Nice!! good for you Barrett

[lazs2]

no serious constituional scholar does not believe that the second is an individual right.

we will get no smaller government from the politicians but... the republicans are our best bet to slow socialism and, as charon has come to realize.... do the important work of getting the job done through the courts.

no politician can cut taxes and restore states and human rights.. it is all up to the courts now.

think of that when you allow a pelosie or a boxer or finestien into a postition to appoint judges.

Bush sucked but... he has done more for us than most presidents lately... he stopped the tide of liberal judges and rulings and gave us a chance on the supreme court to get justice and our human rights back.

I'd say he did as much as we could expect.   No one even dared to bring up more gun restrictions to him to sign.... contrast that with klintons reign.

lazs

[Nashwan]

Yall guys in Calli need to take a good Lawyer and go kick some arsh. I live in Texas we can have this rifle for now? But if you look above it says nowere the Cal. of the wepon. All it says is the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!

That's an issue the NRA doesn't really want raised.

How do you define "arms"? Machine guns aren't very different to semi auto rifles, and so should certainly come under the definition of "arms". The problem is, hand held anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles probably meet the original definition as well.

If you ever get a court ruling that the constitution says the right to bear stinger missiles shall not be infringed, expect a constitutional amendment straight away.

The situation is lose-lose for the NRA. Even if they win, "arms" will include things that the vast majority of the population won't want held by private citizens, and the result will likely be even tighter gun laws than now. Whilst society in the 18th (and 19th) century could accept people having the best weapons available, 20th century society cannot, because the lethality of weapons has increased so much. (for example, it's hard to imagine someone on a killing spree with the weapons available when the constitution was written, because they took so long to reload. And the idea of a single shot killing 300+ (as a stinger could) was unthinkable).

[storch]

Originally posted by Nashwan
That's an issue the NRA doesn't really want raised.

How do you define "arms"? Machine guns aren't very different to semi auto rifles, and so should certainly come under the definition of "arms". The problem is, hand held anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles probably meet the original definition as well.

If you ever get a court ruling that the constitution says the right to bear stinger missiles shall not be infringed, expect a constitutional amendment straight away.

The situation is lose-lose for the NRA. Even if they win, "arms" will include things that the vast majority of the population won't want held by private citizens, and the result will likely be even tighter gun laws than now. Whilst society in the 18th (and 19th) century could accept people having the best weapons available, 20th century society cannot, because the lethality of weapons has increased so much. (for example, it's hard to imagine someone on a killing spree with the weapons available when the constitution was written, because they took so long to reload. And the idea of a single shot killing 300+ (as a stinger could) was unthinkable).

if you consider the time when the amendment was penned you will note that the military and the citizenry were basically equally armed.  the clear intent of the founders was to provide the average citizen with the ability to suppress a tyrannical govennment in the event that government wanted to usurp the rights of the people.  the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.  while I think your assessment is correct and that is an untenable position that the NRA would surely not want to partake of, I believe that it is still the spirit of the amendment.  my position is that it would include privately owned nimitz class carriers as well.  

[VOR]

*whistles "Anchors Away"*

[Nashwan]

Storch, I know that the idea was the citizenry should be as well armed as the military. However, I'd say that was practical in the 18th century, and not practical now.

Would anyone seriously want private citizens to be able to own nuclear weapons?

If you look at weapons as a spectrum from knife -------- nuke, everyone is going to draw their line somewhere.

Much simpler in the 18th century, when the spectrum was something like knife ------------- cannon. A lone nutter (or even group of nutters) can't do that much damage with a cannon. A lone nutter can do an immense amount of damage with a nuke.

[storch]

indeed, single up all lines.

[VOR]

Nashwan, that line has pretty much been drawn for the reasons you mention. Explosive weapons and projectiles are verboten and automatic weapons are a very expensive, meticulous and time-consuming affair for the prospective private owner. Personally speaking, I'm comfortable with the line where it is.

Bear in mind that we're only talking about legal ownership here. Nutters have been known to circumvent the law from time to time when it becomes inconvenient to their plans.

[Nashwan]

The line has been drawn, but the problem is the constitutional aspect hasn't been addressed. The line has basically been drawing by applying some common sense, and "interpreting" the constitution.

That's why the NRA aren't interested in taking this to court. A strict interpretation of the constitution throws out the "common sense" restrictions placed on the most dangerous weapons. That leaves the sort of situation only the most extreme want, and will lead to a new constitutional amendment, that will probably draw the line even more tightly than the current common sense compromises.

[Charon]

Would anyone seriously want private citizens to be able to own nuclear weapons?

As VOR points out, the difference between arms and ordinance was established from the start. As the actual facts point out, semi automatic rifles are too expensive and difficult to conceal making them particularly unattractive in criminal activity. Statistics place their use at about 1-2 percent.

The reason semi automatic rifles are the focus of regulatory attacks here is that they are a less represented segment of firearm ownership compared to other weapons, making them easier to attack without as much unified defense in the firearm community.

For the full firearm banners -- the Brady crowd -- they represent a doable ban that can be accomplished today while working towards long-term goals.

