US Supreme Court and 2nd Amendment

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip

You're completely right on the States Rights issue, but not so much on the "god-given" rights thing. A "god-given," natural, or inherent right is one that exists in and of itself until government takes it away. Keep in mind that the principal drafter of the DoI (Jefferson) and the Constitution (Madison) were NOT Christians. Inherent rights are not "given" by anyone or anything. "God-given" is just an expression. No one gives you the right to speak freely, you can only be punished for doing so. And so forth.

-snip-

I'm not quite sure we have a disagreement regarding the phrase "God given rights".

I posted:

From what I've read, concepts such as Freedom Of Speech and Right to Bear arms were thought to be God-given rights back then. Since they were "God-given" no need to be redundant and guarantee them in a "less authoritative" (than God) document such as the Constuiitution.

So, my understanding is that the original view is that- yes people have a right to keep and bear arms (natural god given right),

I'm not sure the way I used the term differs with your description?

Below are excerpts from U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), the first 2nd Amendment case to hit the SCOTUS (note: It dealt with other rights too as you'll see below):

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone...

...For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States....


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal
police."

They prolly explain it better than I, and I think their remarks illustrate the thinking at that time as I describe above. Namely: 1. The rights in question are "God given" rights (not derived from the Constitution), and 2. That the Constitution was was between the states and the federal govenment, unlike as we view it now.

Fern

LINK to complete text of case

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
A loaded gun in the wrong hands is inherently more dangerous than an angry person spewing hateful words at someone.

So you're saying Hitler killed all those Jews himself?
Most anything "in the wrong hands" is inherently dangerous.

Are you going somewhere with this or did you just feel the need to get the obligatory Godwin's law invocation in there? What the FUCK does Hitler have to do with this? You take a single sentence out of context from one of my posts where I wasn't even talking to you and then twist it to say I'm talking about Hitler? I didn't say Hitler killed all those Jews. What I said is right there on the screen. Can you fucking read? What the hell does it have to do with Hitler? Of course he didn't kill all those Jews himself. His soldiers did most of the killing with, among other things, their guns.

because his free speech incited the transition of germany and thus consequently the genocide of the jews.
thus, maybe we should ban free speech too.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I never implied a gun was a dangerous object in and of itself. People are dangerous. I'm not saying ban guns to stop crime. I'm saying the average citizen has no need nor right to own or carry the same type of offensive assault weapon you might find on a modern field of battle. There will always be crime and as long as people have guns they will be able to use them in the commission of crimes. The goal is to limit the damage to innocent people that a person who does decide to misuse a firearm can inflict while still affording law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves and their homes. It is perfectly legitimate for the government, in the interest of general public welfare and safety, to put limits on who can own what type of weapons legally and what type of ammunition they can use. But I would never go so far as to say that the government can ban all firearms.

And again you make a poor comparison when you compare outlawing bottles because they can be used to make moltov cocktails and banning guns. Guns have a single use. You shoot things you intend to kill or destroy with them. They are implicitly intended to be used as implements of destruction. Bottles have many many uses. The fact is you can misuse just about ANY common household object to hurt somebody with. But some common objects (such as guns) just lend themselves to that particular task much more readily or even intentionally.

How communist of you to decide what everyone "should" have or what they "need". :disgust:

The distinction of an "assault weapon" is largely a stupid media created illusion.
There is little effective difference between an "assault weapon" or any other autoloading rifle.

You need to get over the guns are weapons aspect. There are legimate uses for guns and again it is communist for you to decide that an otherwise legally held weapon should be banned.

Maybe you should ban knives, swords, bows/arrows and sharpened sticks too, after all they are "single use" weapons too.

Are you going to post a single post where you don't say something like "well lets just ban this or that thing too then. . .?"

Ban guns that make it too easy to kill large numbers of people. Why ban all those other things you mentioned? You can run away from somebody with a knife or sword, you have to stop to reload a bow every time you shoot. What chance does a crowd full of people have against a lunatic with an automatic rifle and 3 30-round clips on his belt? A LOT of people are going to get shot by that guy before everyone makes it to cover. Now give the same guy a sword or a bow and arrow. Realistically how many people is he going to hurt now? How can you not see these distinctions?

