What weapons does the 2nd protect?

Goobieman said:

I did. But I made no claims as to its meaning.
He did. Thus, the onus is on him.

Click to expand...

LOL.

......

Lightdemon said:

Then perhaps you would be kind enough to supply us the definition for "dangerous and unusual weapons?" The way that is used by SCOTUS of course.

Click to expand...

I havent made any claims regarding that phrase.
Why do I need to define it?

Goobieman said:

Then its best of you don't follow Iriemon's example in ignorantly making an claim regarding what sort of weapon it covers and what sort of weapon it doesn't.

But then, you're not so silly to do something like that :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Not even close the the ignorance of the person who started this thread and keeps trying to change it in the middle to suit his position.

Lightdemon said:

What requirements did SCOTUS use to define "dangerous and unusual weapons?"

EDIT: Forgive me, but I just don't know what you're referring to when you use that phrase. And I certainly don't know what SCOTUS means when they use it either.

So can you please help a brother out here?

Click to expand...

I've been wondering the same thing.

Taking those two words at face value:
Since all weapons are dangerous (I think, but can you have a non-dangerous weapon?), that part is quite pointless, IMO.
Unusual would seem to indicate weapons which only a few people carry around with them on a regular basis, but that also is quite vague, as most people do not carry anything more than a handgun, if anything.

Some searching provides this interesting link which seems to be related: Ohioans For Concealed Carry - Breaking Down the SCOTUS Ruling - Part 1
A quote from the above link:

In ruling in this case, the SCOTUS made three determinations.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
3. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense and is in violation of the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

Iriemon said:

LOL.

Click to expand...

Thanks for being honest enough to admit your ignorance, and then, by extension, that you could not support your argument -- kudos to you!
:applaud

Goobieman said:

At the very least, it covers all firearms, which, given that the real issue at hand here is gun control, is all that really matters.

So, those that want to discuss RPGs and nukes and the like can have that conversation to their hearts content, fully understanding that said conversation, having necessarily conceeded that the 2nd covers all firearms, is completely irrelevant to the issue as to what sort of gun control is prohibiited by the 2nd.

Click to expand...

It covers all firearms, if that were so it is basically broadly saying whatever it deems dangerous to be not allow, illegal. That's what that phrase is for. For future, and for present so the politician can point his liberal, misinformed finger at it and go the RPG for example fits under that. Bull, I say, that phrase should not exist, except to described has I said early to describe homemade "arms." Because in realty firearms are designed to be dangerous. And unusual is part were the liberal goes, "what is that thing?" I don't know it unusual." Banned.

Goobieman said:

I havent made any claims regarding that phrase.
Why do I need to define it?

Click to expand...

Because you're the one who used that phrase first, as if everyone knew what that phrase meant.

You said that certain weapons fall under the category of "dangerous and unusual weapons." Yet you did not explain why...

How do you know that they fall into the category? By what requirement do they fall into that category.

It is YOUR phrase, YOU introduced it, YOU need to define it.

Goobieman said:

I havent made any claims regarding that phrase.
Why do I need to define it?

Click to expand...

LMFAO!
....

You asked a question based on the phrase "cruel and unusual"; claimed I was ignorant for not knowning what the Court means about it; and now you can't even define it yourself!

:rofl

classic.

Goobieman said:

Thanks for being honest enough to admit your ignorance, and then, by extension, that you could not support your argument -- kudos to you!
:applaud

Click to expand...

LOL -- I'm having a ball watching you dance and making a fool out of yourself.

Iriemon said:

Where is language limiting "arms" to those "in common use for lawful purposes" in the 2ndA?

Click to expand...

I guess the "turn them into a girl" retrovirus vector grenade is not going to be out of the question if it becomes popular?

I am looking forward to coming out.

The intent is to maintain freedom, a principle as old and previously articulated by Aristotle, so a bronze sword would do, if that was the extent of the reach and quality of the guards of the tyrant goobermint.