For politicians, they can claim to do "something about crime" without actually dealing with the significant challenges that lead to violent inner city crime. Feel good, do nothing legislation even if a ban actually worked. 1-2 percent of the problem at best. None have the guts to attack the failed war on drugs, or segregation, or a lack of inner city economic development or failed education or -- most importantly for a politician -- failed responsibility among parents and the actual criminals. Blame the symptom, not the problem -- its safer.

The mainstream media in urban areas lacks diversity of background and opinion in the newsroom, regardless of their skin color. Urban and suburban middle to upper middle class from cradle to grave, Ivy league or the equivalent college experience, no life experience otherwise, typically little exposure to responsible firearm ownership, generally liberal views socially that include the 2nd Amendment (many of which I support, but not out of emotional bias and obviously not where the 2nd is concerned). Their coverage reflects this, though it's hard to tell the difference between basic ignorance and actual bias. It's likely a combo of both. The net result is a lack of even coverage.

Anti-2nd Amendment types are free to publicly claim that these rifles are machine guns. This even included a local politician that did a mailing where she implied though her images that a .50 rifle was a M2 .50 machine gun (a belt-fed M2 sitting in a pile of spent casings). The ILL Fraternal Order of Police (a political organization like most) being allowed to state: "police firearm deaths have eclipsed traffic deaths since the federal ban was lifted" while supporting a candidate (Duckworth) without providing any data linking those deaths to actual semi automatic rifles. During the same time crime has increased in general while pursuit tactics have worked to reduce traffic deaths -- no AWB link at all. And, nobody calls them on this. Chicago's "Top Cop" can go on televison and state "you can empty the magazine with one or two pulls of the trigger" and no one calls him on it. If you try, your letters to the editor just don't get published.

Charon

[sluggish]

Originally posted by Nashwan


Much simpler in the 18th century, when the spectrum was something like knife ------------- cannon. A lone nutter (or even group of nutters) can't do that much damage with a cannon. A lone nutter can do an immense amount of damage with a nuke.

Tell the British that.  I believe that the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have the ability, in the event that the new government became as tyrannical as the British government, to have the same options and abilities to overthrow as the colonies.  If your argument is that the Constitution is an eighteenth century document that has little relevance today, I suggest that we just throw the whole thing away.

As a good Libertarian my interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the government shall not be allowed to have bigger guns than I.

[Charon]

The line has been drawn, but the problem is the constitutional aspect hasn't been addressed. The line has basically been drawing by applying some common sense, and "interpreting" the constitution.

That's why the NRA aren't interested in taking this to court. A strict interpretation of the constitution throws out the "common sense" restrictions placed on the most dangerous weapons. That leaves the sort of situation only the most extreme want, and will lead to a new constitutional amendment, that will probably draw the line even more tightly than the current common sense compromises.

That an interesting idea, and one that is likely IMO correct at a basic level. I don't necessarily agree that the outcome would be a tighter line (or that common sense figures in most of these efforts), but it might be if the debate is biased by the 4th Estate. That is a real issue. Just like the Iraq war was allowed to develop with little oversight and hard reporting by the media.

Charon

[Nashwan]

As a good Libertarian my interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the government shall not be allowed to have bigger guns than I can.

So, does the US give up it's nuclear weapons (at a time when Iran is acquiring them), or should private citizens in the US be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

As VOR points out, the difference between arms and ordinance was established from the start.

I don't think so. Can you name any weapon that was actually banned by the US in the 18th century?

It's only in the 20th century that weapons started to get destructive enough on an individual basis that they had to be controlled for society to survive (I'd say you cannot have society where the citizens can each individually destroy a city)

[sluggish]

Originally posted by Nashwan
So, does the US give up it's nuclear weapons (at a time when Iran is acquiring them), or should private citizens in the US be allowed to own nuclear weapons?



I don't think so. Can you name any weapon that was actually banned by the US in the 18th century?

It's only in the 20th century that weapons started to get destructive enough on an individual basis that they had to be controlled for society to survive (I'd say you cannot have society where the citizens can each individually destroy a city)

Seriously, how many multimillionaires are going to waste there money on nukes?  Maybe Bill Gates-I think he has it in him...  What many people fail to realize is that a nuclear weapon is useless-unless you have enough of them to blow up the world.  If North Korea decided to incinerate Tokyo what would it accomplish besides getting itself turned into a glass parking lot?

And as far as the infringement of out rights in the twentieth century goes, you're right.  Nothing really happened until our first socialist president FDR opened the flood gates.  It's a slippery slope, as they say...

[VOR]

Originally posted by sluggish
Seriously, how many multimillionaires are going to waste there money on nukes?

Only one I can think of.

[Charon]

I believe there has always been a clear seperation of ordnance and arms under the Constitution according to the definitions of the day (that still largely apply today). Ordinance may not have been specifically prohibited, but they were not specifically protected either.

The definition of Arms did not, at the time, include cannons, etc. and it does not today. For the 2nd to cover Ordnance weapons it would have included that specific reference. Arms, or small arms, include personal type weapons such as rifles and pistols. Today Arms would include machine guns which have some degree of restirction. Ordnance covers anything on the order of a mortar or higher. I would also assume grenades and grenade launchers as well as explosives.

Again, these distinctions are not new. Nor are semi automatic rifles, which lacking the automatic capabilities are not nearly as attractive to criminals when you consider the disadvantages of size and cost.

Charon