shotgun is too short, that the spread pattern is too wide to allow the operator to be at effective 100% control. It's a bunch of bullshit, but that was what the argument was for to allow it to be restricted.

Have you not read the history of this?

Absolutely nothing in the Heller decision, specifically the quote I showed you has anything to do with that. It has to do with that short barreled shotguns are not protected as they are not "typically owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes".

If you believe that short barreled shotguns were exempted due to them not being 100% controllable, please cite the exact passage where you got this information as well as the exact chain of logic by which you came to the conclusion that this was the actual reason SCOTUS mentioned them as unprotected. Considering they explicitly stated their reasoning in my quote, your evidence will have to be awfully persuasive.

 

[fskimospy]

My opinion revolves around the fact that people in the government, given the opportunity, always stretch their power over others into morally reprehensible action.

The fact that the US government, has on numerous occasions felt it was ok to experiment on the American public should give any liberal pushing for more gun control pause to reflect and reconsider.

Intentionally placing military men far too close to atomic weapon testing in order to track long term the effects of radiation exposure, the tuskegee syphilis experiments, the spraying of the poor of st. louis with radioactive particles should cause any normal American to defend the Second, not tear it down.

I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment, and it's quite likely I have more experience with guns in my life than you do. That being said, I'm not a 2nd amendment absolutist. I'm also a big believer in correcting a lot of misinformation out there.

 

[HumblePie]

Absolutely nothing in the Heller decision, specifically the quote I showed you has anything to do with that. It has to do with that short barreled shotguns are not protected as they are not "typically owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes".

If you believe that short barreled shotguns were exempted due to them not being 100% controllable, please cite the exact passage where you got this information as well as the exact chain of logic by which you came to the conclusion that this was the actual reason SCOTUS mentioned them as unprotected. Considering they explicitly stated their reasoning in my quote, your evidence will have to be awfully persuasive.

Really, just read this, and not the wackbrain dissenting opinions. Which included about DC being a district and not a state thus having legal power to ban (which was written as a dissent by one justice in utter stupidity).

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

As far as stating in common use, the statement was not made to state that those in NOT common use could be infringed upon. Otherwise new guns being made into the market could be completely banned from purchase. For example, Mossberg is coming out with a new shotgun model? Well since no one has it yet, then it is not common use and can be banned from being sold. Do you see where that side of the argument you are standing on is stupid?

The fact that common use firearms can't be restricted doesn't mean that those firearms not in common use automatically ban be as well.

Here is the quote from the PDF.. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

The IE part doesn't mean all inclusive. It's an illustration.

The Heller decision completely circumvented the complete definition of what defines "arms" beyond adding one part that can be used as the definition. Which is those in common use and for a lawful purpose. Again, that is NOT saying that is the all inclusive definition either which you seem to be eluding to.

 

[fskimospy]

Really, just read this, and not the wackbrain dissenting opinions. Which included about DC being a district and not a state thus having legal power to ban (which was written as a dissent by one justice in utter stupidity).

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

As far as stating in common use, the statement was not made to state that those in NOT common use could be infringed upon. Otherwise new guns being made into the market could be completely banned from purchase. For example, Mossberg is coming out with a new shotgun model? Well since no one has it yet, then it is not common use and can be banned from being sold. Do you see where that side of the argument you are standing on is stupid?

The fact that common use firearms can't be restricted doesn't mean that those firearms not in common use automatically ban be as well.

Nothing in what you just wrote in any way addressed my point, nor did it address my explicit quote from Heller that stated a reason for not protecting sawed off shotguns that had nothing to do with your definition.

So I'm going to have to ask you the same question again. On what basis are you saying that the SCOTUS reasoning in Heller about sawed off shotguns is not indicative of their overall stance on the issue? You must either show that SCOTUS did not mean what they said, or that they do not consider sawed off shotguns 'arms'. I see no evidence for this anywhere in their opinion.

 

[HumblePie]

Nothing in what you just wrote in any way addressed my point, nor did it address my explicit quote from Heller that stated a reason for not protecting sawed off shotguns that had nothing to do with your definition.

So I'm going to have to ask you the same question again. On what basis are you saying that the SCOTUS reasoning in Heller about sawed off shotguns is not indicative of their overall stance on the issue? You must either show that SCOTUS did not mean what they said, or that they do not consider sawed off shotguns 'arms'. I see no evidence for this anywhere in their opinion.

Go back and re-read my edit

 

[HumblePie]

As for the other part of restrictions per the ruling of upholding "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

The dangerous part is why a short barrel shotgun was restricted. The argument was the short barrel of the shotgun made it less controllable Thus overly dangerous by any operator. The argument of lack of control is WHY it was labeled as a class of "arms" that was consider restrict-able.

 

[fskimospy]

As for the other part of restrictions per the ruling of upholding "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

The dangerous part is why a short barrel shotgun was restricted. The argument was the short barrel of the shotgun made it less controllable Thus overly dangerous by any operator. The argument of lack of control is WHY it was labeled as a class of "arms" that was consider restrict-able.

