Thread: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Originally Posted by Goshin

Interpretation? Dude, this was the guy who wrote it.

Not to mention, I don't know where or when you went to school, but when I was in school this was the normal understanding of what the 9th and 10th Amendments were for.

nm I agree with you.

I checked out some other sites.

Thanks, I always like getting more from the Constitution. I haven't in a while now.

Originally Posted by nerv14

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Since in the Constitution people have a right to life (in how I can't yell fire in a burning building) however, the 9th amendment also says that those rights can't be used to deny my other rights. I have a right to freedom of speech, however that right would violate the rights of others to life.

Am I missing something?

Don't worry, im not a complete Constitution trasher (compared to most people anyway) but this condridiction is interesting. we should at least aknowedge this

You are missing something, it is true. Listen, I'm not here to disparage against people for the most part...less they're total partisan hacks; then I do but only for entertainment purposes...most people here can attest to that.

Here's what it is. The Constitution is a system of permits and denials towards what the government is able to do. The reason why there was a debate towards even having a Bill of Rights was because of the perception it could have on government and generations to come. This is the source of the 9th amendment. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers both. Many people real most of the Federalist, I've come across few whom have read the Anti-Federalist. No condescension, read both of those because they are both important portals into the thoughts and ideologies of the founders. The 9th amendment was born from this argument between the two groups. One wanted to make damned sure there were a certain set of rights the government could not ever disparage against; and they favored the Bill of Rights. There were those whom worried because they thought that listing but a few of our rights would mean that the government would think those to be our only rights. Thus was born the 9th amendment.

Originally Posted by 9th amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The enumbered rules and regulation in the constitution, of certain rights. This is the Bill of Rights, these are the enumerated rights; 1-10. shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Shall not think itself able to deny or disparage the other non-enumerated rights which are retained by the People. AKA, the 10 rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not the only rights retained by the People. And just because only 10 rights are laid out before the government in the Bill of rights does not mean, does not insinuate, does not lend itself to believe that those 10 rights are the only rights of the People. And those rights not enumerated within the Bill of Rights are not the only rights retained by the People; the government is further restricted from infringing upon those rights retained by the People but not enumerated within the Constitution itself.

I do not know how to make it any more clearer than that! That is the purpose of the 9th amendment. Please learn about its history before you begin spouting off non-sense.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

How many troops are issued nuclear weapons?
Answer: None: they are issued to special, specific units, not individual troops.
That pretty much answer that question, doesn't it?


Clearly, it covers any class of firearm you care to mention.

Yeah. If we don't take the second amendment literally, by having an interpretation that isn't specifically spelled out in the Second Amendment.

One of my only comments has been that the second amendment, by itself, doesn't specify what it considers arms to be. We can interpret it as "normal weapons" but that is only because the Bill of Rights shouldn't be taken literally. If the Bill of Rights was taken completely literally, word for word, then nuclear weapons would in fact be allowed by normal citizens.

I do think that is an accurate interpretation of the Second amendment, (In that I believe its what the founding fathers intended). Despite that, I can still wish that they would change the 2nd amendment to get rid of fully automatic assult weapons. Yes, I am currently supporting something unconstitutional, but that just means I want to change the second amendment.
Anyway, the reasons for if the second amendment should be altered should at least be discussed enough if we should follow the Bill of Rights on principle, even if there is negative outcomes.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Hmm.
Under what argument are all firearms NOT considered 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd, and how is that argument sound?

See, the problem here is that your 'literally' argument fails in that the literal terms - freedom of speech, arms - ARE used, and thus the Constitution IS taken literally. The question then revolves around the definition of the terms.

But how are you coming to that by definition, arms are just normal weapons that the military uses? Why wouldn't special weapons be considered arms? So I am sure you understand that saying "arms" are "normal weapons" is not a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I think even you would agree that special weapons would have to be included "arms" would include all types of rocket launchers. From nuclear, biological or just very strong ones. If someone says that we shouldn't be able to have those, then that is just from a non-literal translation of the Second Amendment.