What weapons does the 2nd protect? - Page 3

Goobieman · 06-27-08, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

And I answered the OP, but I felt it necessary to include an addendum to my answer to make sure it was thorough. Questions like these are far from black and white and failure to elaborate can cause confusion.

Fair enough.

shuamort · 06-27-08, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

I don't see how the fact that private businesses can restrict your behavior on their premises constitutes a "flaw in the bill of rights."

The first Amendment means that the government cannot excise words out of your vocabulary, but a business owner certainly can if you wish to remain on the premises and conduct business.

It's flawed because the language is neither concise nor clear as to its intent. My example was from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the Schenck v. United States..

Quote:

Facts of the Case

During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.

Question

Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.

The fact that the second amendment's clarity too was under dispute for so long is testimony to its flawed and confusing language.

Iriemon · 06-27-08, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

The issue is what -firearms- are protected, as was put forth in the OP.
This was on purpose, to exclude unnecessary and meaningless dicussion regarding the individual posession of nuclear weapons.

Not meaningless at all. While IMO it would be hard to argue that "nukes" are arms, it is not meaningless to suggests that "arms" may be broader than "firearms".

If the goal is the debate what the 2dA permits folks to bear, why arbitrarily limit the discussion?

Why aren't hand gernades "arms" for example? A person can certainly be armed with hand gernades.

Goobieman · 06-27-08, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Not meaningless at all. While IMO it would be hard to argue that "nukes" are arms, it is not meaningless to suggests that "arms" may be broader than "firearms".

If the goal is the debate what the 2dA permits folks to bear, why arbitrarily limit the discussion?

Why aren't hand gernades "arms" for example? A person can certainly be armed with hand gernades.

Were you going to add your response to the poll or were you going to continue to avoid the question asked in the OP?

I have money riding on the latter...

Iriemon · 06-27-08, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

The thought process behind the 2nd amendment was to make sure that the government was afraid of its citizens and not the other way around. England had attempted to disarm the colonies to keep it under check. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure that the government never gained so much control over the citizens that it stopped working in their best interests.

Given that, the 2nd amendment is written so the citizens can have enough arms to defend themselves against their government.

So, if you're going to take a strict constitutional review of the 2nd amendment, it should be none.

Now, for the sake of argument, you take the first amendment which states that congress can't abridge the freedom of speech. Altruistic in nature, however, we've found it should be limited as the old yarn about "crying fire in a crowded theater" has shown. The intent of the 1st amendment didn't take these incidents into consideration, but the incidents have shown flaws in the bill of rights.

My answer is that strictly reading the 2nd Amendment, the answer would be none, using judgment and wisdom build up with previous cases, the answer would be limiting gun ownership a bit to exclude things like nuclear arms and the like.

Realizing I'm opening a can of worms, I'm not sure it is clear that there was a consensus view that the 2dA was designed to provide for the capability of an insurgency against the government, and I seem to recall reading things to the contrary. The language in the 2A speaks about the militia being necessary to the security of a free state, which most logically is read that the militia is necessary for the defense of the nation. You could read it to mean that the militia is necessary to keep the people free from Govt tyrrany (though the language speaks of free state, not free people). Some viewed the militia as being necessary to maintain order in the nation, such as when Washington called out the militia to put down an insurgency (the Whiskey rebellion) not fight for it.

Iriemon · 06-27-08, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Were you going to add your response to the poll or were you going to continue to avoid the question asked in the OP?

I have money riding on the latter...

I'm going to continue to express my opinions and views on the subject as I see fit. If you have a problem with it, take it to a mod.

Goobieman · 06-27-08, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I'm going to continue to express my opinions and views on the subject as I see fit. If you have a problem with it, take it to a mod.

So, you -aren't- going to address the question that was asked, and you -are- going to continue to avoid same.

Easiest $10 I ever made. Thanks for your help.

shuamort · 06-27-08, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Realizing I'm opening a can of worms, I'm not sure it is clear that there was a consensus view that the 2dA was designed to provide for the capability of an insurgency against the government, and I seem to recall reading things to the contrary. The language in the 2A speaks about the militia being necessary to the security of a free state, which most logically is read that the militia is necessary for the defense of the nation. You could read it to mean that the militia is necessary to keep the people free from Govt tyrrany (though the language speaks of free state, not free people). Some viewed the militia as being necessary to maintain order in the nation, such as when Washington called out the militia to put down an insurgency (the Whiskey rebellion) not fight for it.

Yeah, it is a can of worms and a portion of the debate that it's best to tread lightly as it's definitely hard to find a non-biased source. One of my favorite sources, The Straight Dope, had this to say.

Quote:

However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons. They considered these citizen militias vastly preferable to standing armies, which in their experience had been instruments of oppression. They also had no professional police force upon which to depend for defense of their lives and property. It seemed natural to them that ordinary folk should have the right to own guns.

Goobieman · 06-27-08, 02:33 PM

For the several of you that think the 2nd protects semi-automatic rifles but not 'assault weapons'.... why?

Iriemon · 06-27-08, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

So, you -aren't- going to address the question that was asked, and you -are- going to continue to avoid same.

Easiest $10 I ever made. Thanks for your help.

I addressed the question asked. The 2A logically read provides the right to bear anything that are "arms", everything on the list, and more.

Enjoy the $10.