Question about the right to bear arms

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It is much easier to make a bomb than a gun. Especially anything fully or semi automatic. To function properly, we are talking machining high quality alloys to a very small tolerances. Very few people have the machine tools and the skills to even start making anything but a single shot non rifled zip gun. Even a revolver takes highly accurate equipment. And while many of the feed mechanisms can be made from stampings,
the die to stamp out the stamping also takes a high degree of skill to make.

I once fired a full auto tommy-gun-replica built entirely from parts purchased at Hechinger's (old-school Home Depot)... it was refined and machined by a member of the Special Forces.

good times!

It is not that it cannot be done. The point is one is much easier than the other. Hell, I was making explosives at the age of 12. I still have no clue how to construct any kind of gun and I am almost 30. That does not mean I cannot find out of course. I just have zero interest in doing so as I am sure is the case for a lot of people.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

If I remember my AP US history class correctly, this was the reason for the "right to bear arms."

However, our "arms" have evolved quite a bit from what they were in the late 18th century, but yeah, how kickass would it be if there were civilian access to military level firepower...? I can just picture the RPG's flying around Dorchester instead of 9mm bullets.

Heh. You can buy everything you need to contruct a rpg at walmart.

This may be true, but few residents of my neighborhood have the technical knowledge to do so... or even know what the 2nd amendment is.

I'm willing to bet there aren't many people in your neighborhood who could afford to buy an RPG even if they wanted to so legality is moot.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The answer is counter intuitive. We actually need more guns to solve the problem not less.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
The answer is counter intuitive. We actually need more guns to solve the problem not less.

Solve what problem?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
The answer is counter intuitive. We actually need more guns to solve the problem not less.

Solve what problem?

Overpopulation.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterix next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

Only to people like Obama that when you ask him about his beliefs on it he always says "I bleive in the 2nd ammendment, BUT..."

Everyone seems to miss the part that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


Like I've said before we aneed a government that supports the constituition, not one that chews it up and decides how they want to interpret it.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Why does the right to bear arms stop at semi-automatic rifles? ...

Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterix next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

Yes, the right to bear arms basically has an asterisk next to it. Please read the 2nd amendment. I'll write one of the two recognized versions:

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.

Your "asterisk" has been bolded in the quote. This "asterisk" has been clarified in the US supreme court:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Until that ruling is further clarified, you have the FEDERAL right to bear any arm that can be shown to be ordinary miliary equipment or for common defense. I highlight federal since it is possible but highly unlikely that a state can constitutionally take that right away.

Now back to your question. At what point is a weapon neither "ordinary military equipment" nor "common defense". A bomb is military equipment, but is it ordinary for the military to all carry bombs with them? Probably not. Same with cannons and fully automatic weapoins. Yes, they are military equipment, but they aren't ordinary. Nor are they really necessary for common defense.

A future court case could remove the "ordinary" restriction if they provide evidence requested in the supreme court decision I quoted above. But until that happens, government can infringe our rights to the non-ordinary weapons.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterix next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

Only to people like Obama that when you ask him about his beliefs on it he always says "I bleive in the 2nd ammendment, BUT..."

Everyone seems to miss the part that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


Like I've said before we aneed a government that supports the constituition, not one that chews it up and decides how they want to interpret it.

So you should also be able to threaten to kill whoever you want because congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech? I don't want to live on your planet of absolutes. Every law ever written has an implied asterix, that the application of the law be reasonable. You owning a nuclear weapon is not reasonable. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[badnewcastle]

Here's my deal. I have a squirrel problem in my backyard. I don't feel it's the government's right to dictate what kind of gun I use to fix the problem.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Here's my deal. I have a squirrel problem in my backyard. I don't feel it's the government's right to dictate what kind of gun I use to fix the problem.

Here is my deal. I am your next-door neighbor. Those squirrels have bothered me too. I don't feel it's the government's right to tell me I can't drop a nuclear bomb from a plane into my backyard.

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Here's my deal. I have a squirrel problem in my backyard. I don't feel it's the government's right to dictate what kind of gun I use to fix the problem.

