140 replies to this topic

[Kral]

It's just finger pointing. Back and forth. America is 50/50 right now.

No it isn't.

It's political agendas being advanced by exploiting the ability to bring people into an unreasoning frothing rage over an unfortunate and very tragic event.

[Kral]

if you read the post i wrote that in, you'll see that i juxtaposed my annoyance with that specific argument and its prevalence in the debate with my fundamental agreement that it's an important point that needs to be addressed.

I always read your entire posts. You are always worth reading. Now understand that while I can easily see your point especially considering I was not one being insulted others will be distracted by your insult.

Yes I saw what you said and I agree with you. It MUST be addressed. We need to consider the future of citizen weaponry in this country. We need to start doing it right now.

I don't comment on your posts because you very rarely say anything I disagree with.

In other words by the end of your first paragraph you are already igniting the fuging LIBERALS response.

[PhillyB]

I always read your entire posts. You are always worth reading. Now understand that while I can easily see your point especially considering I was not one being insulted others will be distracted by your insult.

Yes I saw what you said and I agree with you. It MUST be addressed. We need to consider the future of citizen weaponry in this country. We need to start doing it right now.

I don't comment on your posts because you very rarely say anything I disagree with.

In other words by the end of your first paragraph you are already igniting the fuging LIBERALS response.

hmmm... i'll concede the point. thanks for being an objective and clear-thinking dude

[mav1234]

I reject the idea that the 2nd amendment forbids the regulation of what arms can and cannot be owned... until that in particular hits the supreme court we won't know how modern scholars would interpret it, but even Scalia seems to think there is some justification for regulating guns:

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

http://www.nationalj...efid=mostViewed

Even within the 2010 case, it was clear that the majority thought that it was perfectly acceptable to restrict firearms within certain criterion.

I also disagree with people that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the modern day militia, the National Guard. I actually agree with Scalia again RE: the meaning of the militia - that is to say, it had nothing to do with the National Guard as we see it today, but rather, a subset of the population that could be called upon to organize for defense (e.g., law-abiding, "responsible" citizens, else we'd have to allow fellons etc to own guns too?).

Ultimately I think something like an assault weapons ban could be constitutional provided the writers of the ban are capable of showing that the weapons that are banned are not "in common use at the time" or are overly dangerous (see the majority decision, DC vs Heller, 2008)

[Kral]

mav1234 you are on the right path here.

Ultimately any assault weapon ban will be ruled constitutional whether it is logically consistent with the language within the constitution or not. If there are instances of the writers making exceptions for frightening weapons it just goes to show how poorly written the amendment is.

[cookinwithgas]

It's not poorly written, just poorly interpreted. It specifically says that people are allowed to have guns in order to protect the state they live in when called upon. It's written with even less certainty than the First Amendment, and there are plenty of restrictions on what you can say, for example, despite the wording of it. That's because "Freedom of Speech" is something that needs to be determined, not something that is a wide open idea. Now apply that to the Second Amendment and you have the idea.

It's archaic for sure, but the problem is people thinking that somehow the folks who wrote it were thinking about how much technology would advance hundreds of years down the road.

[longtriad]

what purpose would someone need 10 rounds?

Lots of reasons. As for me, I want a firepower advantage. See, I don't hunt. I want to be armed so I can shoot back.

[Kral]

It's not poorly written

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.

It's like two half formed ideas.

[YourMomsLover]

hmmm... i'll concede the point. thanks for being an objective and clear-thinking dude

Enjoy that nut licking post.

[YourMomsLover]

43-55 million households own at least one gun. Take this argument up with those households. Lets see how it turns out.

You gun grabbing people's opinions equal poo. Continue to praise people that have turned in their weapons like PhillyB did for SCP.

[PhillyB]

Enjoy that nut licking post.

haha i was serious. kral has always been super objective and come into discussions like this not beating an ideological drum but actually trying to get to the bottom of issues. that's rare and it should be pointed out when it surfaces

[Mr. Belding]

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.

It's like two half formed ideas.

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.

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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.



To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.

i know gun control discussions usually end up covering the whole "why can't citizens have nukes" thing but seriously, you know that civilians couldn't ever defeat the us military (unless we're living in fantasy land where military types would turn on the government or whatever, in which case, why the need for an armed populace anyway?) should civilians have access to the ordnance required to actually defeat a tyrannical american government? much like the founding fathers never dreamed of the technological advances that might be unsuitable for the general public, they also never dreamed of drones and such.

[Mr. Belding]

i know gun control discussions usually end up covering the whole "why can't citizens have nukes" thing but seriously, you know that civilians couldn't ever defeat the us military (unless we're living in fantasy land where military types would turn on the government or whatever, in which case, why the need for an armed populace anyway?) should civilians have access to the ordnance required to actually defeat a tyrannical american government? much like the founding fathers never dreamed of the technological advances that might be unsuitable for the general public, they also never dreamed of drones and such.

at the time of the amendment's writing, everyday citizens had just defeated the world's most advanced military.

While I agree that a citizens vs. Military battle is stuff of fantasy, keep in mind the forces that have regularly handled our military with ease. Iraq tried to fight us in a traditional military manner in the early 1990s. Their ground forces were defeated in 96 hours.

But Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq part II, etc, weren't fought by military. They were fought by guys who work the crops and do oil changes in their spare time. Asymmetrical warfare isn't our strongsuit.

But I don't want to get too far off topic. Would you say the second, third and fourth Amendments are related? Or is that a connection that I'm imagining?

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

i'm aware that we're p bad at fighting unconventional forces relatively speaking but the common link between iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, et al is home field advantage (this would be in the military's advantage in a hypothetical war within the states i'd imagine) and insurgency (probably won't see too many mexicans or canadians sneaking into america to fight alongside americans). and even with the advantages that insurgents have, body count doesn't seem to favor them. anyway i guess i can't say there's a 0 percent chance that civilians would prevail in an uprising but it's gotta be close

as for the amendments i mean there's a connection; if the army decided that they were going to take wilmington and stay in my house my only recourse would be the court system and then i guess an armed rebellion that is likely destined for failure. i'm not anti-revolution (couldn't imagine being an anti-revolution leftist) or anti-gun ownership; i'm just seeing this as "we've gone too far down the rabbit hole, we spend about as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, we're much better off attempting to elect the right people and not having a gun in every pot." guns or no guns, we don't live in an era where civilians keep the government in check in any way beyond voting.

anyway more on topic, there is precedent for restricting rights (can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't keep a stock of explosives just in case the government decides to enslave everyone or whatever), and the question in every gun control debate shouldn't be whether or not regulation is constitutional (it is), but rather "how much can we regulate until we reach and cross the line of unconstitutionality?" if we agree that citizens shouldn't have access to military ordnance, then we agree that citizens should be placed at a significant disadvantage in any type of armed conflict with the government (to the point that victory is not very likely at all). and if we agree that, say, felons and toddlers can't own guns, then we again agree that the government can (and should) place limitations on the right to bear arms. if the government can regulate types of speech and access to weaponry, i would think that regulating types of firearms falls within the purview of the government.