DivineComedy said:

I guess the "turn them into a girl" retrovirus vector grenade is not going to be out of the question if it becomes popular?

I am looking forward to coming out.

The intent is to maintain freedom, a principle as old and previously articulated by Aristotle, so a bronze sword would do, if that was the extent of the reach and quality of the guards of the tyrant goobermint.

Click to expand...

I guess one could consider a bronze sword as both dangerous and an unusual weapon.

Does owning one of those bad boys go against the 2A?

BTW, do you sell special decoder pens? Or something like a Ovaltin Secret Decoder ring? I'm in need of one

DivineComedy said:

I guess the "turn them into a girl" retrovirus vector grenade is not going to be out of the question if it becomes popular?

I am looking forward to coming out.

The intent is to maintain freedom, a principle as old and previously articulated by Aristotle, so a bronze sword would do, if that was the extent of the reach and quality of the guards of the tyrant goobermint.

Click to expand...

Hey DC, welcome back.

Lightdemon said:

I guess one could consider a bronze sword as both dangerous and an unusual weapon.

Does owning one of those bad boys go against the 2A?

BTW, do you sell special decoder pens? Or something like a Ovaltin Secret Decoder ring? I'm in need of one

Click to expand...

Yes it is, like when I was a kid and attached two steel ball-bearings slightly larger than golf balls to the opposite ends of...about...a six foot rope. I don't remember much after that. {do I need to draw you a picture?}

{at this point I am confused, do I respond to the second item as if it is in response to the the second in my post you are responding to...I have no choice but to do both in the decoder.}

The third leg is not considered an arm, but has been declared illegal by international law in regard to its use as an arm. So figuring that it might be declared illegal to own that "bad boy," I have been stocking up on pink lipstick in anticipation of Obama making our firearm laws more in line with international law. Certainly the change would be covered. As it is now, I cannot afford it to change.

I see more people with a bulge in their pants than a sword on their hip, so I am not quite sure what to think about all this. The Turkish dagger and throwing knife are the only things that survived the purge of a butterfly knife collection. So I am sometimes afraid to take my machete outside, and would not think of going outside to be seen with my scythe. You would think more colorful methods of cutting down the weeds would be in vogue. Little holes guns make, what is up with that? It has no flair. It is like pithing a frog when you can drop a brick on it and see its guts fly six feet. How dare they cut the mark of Zorro in the thieves! {Sorry, I am getting light headed just thinking about carving a turkey.}

Off the top of my head, I think, I am all out of decoder rings, but I will see what I can whip up.

the list doesn't include "assault pistols", such as the Tec-9, which are a big part of urban gun violence.

all the above and then some.


I really want that AA-12

Goobieman said:

The question here is:
What kind of firearms does the 2nd amendment protect?

Please be sure to include your reasoning for your response.

Click to expand...

I say everything from hand guns to heavy machine guns.One of the reasons behind the second is so people can resist a tyrannical government and it would be almost impossible to resist a tyrannical government with just handguns and shotguns.

The Mark said:

I wonder what the writers of the original amendment would have thought about this discussion?

Click to expand...

That is interesting to speculate about, but of course only speculation. The environment in which those who passed the Bill of Rights lived in is so different than today it's about impossible how they'd fathom the 2A would be meant to apply in today's society.

We do know from the language in the 2A that they believed a well regulated millitia was necessary for security of a "free state." IMO, the fact the included that language was not just fluff, but an explanation as to why they thought the right to "bear arms" was important and not be be infringed.

The vast majority of opinions held that that was what the right was for -- a [well regulated] militia, and that the right to bear arms had to be read in the context of the stated necessity of a militia.

But the recent SC opinion takes the view that the language about a militia n the 2A is essentially fluff, and adopts the individual right view, essentially vacating about 65 years of jurisprudence (with a couple exceptions) in the process.

