The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[broncofan]

We can see in NYBURBS post that the concerns of the founding fathers was of tyranny. Militias are formed by ordinary citizens, but it is no longer plausible for a militia to oppose the U.S government with anything like success. Should they also have the right to possess tanks, cruise missiles, f-16's?

With the passage of the 2nd amendment I doubt there was any consideration of these weapons being used in public to cause mass fatalities in such a short period of time.

I also love the conditional statement by NYBURBS about law enforcement. IF they are weapons of war then law enforcement should not have them? Are they weapons of war? I would assume if a gun is too unwieldy to be used in defense of one's home, not fit for hunting, and has been used to effectively spray dozens with bullets, it is a military grade weapon. This just shows that gun supporters have an unhealthy mistrust of their government, of the society they live in, and of the people who risk their lives to help protect them. Sure, if we're talking about military grade weapons (which we are) then limit their use to the military. I hope our legislators can assuage your fear about local and federal law enforcement so that we can address this problem.

[trish]

The "founding fathers" all had their takes on what should be in and what should not be in the Bill of Rights and they all had their takes on how the Bill of Rights should be interpreted. Those opinions do not constitute the bill, nor are they a guide to its interpretation. We are not bound to the mere opinions that some men may have had two hundred years ago, founders or not. We are bound to the law not as it is opined but as it is written and interpreted by the courts. The second amendment is written as, "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." One originalist interpretation would be people can own and bear muskets, the reason being that the people may be called upon by their government to join properly formed well regulated militia in defense of their nation. A more literal interpretation is people can own and bear arms. However, there is no literal prohibition placed on the federal or state governments against regulating or banning some types of arms. The amendment doesn't even people can bear firearms, it merely establishes the right to bear some kind of arms. The literal text is so ambiguous it can be used to justify the private ownership of nuclear warheads and to justify the banning of every weapon but sharpened spoons. This very ambiguity is why we have a living Constitution. Each generation gets to decide and interpret its meaning within the confines of precedent, reason and common sense. Arming every school principal with a semi-automatic is antithetical to common sense. Allowing arms manufacturers to dictate public firearm policy through the NRA lobby is antithetical to common sense. It's time to confiscate the "man card," boys and regulate the toys.

[NYBURBS]

The "founding fathers" all had their takes on what should be in and what should not be in the Bill of Rights and they all had their takes on how the Bill of Rights should be interpreted. Those opinions do not constitute the bill, nor are they a guide to its interpretation. We are not bound to the mere opinions that some men may have had two hundred years ago, founders or not. We are bound to the law not as it is opined but as it is written and interpreted by the courts. The second amendment is written as, "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." One originalist interpretation would be people can own and bear muskets, the reason being that the people may be called upon by their government to join properly formed well regulated militia in defense of their nation. A more literal interpretation is people can own and bear arms. However, there is no literal prohibition placed on the federal or state governments against regulating or banning some types of arms. The amendment doesn't even people can bear firearms, it merely establishes the right to bear some kind of arms. The literal text is so ambiguous it can be used to justify the private ownership of nuclear warheads and to justify the banning of every weapon but sharpened spoons. This very ambiguity is why we have a living Constitution. Each generation gets to decide and interpret its meaning within the confines of precedent, reason and common sense. Arming every school principal with a semi-automatic is antithetical to common sense. Allowing arms manufacturers to dictate public firearm policy through the NRA lobby is antithetical to common sense. It's time to confiscate the "man card," boys and regulate the toys.

No you're not bound to their individual interpretation, but it's a far more sound starting area then most places one could look. Aside from that, those lists of quotes were in response to that video where the commentator claimed that defense against one's own government was not a motivating factor in the passage of the second amendment, and the quotes tend to refute that claim. Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.

[NYBURBS]

We can see in NYBURBS post that the concerns of the founding fathers was of tyranny. Militias are formed by ordinary citizens, but it is no longer plausible for a militia to oppose the U.S government with anything like success. Should they also have the right to possess tanks, cruise missiles, f-16's?

With the passage of the 2nd amendment I doubt there was any consideration of these weapons being used in public to cause mass fatalities in such a short period of time.

I've heard this argument before, and yet I can turn on the television and watch a bunch of rag tag Syrians fighting it out with their dictator or I could go watch some footage of Muslims bringing the most technologically advanced military in the world to a grinding halt. Dictators and tyrants don't kill off their entire population, even when they might be able to, because then they'd have no one left to rule over. Additionally, you can go back in history and see for yourself that every tyrannical government has sought to disarm anyone that might oppose it.

I also love the conditional statement by NYBURBS about law enforcement. IF they are weapons of war then law enforcement should not have them? Are they weapons of war? I would assume if a gun is too unwieldy to be used in defense of one's home, not fit for hunting, and has been used to effectively spray dozens with bullets, it is a military grade weapon. This just shows that gun supporters have an unhealthy mistrust of their government, of the society they live in, and of the people who risk their lives to help protect them. Sure, if we're talking about military grade weapons (which we are) then limit their use to the military. I hope our legislators can assuage your fear about local and federal law enforcement so that we can address this problem.