Communist? I think not. We have all kinds of laws in America that govern not whether you can or can't do something but rather to what extent you can do something. Speed limits are one example. I'm sure if you think for a few seconds you can come up with at least a half a dozen more easily. Are speed limits communist?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
A loaded gun in the wrong hands is inherently more dangerous than an angry person spewing hateful words at someone.

So you're saying Hitler killed all those Jews himself?
Most anything "in the wrong hands" is inherently dangerous.

Are you going somewhere with this or did you just feel the need to get the obligatory Godwin's law invocation in there? What the FUCK does Hitler have to do with this? You take a single sentence out of context from one of my posts where I wasn't even talking to you and then twist it to say I'm talking about Hitler? I didn't say Hitler killed all those Jews. What I said is right there on the screen. Can you fucking read? What the hell does it have to do with Hitler? Of course he didn't kill all those Jews himself. His soldiers did most of the killing with, among other things, their guns.

because his free speech incited the transition of germany and thus consequently the genocide of the jews.
thus, maybe we should ban free speech too.

How can you equate free speech and Hitler? He could say whatever he wanted. . .he was the leader of Germany in WWII. Not an average citizen. When you or I say whatever we want to that's free speech. When the leader of a nation says whatever they want, that's called propaganda 😉 Hitler was basically making the rules at the time so of course he could say whatever he wanted.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
A loaded gun in the wrong hands is inherently more dangerous than an angry person spewing hateful words at someone.

So you're saying Hitler killed all those Jews himself?
Most anything "in the wrong hands" is inherently dangerous.

Are you going somewhere with this or did you just feel the need to get the obligatory Godwin's law invocation in there? What the FUCK does Hitler have to do with this? You take a single sentence out of context from one of my posts where I wasn't even talking to you and then twist it to say I'm talking about Hitler? I didn't say Hitler killed all those Jews. What I said is right there on the screen. Can you fucking read? What the hell does it have to do with Hitler? Of course he didn't kill all those Jews himself. His soldiers did most of the killing with, among other things, their guns.

because his free speech incited the transition of germany and thus consequently the genocide of the jews.
thus, maybe we should ban free speech too.

At least OS understood what I was trying to say. I think ahurtt was just looking for more chances to drop the f-bomb on the internet, to show he's a big boy, and plenty mad!

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Are you going to post a single post where you don't say something like "well lets just ban this or that thing too then. . .?"

Ban guns that make it too easy to kill large numbers of people. Why ban all those other things you mentioned? You can run away from somebody with a knife or sword, you have to stop to reload a bow every time you shoot. What chance does a crowd full of people have against a lunatic with an automatic rifle and 3 30-round clips on his belt? A LOT of people are going to get shot by that guy before everyone makes it to cover. Now give the same guy a sword or a bow and arrow. Realistically how many people is he going to hurt now? How fucking stupid are you that you can't see these distinctions?

Communist? I think not. We have all kinds of laws in America that govern not whether you can or can't do something but rather to what extent you can do something. Speed limits are one example. I'm sure if you think for a few seconds you can come up with at least a half a dozen more easily. Are speed limits communist?

abutthurtt,

you're smoking cock, the only "fucking stupid" person here is you looking at a mirror.

what absolutely flies over your small head is that LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS.

IF YOU MAKE RIFLES AND HICAPS ILLEGAL, PYSCHOS WILL STILL GET THEM IF THEY WANT TO.
When pyschos start smuggling illegal items from mexico or illegally manufacture them, then what are you going to do??

ALL LAWS DO IS RESTRICT PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE FEEL THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THEM.
You know, the people who are already law abiding.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip

You're completely right on the States Rights issue, but not so much on the "god-given" rights thing. A "god-given," natural, or inherent right is one that exists in and of itself until government takes it away. Keep in mind that the principal drafter of the DoI (Jefferson) and the Constitution (Madison) were NOT Christians. Inherent rights are not "given" by anyone or anything. "God-given" is just an expression. No one gives you the right to speak freely, you can only be punished for doing so. And so forth.

-snip-

I'm not quite sure we have a disagreement regarding the phrase "God given rights".

I posted:

From what I've read, concepts such as Freedom Of Speech and Right to Bear arms were thought to be God-given rights back then. Since they were "God-given" no need to be redundant and guarantee them in a "less authoritative" (than God) document such as the Constuiitution.