None of that is mentioned in either Miller or Heller. Can you show me where you got the information that SCOTUS relied upon such a definition in order to make short barreled shotguns a type of weapon that can be restricted?

They were quite clear in both opinions, and neither of them mentioned that the less controllable nature of a short barreled shotgun was the reason for such restriction.

 

[HumblePie]

None of that is mentioned in either Miller or Heller. Can you show me where you got the information that SCOTUS relied upon such a definition in order to make short barreled shotguns a type of weapon that can be restricted?

They were quite clear in both opinions, and neither of them mentioned that the less controllable nature of a short barreled shotgun was the reason for such restriction.

No, they referred to the historical precedent, but hinted that the historical precedent, which has never been challenged, may also be deemed unconstitutional. That precedent being the NFA (National Firearms Act). It was there that certain categories of arms were argued to be restricted based on being overly dangerous and unusual.

If you read the PDF on Heller, they break down the prefactory and the objective clauses of the 2nd amendment and in great detail. They argue why it's broken that way, and why the prefactory doesn't limit or expand the objective part of the amendment. They also break down the stupid arguments used by dissenters about it relating to only military use or using firearms at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights. For example, the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee free speech as it could only be done back in 1776. But encompasses all future speech. So that bullshit about muskets as an argument is just as put in the opinions "mad hater" "grotesque" and pretty much ridiculous.

 

[fskimospy]

No, they referred to the historical precedent, but hinted that the historical precedent, which has never been challenged, may also be deemed unconstitutional. That precedent being the NFA (National Firearms Act). It was there that certain categories of arms were argued to be restricted based on being overly dangerous and unusual.

But that's not why they explicitly stated that short barreled shotguns were exempted.

You can argue that you believe this is the case, but your opinion is not currently supported by court decisions.

 

[HumblePie]

Also in the PDF, they specifically state that Arms, means all wearable, pocketable, or carriable weapons that can be employed by an individual. That break down starts on page 10. Further expands that arms argument starting with page 19 with usage of arms being needed for self preservation and defense as an individual right.

Page 52 talks about that also the point of the 2nd amendment was that it was not to restrict arms based as "part of ordinary military equipment" either. This was in the Miller case. That they hint at the NFA restrictions on machineguns for example would be unconstitutional.

Which is the further part of the short barrel shotgun bit. It wasn't in common use, it wasn't a normal military weapon, and it was argued to be too dangerous to be operated at the time the NFA was enacted.

 

[HumblePie]

But that's not why they explicitly stated that short barreled shotguns were exempted.

You can argue that you believe this is the case, but your opinion is not currently supported by court decisions.

No it's in part, I'm getting to that. That was mostly enlightened by Miller, not Heller. However, this was all a dictum and NOT part of the specific ruling in either case. As page 55 states, Miller just explains one part of protected weapons, which are those "in common use at the time"

That is not all inclusive. Again, a new weapon design that has a penta-rail system for a shotgun would not be in common use before it hit the market. As such, no new weapons would ever be allowed to be developed for use by civilians if that was the only protection afforded by the 2nd amendment to the term of Arms.

 

[ivwshane]

Did you post the citation stating the ban on sawed off shotguns was because of a lack of control or did I miss it?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The 2nd Amendment never put a restriction on what arms you could own. The simple premise behind it is that law abiding citizens can be trusted with small arms.

 

[HumblePie]

Did you post the citation stating the ban on sawed off shotguns was because of a lack of control or did I miss it?

No, the direction given in Miller case was that restrictions can be placed on arms that are "dangerous and unusual."

It's a somewhat vague terms. All weapons are dangerous. Period. I hope we can agree on that.

Anything not in the hands of at least 50% of the population could be considered "unusual" and thus any new model of weapon to market would technically be unusual.

Thus the term is a bit misleading without the direction given behind it. Dangerous is based on control of the weapon. Which goes back to the definition as stated in both Miller and Heller of what the definition of arms is. Arms at it base they both state is any weapon capable of being used in the arms of an individual. But that is still a slightly vague definition. Thus they go into various other more nailed down definitions as well as various writing by the founding fathers of the meaning they intended when they wrote down that word arms.

The meaning was for a controllable weapon that can be wielded by a single person. THAT was stated to several degrees in both the Heller and Miller cases. Heller went more to expound upon how the 2nd amendment is for 100% sure an individual right with its dictum and exploratory explanations.

The National Firearms Act put restrictions on several categories of arms by stating they were dangerous in use. Those were machine guns, short barrel rifles, and shot barrel shotguns (long gun variety). The argument as to their danger is that those were weapons that could make the operator lose control while firing. It's a bunch of bull crap, but that was the argument made. Heller just references this without going into detail. You have to read the original arguments for the NFA to find this out.