Idk, are they weapons of war? Having been in the military, I wouldn't call the AR-15 an exclusive weapon of war, but there are many on the other side of the debate who do. Whether that particular weapon is or isn't is irrelevant to my overall contention that if a weapon is deemed to be too dangerous for civilian use, then it shouldn't be possessed by law enforcement either. There has been a dramatic militarization of the police over the past decade or so, and it's not helping to assuage the concerns of many on the gun rights side of the debate. Go watch some youtube videos of police responses to peaceful protests or the way police handle anyone attempting to photograph/film them.

PS- The entire Bill of Rights is based off of a distrust of government. Otherwise, why would we need a guarantee that they won't imprison us without trial or that they won't abridge our right to free speech or to worship as we see fit?

[trish]

No you're not bound to their individual interpretation, but it's a far more sound starting area then most places one could look.

Why is it a more sound starting place? Because you say so, or because a slave owning founder who has no comprehension of modern weaponry has a more reasoned opinion on what the modern interpretation should be?

Aside from that, those lists of quotes were in response to that video where the commentator claimed that defense against one's own government was not a motivating factor in the passage of the second amendment, and the quotes tend to refute that claim.

I'm sorry but the paranoid contention that citizens need military grade firearms to keep their own government at bay is a testosterone driven fantasy.

Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.

As the meaning and reference of some words evolve, others remain fixed. Meaning shift doesn't obviate the need for amendments. Sometimes the relation between the meaning and the reference of a word drifts to the point that require some contracts be reconsidered. It's not the meaning but the reference of the words in a contract that determine how it is to be practically applied. Certainly the very word in dispute, "arms" has radically changed its reference if not its meaning.

[broncofan]

I've heard this argument before, and yet I can turn on the television and watch a bunch of rag tag Syrians fighting it out with their dictator or I could go watch some footage of Muslims bringing the most technologically advanced military in the world to a grinding halt. Dictators and tyrants don't kill off their entire population, even when they might be able to, because then they'd have no one left to rule over. Additionally, you can go back in history and see for yourself that every tyrannical government has sought to disarm anyone that might oppose it.



Idk, are they weapons of war? Having been in the military, I wouldn't call the AR-15 an exclusive weapon of war, but there are many on the other side of the debate who do. Whether that particular weapon is or isn't is irrelevant to my overall contention that if a weapon is deemed to be too dangerous for civilian use, then it shouldn't be possessed by law enforcement either. There has been a dramatic militarization of the police over the past decade or so, and it's not helping to assuage the concerns of many on the gun rights side of the debate. Go watch some youtube videos of police responses to peaceful protests or the way police handle anyone attempting to photograph/film them.

PS- The entire Bill of Rights is based off of a distrust of government. Otherwise, why would we need a guarantee that they won't imprison us without trial or that they won't abridge our right to free speech or to worship as we see fit?

I agree that this is the purpose of the bill of rights but don't you think that the other amendments provide better protection against tyranny? Trial by jury, due process, privilege against self-incrimination, free speech, protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The 2nd amendment by comparison provides very little protection against the state, except in the most extreme circumstance when having a gun is very unlikely to matter. You can use Syria as an example but it was not a relatively stable democracy or any kind of democracy. The people had absolutely no choice if they wanted to oppose their leader but to resort to violence. The 2nd amendment seems unique in that it pre-supposes the abandonment of every other lawful means of resistance.

In the United States, those who want to resort to violence are the individuals who cannot get their way through the democratic process. Those who oppose many of the laws passed through the legislature, who are upset that their neighbors don't feel the same way they do about every issue. Possessing guns provides very little protection against tyranny and has led to immediate deaths in the near term. IMO this is an insurance policy in which the insurance premiums are just too expensive to cover.

I don't trust individual law enforcement officers but I do have some faith in the rule of law and the process by which laws are passed. I also have faith in the mechanisms in place to oversee and punish the behavior of rogue cops.

Since there is a 2nd amendment, laws cannot abridge the rights that it protects but I think it's a bit of a red herring since banning assault weapons might not be an abridgement on this general right.

But you have to see a sort of contradiction in the concession you make. If the 2nd amendment were really intended to protect individuals against the tyranny of government then perhaps it exclusively protects the right to possess military grade weaponry? This would make its sweep broader but would appear even more unreasonable given the costs and benefits such a protection would create. It would literally turn the man on the street into a walking militia.

[notdrunk]

I'm sorry but the paranoid contention that citizens need military grade firearms to keep their own government at bay is a testosterone driven fantasy.

What is a "military-grade" firearm? Are you talking about a MilSpec weapon? Those weapons are only for the military because they meet specific requirements for the military. Military-grade firearm is an nonsense term because there is no such thing.

Don't be like Carolyn McCarthy when she was asked what is a barrel shroud...

Should they also have the right to possess tanks, cruise missiles, f-16's?

1.) You can possess a tank. With the right permit, you can operate the main gun. There is a video on youtube of a M18 destroying some things in the desert.
2.) Can't own a cruise missiles
3.) You can own a jet fighter but it has to be demilitarized plus there are FAA regulations.

[trish]

Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.

[Prospero]

Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.

[robertlouis]

Bear in mind that this thread started out scaremongering against a ban that will never happen.

Meanwhile the gun nuts will continue to buy assault weapons with huge cartridge clips and more innocents will die in multiple shootings.

If that's how you choose to define freedom then I for one want no part of it.