So, my understanding is that the original view is that- yes people have a right to keep and bear arms (natural god given right),

I'm not sure the way I used the term differs with your descrition?

Below are excerpts from U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), the first 2nd Amendment case to hit the SCOTUS (note: It dealt with other rights too as you'll see below):

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone...

...For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States....


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal
police."

They prolly explain it better than I, and I think their remarks illustrate the thinking at that time as I describe above. Namely: 1. The rights in question are "God given" rights (not derived from the Constitution), and 2. That the Constitution was was between the states and the federal govenment, unlike as we view it now.

Fern

LINK to complete text of case

Ah, I see. I guess I just bristle at the expression "god given" when referring to inherent rights. It's not any kind of anti-religious thing per se, just that I don't like the idea that anyone or any power "gives" these rights, not even god. To me, they are natural rights, inherent rights. They cannot be given, only taken away by force. That's what defines them and contrasts them from other rights.

So anyway, never mind and good post 🙂

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Are you going to post a single post where you don't say something like "well lets just ban this or that thing too then. . .?"

Ban guns that make it too easy to kill large numbers of people. Why ban all those other things you mentioned? You can run away from somebody with a knife or sword, you have to stop to reload a bow every time you shoot. What chance does a crowd full of people have against a lunatic with an automatic rifle and 3 30-round clips on his belt? A LOT of people are going to get shot by that guy before everyone makes it to cover. Now give the same guy a sword or a bow and arrow. Realistically how many people is he going to hurt now? xxxxxxxxxxx

Communist? I think not. We have all kinds of laws in America that govern not whether you can or can't do something but rather to what extent you can do something. Speed limits are one example. I'm sure if you think for a few seconds you can come up with at least a half a dozen more easily. Are speed limits communist?

abutthurtt,

you're smoking cock, the only "fucking stupid" person here is you looking at a mirror.

what absolutely flies over your small head is that LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS.

IF YOU MAKE RIFLES AND HICAPS ILLEGAL, PYSCHOS WILL STILL GET THEM IF THEY WANT TO.
When pyschos start smuggling illegal items from mexico or illegally manufacture them, then what are you going to do??

ALL LAWS DO IS RESTRICT PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE FEEL THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THEM.
You know, the people who are already law abiding.

Well I apologize for the "fucking stupid" remark as that was over the line and I quickly retracted it with the Edit button right after posting it. But you were quicker on the draw (gun pun intentional) with the Quote button than I was with the Edit button. So I apologize for that. But anyway, as it seems you are basically completely ignoring the substance of what I'm saying and just blindly throwing out talking points that everybody has heard a million times before, I think I will just end this now.

 

[Fern]

Another thing.

Here is the way the SCOTUS phrased the issue in the upcoming Heller case:

?Whether the following provisions ? D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 ? violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

If you read carefully it suggests that the court already recognizes an "individual" right. They don't say that they are examing whether or not an individual DOES have a (non-collective) 2nd Amendment right, but whether the DC rules violate that right.

I.e., their phrasing strongly suggests the supposition that the individual right exists. Can't violate something that doesn't exists.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OS

what absolutely flies over your small head is that LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS.

IF YOU MAKE RIFLES AND HICAPS ILLEGAL, PYSCHOS WILL STILL GET THEM IF THEY WANT TO.
When pyschos start smuggling illegal items from mexico or illegally manufacture them, then what are you going to do??

ALL LAWS DO IS RESTRICT PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE FEEL THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THEM.
You know, the people who are already law abiding.

Quick question if I may, slightly tangental: are you in favor of capital punishment?

 

[Throckmorton]

LOL @ the "God given right" comment. I support the right to bear arms but that's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: OS

what absolutely flies over your small head is that LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS.

IF YOU MAKE RIFLES AND HICAPS ILLEGAL, PYSCHOS WILL STILL GET THEM IF THEY WANT TO.
When pyschos start smuggling illegal items from mexico or illegally manufacture them, then what are you going to do??

ALL LAWS DO IS RESTRICT PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE FEEL THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THEM.
You know, the people who are already law abiding.