Here is my deal. I am your next-door neighbor. Those squirrels have bothered me too. I don't feel it's the government's right to tell me I can't drop a nuclear bomb from a plane into my backyard.

:thumbsup: This would solve many more problems too.

Your the one that lives down the road a mile?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

That is a really ugly world you want to live in. So am I hearing you right that you feel that as technology has increased since the signing, the People should have remained in lockstep with the government when it comes to weaponry? Because quite frankly, all the guns in the world are not going to stop a few well placed bombs being dropped from a few miles overhead.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What if I don't want one?

Well then you can just give me the money that you would've spent on one and I'll go buy it and keep it for you.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterix next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

Only to people like Obama that when you ask him about his beliefs on it he always says "I bleive in the 2nd ammendment, BUT..."

Everyone seems to miss the part that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


Like I've said before we aneed a government that supports the constituition, not one that chews it up and decides how they want to interpret it.

Isn't this why we have a SC? What is your proposed alternative?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Why does the right to bear arms stop at semi-automatic rifles? ...

Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterix next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

Yes, the right to bear arms basically has an asterisk next to it. Please read the 2nd amendment. I'll write one of the two recognized versions:

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.

Your "asterisk" has been bolded in the quote. This "asterisk" has been clarified in the US supreme court:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Until that ruling is further clarified, you have the FEDERAL right to bear any arm that can be shown to be ordinary miliary equipment or for common defense. I highlight federal since it is possible but highly unlikely that a state can constitutionally take that right away.

Now back to your question. At what point is a weapon neither "ordinary military equipment" nor "common defense". A bomb is military equipment, but is it ordinary for the military to all carry bombs with them? Probably not. Same with cannons and fully automatic weapoins. Yes, they are military equipment, but they aren't ordinary. Nor are they really necessary for common defense.

A future court case could remove the "ordinary" restriction if they provide evidence requested in the supreme court decision I quoted above. But until that happens, government can infringe our rights to the non-ordinary weapons.

Your view and opinion is outdated.

Since Heller the right to own IS an individual right. The liberal states are too chickenshit to uphold their state laws however and have the case tried again and become incorporated so technically yes ytour right. State law COULD override that but thus far the liberals are too fucking scared to push it.

Now you can go ahead and bold up the militia part all you want, frankly it just makes you look like a jackass as the Heller brief clearly states the first part of the statement has little bearing on the second part.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Since Heller the right to own IS an individual right.

Ruh-roh it looks like conservatives DO like judicial activism when it suits their needs.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Since Heller the right to own IS an individual right. The liberal states are too chickenshit to uphold their state laws however and have the case tried again and become incorporated so technically yes ytour right. State law COULD override that but thus far the liberals are too fucking scared to push it.

Now you can go ahead and bold up the militia part all you want, frankly it just makes you look like a jackass as the Heller brief clearly states the first part of the statement has little bearing on the second part.

You are delusional if you think Heller says all that. Heller just confirmed the Miller case. The Miller case said that any weapons that are for common defense or ordinary militia are not to be infringed by the federal government. Heller said that lawful purposes of weapons such as self-defense are allowed. They are basically one and the same. Heller didn't really touch the REAL issue that you imply it did. The Heller case considered NOTHING regarding this thread (ie weapons outside of what the Miller case allowed and banned), which is why I didn't bring it up. Yes, Heller said a person actually being in a militia isn't required; you just have to be capable of militia service. Heller didn't say you could have non-ordinary military weapons.

Here is a quote from the Heller decision:

the Second Amendment is not unlimited... It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Bingo. Heller itself backs me up.

And stop looking like an idiot throwing the 'liberal' term around. Guns aren't a conservative vs. liberal stance like you wish it was.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterix next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

Well, that depends. I have not heard of any cases where local or state government took issue with common and accessible arms such as black bear arms. For a brief period, people could get into federal-level trouble for bear arms due to liberal agenda of criminalizing ownership of polar bear arms.

Thank God that more sensible minds prevailed, and polar bears were made sure to not become protected. God Bless America.

