Pot, meet kettle.
You are mischaracterizing my position.
The 2A has been, since the 1930's at least, the fundamental Constitutional right that has most been wrongfully restricted beyond anything we would tolerate in other fundamental rights, like speech and religion.
Yes, I react to calls for gun control sometimes by shouting "shall not be infringed!" It gets my goat, because of the history of excessive infringement.
But just as my defense of religion does not mean I support theocracy or human sacrifice, my defense of the 2A does not mean I support the right to arms of dangerous loonies or dangerous felons. Actually my view on felons possessing firearms is a bit more nuanced than just "no", but I've gone into that elsewhere and probably shouldn't derail this thread with it.
All rights have certain limits. My right to swing my fists ends well short of the next man's nose. My right to own an AK47 does not include the right to fire it into my neighbor's house.
The point is that any restrictions on the 2A, like restrictions on the 1A, must be compelling intrest, narrowly construed and focused, specific rather than general, and not one whit more onerous than truly necessary. In my opinion very few gun control laws qualify against that standard, but restrictions on people who have proven themselves to be dangerous (loonies/druggies/felons) are among the few that do pass the smell test.
Last edited by Goshin; 11-14-10 at 05:21 PM.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Moderator's Warning: Okay folks, let's stay on track with the topic and stop baiting. Debate the topic only. Thank you.
The founding fathers would not have imagined something like a tank or APC, so why not allow people to own RPG's, anti tank missiles or anti aircraft missles (man portable ones of course)
Without a way to deal with tanks, APC's and aircraft a peoples militia would be slaughter vs a modern well equiped military. Personal weapons would not cut it
Conservatives believe the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will prove it
Ignorance is Bliss Bliss is the same as happiness US Christian conservatives are the happiest in the US according to studies Do you see a connection?
arms , artillery and ordnance. arms were just that-individual weapons that a regular infantryman or militia man would carry. swords, dirks, daggers, sabers, muskets, pistols and rifles. Artillery were mortars and cannon, and ordnance were bombs and rockets (remember "the rockets' red glare"?). the second dealt with the arms.
now modern weaponry often blurs the lines. a submachine gun is an arm while a crew served heavy mg is more akin to artillery. a mortar is artillery but a grenade launcher attached to a marine's M4 carbine has elements of both. same with an RPG or a SA-7 surface to air missile though I note that normally grenade launchers and missiles are issued to squads or platoons to be carried by a selected soldier while the M16 or M4 rifles are issued to just about every combatant.
so when we come to weapons capable of being deployed by one soldier even if issued at squad or platoon level (as opposed to every infantryman) there is a gray area when it comes to the second amendment. and I will concede that when it comes to RPGs, Strelas, or LAWS, MAWS or HAWS there is no quick answer.
but right now, there are clear and obvious infringements on the second amendement by the federal government that do not require an examination of the RPG issue. for example, many weapons that civilian police departments use--ie weapons that the federal and state government have conceded are useful for self defense in urban environments and clearly protected by the second-that other civilians cannot buy without all sorts of red tape and in fact are often banned
in 1986- in an attempt to derail the McClure-Volker firearms owner protection act (that would prevent Boston POlice from say arresting the Yale Skeet team as it travels through that city to the Eastern Collegiate clay target championships in Nashua NH), Dem Rep Hughes of NJ tried to poison the bill by attaching an amendment that many though was never properly ratified that banned the sale to civilians of all machine guns registered by their makers after May 19, 1986. this of course meant that the number of machine guns for non LEO ownership was cut off and the prices skyrocketed to the point that a gun police can buy for 900 dollars would cost me over 22,000 dollars
BTW to say we would need heavy weapons to deal with a tyrannical government is specious. in such a scenario, the proper response is not to go head to head with the us military (assuming that the army would attack large numbers of civilians and say carpet bomb Columbus or Dallas). rather the response would be to target those who had caused the oppression and take them out. If someone can get within a half mile of someone they can kill them and if you are a dictator and 20 million pissed off american patriots want you dead, you are pretty much toast