Quick question if I may, slightly tangental: are you in favor of capital punishment?

I'm 100% opposed to the death penalty and totally believe in free access to (all) arms. But, you weren't asking me. 😛

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
YES.

Gun control has NOT reduced violence or crime.

Prove it.[/u]

Was already proven by numerous studies, the most exhaustive of which was undertaken by the Clinton administration (staunch anti-gunners) by the National Academy of Sciences working with the Justice Department. Feel free to research it.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
LOL @ the "God given right" comment. I support the right to bear arms but that's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

Most people (who aren't British) would agree that you have a right to defend yourself. It's commonly regarded that the best way to defend yourself from a violent attack is with a firearm, usually a handgun.

So basically what they're saying is that you can't effectively excercise your right to self defense without a handgun.

 

[StageLeft]

LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS

Now that's just a silly thing to say. If not for a law against speeding, believe me I would drive a hell of a lot faster.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DogFish90IPA
I own a handgun, which I don't carry it stays in my bed room. It is true that in America there are many crimes with guns involved. Look at Europe, in England the national pistol team has to practice outside of the country they have such strict laws. I think most can agree that if guns were not so readily available or Illegal there would be less gun crime. That being said, thats not how America works. Say we ban handguns tomorrow, I dont think that would help. it would only produce black market gun trade. No on is going to tell me I can't have my pistol in my nightstand. Even if it were illegal I would still possess one. I'm not sure of the numbers, but aside from accidents. What is the percentage of legal gun owners committing gun crimes compared to those who don't legally own or carry? Does anyone know?

According to independent studies from the state of Florida, state of Texas, Texas Department of Corrections, as well as a number of universities and organizations a concealed permit holder is roughly 5 times less likely to be charged with a crime compared to non-permit holders.

I'm not aware of any studies that expand that to all gun owners.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS

Now that's just a silly thing to say. If not for a law against speeding, believe me I would drive a hell of a lot faster.

Good thing then that speeding is not technically a crime, but an infraction.
And before you claim that's nit-picking, it's not. It's a huge difference in the eyes of the law. You can't go to jail for a traffic infraction.

I always drive according to the conditions, and not according the numbers on the little white sign. If the conditions allow for a speed faster than what the sign says (which happens quite frequently), then I still drive according to the conditions, and just keep my eyes out for the roadside tax collectors.

But then, I must be a criminal, and you're not. 😉

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
LOL @ the "God given right" comment. I support the right to bear arms but that's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

What do you mean?

From my post above regarding the first SCOTUS case on the 2nd Amendment:

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

If inclusion of the word "god" offends you, choose another term such "natural right", "inherent right", or whatever. This is, IIRC, "original language" of that time. Even a cursory reading of documents from that period shows often they referred to "God".

The point is that the right to keep and bear arms is a supra-Constitutional right of all men. Accordingly, such right need not be found in the Constitution to exist. And the 2nd Amendment merely assures (originally to the states) that the federal government will not try to infringe upon this right.

If it's the most bizarre thing you've ever heard, well, just highlights how crappy our civics classes are in school and how little the Constitution is understood. Maybe also how far we've come from understanding it's original meaning.

Fern

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: ryan256
Link

Looks like the Supreme Court is about to examine and make a ruling regarding an individuals right to own a gun.
I personally believe that individuals DO have a right to own a gun. Taking away that right WILL NOT reduce crime.

Is there any evidence either way that it reduces or increases crime?

Irrelevant. The 2nd ammendent is there to preserve a free state in the same sense that free speech, just cause, double jeopardy, due process, etc, do.

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

They had cannons during that time period. Cannons are massively destructive, yet they were not banned by the 2nd Amendment. The founders could have easily set limits on arm size, construction, and killing potential.

Don't be a dumb-ass. We're talking about personal weapons of the size a single person can easily transport. Canons are artillery. So what's your point? Are you saying you think individual citizens should be allowed to mount artillery turrets in their front yards if they want to?

Read the 2nd ammendment, they specify "A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State...". Militias, along with the ability to forcibly overthrow your own govt, implied cannons then, automatic rifles, grenades, RPG's, now, and frikkin lasers in the future.