The Mark said:

Personally, I would tend to agree that the 2nd amendment protects all arms. I think anyone would agree with that. However, most disagree on what exactly "arms" are.

Click to expand...

If (as the SC did) you are going to take the position that the 2A is an individual right, then I agree with you. "Arms" logically are weapons that a person can arm himself with. If you can be armed with a musket and sword, so to can you be armed with automatic weapons, grenades, and today, shoulder fired missles.

The majority, however, knew they could not go so far as that. If they came out and said the 2A guarantees the right to own anything you can arm yourself with, there would be a popular uprising against the concept of any nut going down to "arms-R-US" to pick up a few shoulder fired M72 LAW antitank missles -- possible resulting in a movement to amend the 2d amendement itself.

Therefore, the majority knew that having recognized the individual right to "keep and bear arms," they had to limit the framework of that right to "reasonable" "weapons that would not result in a popular revolt.

How they did that (or more precisely, how Scalia writing the majority opinion did it) it is extraordinary, shows the length the majority twisted the language of the amendment and precedence to achieve the result they wanted. Talk about judicial activism - Scalia engages in "judicial activism" to a degree that should make conservatives blush.

It starts in section E, in which Scalia purports to analyze relevant precedent, but it is where he slips in a discussion of what the "keep and bear arms" portion of the 2A means.

In the context of arguing that the Miller decision did not restrict the 2A right to militia purposes, Scalia cited this language from Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the 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." 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). "Certainly," the Court continued, "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." Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

OK. It sounds like what Miller was talking about was a determination of whether the weapon at issue was part of "ordinary military equipment right"? But antitank missiles are ordinary military equipment, and if that framework is used, bye bye 2A. So Scalia has to engage in a little activism to change that precedent:

Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

What is Scalia saying here? Miller cannot mean what it explicitly says about "part of ordinary equipment" because if we use that definition, we have the "startling" result the prohibition of machine guns might be unconstitutional? Huh? Why is that "startling"? That is a circular argument. The SC had never upheld the machine gun ban against a 2A claim. So if there is an individual right to bear arms, that opens the question of whether a machinegun is an "arm" that can be banned. It is not ipso facto not an "arm". But rather than trying to explain why a machine gun is not an "arm" under the 2A (something that would be intellectually honest), Scalia simply says in effect that it would be "startling" to determine that banning them would be unconstitutional. Why? The fact that there was a law against machine guns isn't a reason for Scalia to say that Miller's plain language ("part of ordinary military equipment") can't mean what it says in perfect English!

Scalia clarifies his point, in case it wasn't clear:

We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. … We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right.

This is astounding. Scalia decides that the Miller precedent about "ordinary military equipment" and the 2A language to "bear arms" can't mean what they say, and what they really mean is that the 2A only gives the right to have weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"!

Aside from complete reconstructing Miller and the 2A, what is astounding is that Scalia says that the "arms" which the 2A gives us the individual right to bear are those "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." This is another completely circular argument, the second in as many paragraphs. What the hell -- the Court is interpreting the constitution, the bedrock of law, determining our fundamental lawful rights, by referencing what is legal for people to do!? That is completely backwords -- deriving the constitutional law from what are "lawful purposes," whatever the hell that means.

It's like saying you have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, so long as you are not breaking any law!

One might think that using that test, the plaintiff would lose the case, because since DC had a law prohibiting handguns, a person in DC who has a gun could not be a law abiding citizen, because he would be breaking the law by having the gun; and could have the gun for a lawful purpose, because it was unlawful to have a gun.

But no, Scalia invokes one more bit of judicial activism, and changes the game again.

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. ... It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

So now Scalia makes the test of what are "arms" in the 2A not based on whether it is lawful to have them, but based on the fact that are the most popular weapons in America, therefore they are "arms" in the 2A and the right to bear them cannot be infringed.

