Voidwar

Your accusatory tone is entertaining, but don't you think the gun grabbers 30 years ago did it to score political points too ?

100% false.

There heart of it is "shall not be infringed" and this is an infringement.

Bleeding Head Ken

That's why the second amendment exists, because of that need for a militia. I already mentioned this here http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057464148 (High Court to Take D.C. Gun Ban Case)

There are many other rights which are not listed in the BoR (and 114 amendments that didn't make the cut), and the right to keep and bear arms might have been one of those if not for the militia clause.

I'm not sure where I implied any such thing. It is an individual right - all natural rights- but there may be many, including your government, who would aggress against life, liberty and property.

Alright, let's say that you live in Washington D.C. A bunch of tobacco farmers in Virginia have pooled some of their money and have obtained a nuclear bomb. Because they feel that their liberty and property are in some danger, they let Congress know that they are serious about protecting their farms. They only way they can use such a device against the government would also cause the death and destruction of the lives of hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions of innocent people and their property who live in D.C., including you.

As the resident in D.C. would you feel that they were just exercising their right to keep and bear arms, knowing that your life is at extreme risk should they feel the need to defend themselves from a government in which you have no part except as a taxpayer?

Other than that, I'm not sure what we are arguing. I have no problem with people owning any form of armament that can be used without *always* causing mass destruction and harm to innocent people.

waugeyman

I have no doubt they did it to enact some sort of gun control whether it was for political gain or not I can't say, but what I can say is that those who are against any form of gun control had 30 years to fight this, yet chose not to. I merely pointed out that it isn't coincidence that they chose now as opposed to any time before in the last 30 years +.


Perhaps I wasn't being completely clear. The heart of the amendment is that people have the right to own guns. This law limits which guns can be owned, but doesnt outright ban guns altogether. A compromise if you will.

Voidwar

Amendment has no reason to compromise with mere legislation.

Amendment outranks legislation.

About the timing of the suit, as I said, it is no more political than the timing of the activity that got the law passed in the first place. I'm certian that law was passed at a "politcal" time for a "political" purpose.

Bleeding Head Ken

Would it be a valid "compromise" were Congress to limit some political speech or establish some state-run religious institutions?

scourge99

I agree that nuclear weapons in the hands of unqualified citizens is a bad idea or any weapon for that matter. I am just lost on where the line should be drawn as to what type of weapons should be allowed and what type shouldn't. Couldn't it be argued that any explosive device can cause "mass destruction and harm to innocent people" therefore these devices should be outlawed?

Bleeding Head Ken

What would the qualification for a citizen be to own a nuclear weapon? Other than that, whether it's a bad idea or not, every individual has the right to keep and bear arms. Training is a great idea, but legislating training or other qualifications is infringement.

I didn't say "can cause", I said "will always cause." Nuclear weapons, biological agents, even certain types of poisonous gas will always cause widespread damage and there is absolutely no way to ensure that innocent life will not be destroy.

Most explosives can be shaped and targeted. Ultimately, of course, you are responsible for any undue or excessive destruction or loss of life that you cause.

scourge99

I'm just spitting out ideas. Obviously any legislation requiring training or qualifications can be abused.

Most weapons can and do cause collateral damage. If you use full-metal-jackets then the bullet probably isn't going to stop when it hits a person. In a crowded area it could and WILL injure or kill many people. By your same logic a machine gun causes "undue or excessive destruction or loss of life." Different weapons have different areas of effect.

If someone uses a tactical nuclear device or a small amount of nerve gas there may be no collateral damage. These weapons do not always ensure loss of innocent life if used carefully.

Perhaps personal weapons should only be capable of targeting a single target at a time?

waugeyman

That's very true, amendments are meant to be set in stone, but even they can be changed, edited, added to, and altogether rescinded. I don't think amendments outrank legislation completely, simply because legislation creates amendments; however, legislation can be considered unconstitutional as well - it part of the beauty of our countries checks and balances.

Edit: I said before, I don't know if there was any political timing used. I don't know if they passed it right before elections or right after or what, but I do know that the decision to challenge that ban right now was a concious decision on the plantiffs part.

waugeyman

Is it ok to compromise personal liberty and privacy in the name of security?? The government looks for loopholes and chips away at civil liberties all the time, whether the public cares or not depends on which way the proverbial wind is blowing.

In my original post I said it was about time they looked at this from a judicial perspective, and finally determine what the language of the amendment means. Many people take it literally word for word, and others just pick and choose which parts best suit their needs - after this gets sorted out it will be a little more black and white. Not to say that there won't be any grey somewhere in between, but it will certainly better define what the second amendment is, and what exactly it protects.