 

[MadRat]

People are going to shit bricks when the Supremes knock down the right to own a gun. The feds will move fast on regulating us even more once they do. You can bet the house on it.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: ryan256
Link

Looks like the Supreme Court is about to examine and make a ruling regarding an individuals right to own a gun.
I personally believe that individuals DO have a right to own a gun. Taking away that right WILL NOT reduce crime.

Is there any evidence either way that it reduces or increases crime?

Irrelevant. The 2nd ammendent is there to preserve a free state in the same sense that free speech, just cause, double jeopardy, due process, etc, do.

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

They had cannons during that time period. Cannons are massively destructive, yet they were not banned by the 2nd Amendment. The founders could have easily set limits on arm size, construction, and killing potential.

Don't be a dumb-ass. We're talking about personal weapons of the size a single person can easily transport. Canons are artillery. So what's your point? Are you saying you think individual citizens should be allowed to mount artillery turrets in their front yards if they want to?

Read the 2nd ammendment, they specify "A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State...". Militias, along with the ability to forcibly overthrow your own govt, implied cannons then, automatic rifles, grenades, RPG's, now, and frikkin lasers in the future.

In the past though, a well regulated militia and the army had roughly the same technological levels of weaponry available to them. A common farmer could afford to go out and buy and own the same kind of rifle a soldier would carry. The playing field was pretty even. Now the balance has shifted massively toward the side of the established national defense forces by an overwhelming margin. Your average citizen can no longer afford even close to the level of advanced weaponry at the disposal of those already in power who command our armed forces. Do your realistically believe that today, if it came down to it, the citizenry of the United States of America would even stand a snowballs chance in hell at overthrowing the government in an armed revolution? It would be a slaughter, so help us, if it ever came down to that. The only hope for overthrowing the government would be the hope that the armed forces decided to break allegiance to the existing government and side with the citizens they are sworn to protect. The balance of power has already shifted long ago. The playing field is no longer level. So as I said in my original post. . .times have changed. That was then. . .200 years ago. This is now. The world and the United States are different. Weapons today have considerably more destructive power than they did 200 years ago. The only thing that hasn't changed much is people. They are still as flawed, dangerous, and unpredictable as they always have been. So realistically speaking, today, the only reason an individual U.S. citizen needs to have a firearm is for self defense or hunting. Because you don't stand a chance at an armed confrontation with a government that has the kind of capabilities of our modern day armed forces at their disposal. And you don't need automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, and friggin lazer beams for that.

 

[vhx]

When the US was made, they didn't even have an army at the time, just people with their own guns.

Besides, the "militia" ARE the people... this should be an obvious decision.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: ryan256
Link

Looks like the Supreme Court is about to examine and make a ruling regarding an individuals right to own a gun.
I personally believe that individuals DO have a right to own a gun. Taking away that right WILL NOT reduce crime.

Is there any evidence either way that it reduces or increases crime?

Irrelevant. The 2nd ammendent is there to preserve a free state in the same sense that free speech, just cause, double jeopardy, due process, etc, do.

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

They had cannons during that time period. Cannons are massively destructive, yet they were not banned by the 2nd Amendment. The founders could have easily set limits on arm size, construction, and killing potential.

Don't be a dumb-ass. We're talking about personal weapons of the size a single person can easily transport. Canons are artillery. So what's your point? Are you saying you think individual citizens should be allowed to mount artillery turrets in their front yards if they want to?

Read the 2nd ammendment, they specify "A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State...". Militias, along with the ability to forcibly overthrow your own govt, implied cannons then, automatic rifles, grenades, RPG's, now, and frikkin lasers in the future.

In the past though, a well regulated militia and the army had roughly the same technological levels of weaponry available to them. A common farmer could afford to go out and buy and own the same kind of rifle a soldier would carry. The playing field was pretty even. Now the balance has shifted massively toward the side of the established national defense forces by an overwhelming margin. Your average citizen can no longer afford even close to the level of advanced weaponry at the disposal of those already in power who command our armed forces. Do your realistically believe that today, if it came down to it, the citizenry of the United States of America would even stand a snowballs chance in hell at overthrowing the government in an armed revolution? It would be a slaughter, so help us, if it ever came down to that. The only hope for overthrowing the government would be the hope that the armed forces decided to break allegiance to the existing government and side with the citizens they are sworn to protect. The balance of power has already shifted long ago. The playing field is no longer level. So as I said in my original post. . .times have changed. That was then. . .200 years ago. This is now. The world and the United States are different. Weapons today have considerably more destructive power than they did 200 years ago. The only thing that hasn't changed much is people. They are still as flawed, dangerous, and unpredictable as they always have been. So realistically speaking, today, the only reason an individual U.S. citizen needs to have a firearm is for self defense or hunting. Because you don't stand a chance at an armed confrontation with a government that has the kind of capabilities of our modern day armed forces at their disposal. And you don't need automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, and friggin lazer beams for that.