"Bear arms" becomes "ordinary military equipment" which becomes "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" which becomes "handguns are the most popular weapon chosen" which then becomes the basis for determining whether they are protected "arms" under the 2A.

Quite amazing.

Scalia, the supposed strict constructionalist, has turned the meaning of the 2A into a popularity contest as to what constitutes "arms" in the 2A!

The second amendment clearly recognizes the right to keep and bear a standard indvidual infantry weapon like the M16. as to crew served weapons assigned to squad level-don't know


those however are protected by the ninth and tenth amendment.

I've been wondering just now what exactly the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was.

I've heard some say that it was to protect the right for all citizens to bear arms, no matter the type or strength of such, and the the reason for this protection was to prevent the government from eliminating the possibility that they would face a revolution if the population became angry enough at them.

I've heard some say that it was intended to provide protection for militia weapons only, that is to say, weapons which could be used by a militia to defend the area in which they lived.

Personally, I tend to lean towards the first argument. However, the point made by Iriemon is a good one.

Iriemon said:

The majority, however, knew they could not go so far as that. If they came out and said the 2A guarantees the right to own anything you can arm yourself with, there would be a popular uprising against the concept of any nut going down to "arms-R-US" to pick up a few shoulder fired M72 LAW antitank missiles -- possibly resulting in a movement to amend the 2d amendment itself.

Click to expand...

I think that the two arguments combined hold some merit, perhaps in a form such as this:

1. Weapons available to the average citizen limited to all weapons from those which are non-lethal up to and including machine guns.
2. Limits put on the ownership of those weapons to the effect that violent criminals and persons with a mental condition which might cause them to attack others (by accident or intentionally) are not allowed to own weapons which are lethal (stun guns and such are fine for all I would think).
3. Registration of such weapons as they are allowed for the above mentioned violent criminals and persons with certain mental conditions is required, but not for any other citizens.
4. Special permits could be issued to those who had need of using more powerful weapons than machine guns.

This would provide the option for a law-abiding citizen to own anything from a tazer to a machine gun, while restricting such access for those with a high probability of using such weapons for unlawful purposes.

I was thinking about the argument that all weapons should be allowed to keep the option of revolution open. After a short period of thought, it occurred to me that if a portion of the populace were revolting, they would be free to ignore weapon restriction laws put in place by the government, as said government's restrictions would not apply to them anymore.
The reasonable likelihood of at least a portion of our volunteer military siding with the revolting persons would likely provide said revolt with all the weapons they might need.

TurtleDude said:

The second amendment clearly recognizes the right to keep and bear a standard indvidual infantry weapon like the M16. as to crew served weapons assigned to squad level-don't know


those however are protected by the ninth and tenth amendment.

Click to expand...

Oh? Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about "standard indvidual infantry weapon " again?

Iriemon, I have clearly defeated both of these guys over this debate already. Don't bother. I outlined beyond a doubt what the Founders intent was and these guns nuts don't care. They want to arm everybody so that everybody is "safe". :lol:

Iriemon said:

Not even close the the ignorance of the person who started this thread and keeps trying to change it in the middle to suit his position.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry -- were you going to tell us how RPGs are not "dangerous and usual weapons" and thus protected by the 2nd -- as was your claim -- or were you going to continue as a child, snot and tears running down your face?

I have $10 riding on the latter...

It appears that several people beleive that the 2nd protects 'semiautomatic rifles' but not 'assault weapons'.

Why?

According to the wording of the amendment, I should be allowed to walk down the street with a bazooka.

Bodhisattva said:

Oh? Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about "standard indvidual infantry weapon " again?

Click to expand...

Think of his statement in terms of "standard indvidual infantry weapon at the least", allowing for the possibility that it mat protect weapons more powerful than that, but that it -certainly- protects M16s.

Given that the only real relevance any of this has is to gun control, any discussion of RPGs, etc, is meaningless.

I also find it rather amusing that the only people talking about a right to own RPGs are those on the anti-gun left.