To answer your question: there is an asterisk. The issue, like many, boils down to black vs. white.

Edit: Brown bear arms are somewhat of a gray area.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Why does the right to bear arms stop at semi-automatic rifles? ...

Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterix next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

Yes, the right to bear arms basically has an asterisk next to it. Please read the 2nd amendment. I'll write one of the two recognized versions:

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.

Your "asterisk" has been bolded in the quote. This "asterisk" has been clarified in the US supreme court:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Until that ruling is further clarified, you have the FEDERAL right to bear any arm that can be shown to be ordinary miliary equipment or for common defense. I highlight federal since it is possible but highly unlikely that a state can constitutionally take that right away.

Now back to your question. At what point is a weapon neither "ordinary military equipment" nor "common defense". A bomb is military equipment, but is it ordinary for the military to all carry bombs with them? Probably not. Same with cannons and fully automatic weapoins. Yes, they are military equipment, but they aren't ordinary. Nor are they really necessary for common defense.

A future court case could remove the "ordinary" restriction if they provide evidence requested in the supreme court decision I quoted above. But until that happens, government can infringe our rights to the non-ordinary weapons.

Yeah, I know what the ammendment says, but I didn't want to bring it up because a lot of people believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and independent of a well regulated militia or any interpretation by a court.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
Because of that there is little need for your average citizen to have one.

He does have a point, though, when you consider the "We own guns to protect us from a tyrannical government" argument. After all, if the government comes after you, they certainly have plenty of automatic weapons and big bombs...

That said, I still think it's important to remember that the best way to interpret the Constitution is through the practical application of common sense.

But you don't need those to fight those...or for when you do, you can obtain them so long as you have at least a pistol or rifle (just hit an armory or convoy).

I personally don't mind the government storing all the big ordinance for me...if I need it, I'll come get it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Wait.. fully automatic weapons ARE ordinary weapons carried by soldiers. So are grenades and vehicle mounted machineguns.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Since Heller the right to own IS an individual right. The liberal states are too chickenshit to uphold their state laws however and have the case tried again and become incorporated so technically yes ytour right. State law COULD override that but thus far the liberals are too fucking scared to push it.

Now you can go ahead and bold up the militia part all you want, frankly it just makes you look like a jackass as the Heller brief clearly states the first part of the statement has little bearing on the second part.

You are delusional if you think Heller says all that. Heller just confirmed the Miller case. The Miller case said that any weapons that are for common defense or ordinary militia are not to be infringed by the federal government. Heller said that lawful purposes of weapons such as self-defense are allowed. They are basically one and the same. Heller didn't really touch the REAL issue that you imply it did. The Heller case considered NOTHING regarding this thread (ie weapons outside of what the Miller case allowed and banned), which is why I didn't bring it up. Yes, Heller said a person actually being in a militia isn't required; you just have to be capable of militia service. Heller didn't say you could have non-ordinary military weapons.

Here is a quote from the Heller decision:

the Second Amendment is not unlimited... It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Bingo. Heller itself backs me up.

And stop looking like an idiot throwing the 'liberal' term around. Guns aren't a conservative vs. liberal stance like you wish it was.

You should read the whole Heller case, not just snip out what CNN.com printed.-

EDIT
Here, I'll even link it for you.

 

[StageLeft]

I can't help it, all I think about when I hear about the right to bear arms is this. Hopefully nobody posted it already.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well if you retain your right to bear arms then you won't get cold as easily as someone who chooses to not bear arms.:laugh: Firearms? Who wants to dip their arms in a flammable solution and set them ablaze.:Q

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Well if you retain your right to bear arms then you won't get cold as easily as someone who chooses to not bear arms.:laugh: Firearms? Who wants to dip their arms in a flammable solution and set them ablaze.:Q

*Crickets* <Dr. Evil>: I like to see girls of that... caliber. [pause] By "caliber," of course, I refer to both the size of their gun barrels and the high quality of their characters... Two meanings... caliber... it's a homonym... Forget it.</>