Yeah, that's why Iraq is a peaceful utopia: because small arms could never stand against the might of the US military... :roll:

You realize they wouldn't just bomb cities in the US like they do overseas, right? A government attempting to control it's populace looses if it kills all it's citizens.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: ryan256
Link

Looks like the Supreme Court is about to examine and make a ruling regarding an individuals right to own a gun.
I personally believe that individuals DO have a right to own a gun. Taking away that right WILL NOT reduce crime.

Is there any evidence either way that it reduces or increases crime?

Irrelevant. The 2nd ammendent is there to preserve a free state in the same sense that free speech, just cause, double jeopardy, due process, etc, do.

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

They had cannons during that time period. Cannons are massively destructive, yet they were not banned by the 2nd Amendment. The founders could have easily set limits on arm size, construction, and killing potential.

Don't be a dumb-ass. We're talking about personal weapons of the size a single person can easily transport. Canons are artillery. So what's your point? Are you saying you think individual citizens should be allowed to mount artillery turrets in their front yards if they want to?

Read the 2nd ammendment, they specify "A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State...". Militias, along with the ability to forcibly overthrow your own govt, implied cannons then, automatic rifles, grenades, RPG's, now, and frikkin lasers in the future.

In the past though, a well regulated militia and the army had roughly the same technological levels of weaponry available to them. A common farmer could afford to go out and buy and own the same kind of rifle a soldier would carry. The playing field was pretty even. Now the balance has shifted massively toward the side of the established national defense forces by an overwhelming margin. Your average citizen can no longer afford even close to the level of advanced weaponry at the disposal of those already in power who command our armed forces. Do your realistically believe that today, if it came down to it, the citizenry of the United States of America would even stand a snowballs chance in hell at overthrowing the government in an armed revolution? It would be a slaughter, so help us, if it ever came down to that. The only hope for overthrowing the government would be the hope that the armed forces decided to break allegiance to the existing government and side with the citizens they are sworn to protect. The balance of power has already shifted long ago. The playing field is no longer level. So as I said in my original post. . .times have changed. That was then. . .200 years ago. This is now. The world and the United States are different. Weapons today have considerably more destructive power than they did 200 years ago. The only thing that hasn't changed much is people. They are still as flawed, dangerous, and unpredictable as they always have been. So realistically speaking, today, the only reason an individual U.S. citizen needs to have a firearm is for self defense or hunting. Because you don't stand a chance at an armed confrontation with a government that has the kind of capabilities of our modern day armed forces at their disposal. And you don't need automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, and friggin lazer beams for that.

Yeah, that's why Iraq is a peaceful utopia: because small arms could never stand against the might of the US military... :roll:

You realize they wouldn't just bomb cities in the US like they do overseas, right? A government attempting to control it's populace looses if it kills all it's citizens.

Iraq is how it is because of the fact that the US armed forces have been ordered to exercise restraint. Do not believe for a second that they couldn't have ended the life of every single Iraqi within days if that is what they had so desired. Also please don't think that I am saying that would by any means be a good thing. That would be a human atrocity the likes of which have never been seen in history except maybe once by a funny little German man with a funny little mustache. I am merely pointing out the inevitable outcome of a no-holds-barred showdown.

The government would not kill all it's citizens in an uprising. Only the ones who took up arms against it. You are right that the government loses if it kills all it's citizens and then there is nobody left to govern. But the likelihood of EVERYBODY taking the same side would be slim to nil. A civil war erupting would be the most likely scenario.

 

[MadRat]

They don't have to kill all of its people to cripple itself, just enough to sway popular opinion against them which can be one in today's instant message society.