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

Goshin said:

1. All small arms and light support weapons that can be carried and operated by a single infantryman, which are tactical in nature (ie not WMDs).
2. All weapons suitable for purposes of self-defense. (ie handguns, knives).
3. All weapons suitable for sporting purposes. (ie shotguns, deer rifles.)


I suppose I could put up with having to get a permit for light support weapons, like SAWs and LAWs. It's a compromise...

While I disagree with SouthernDemocrat on almost everything, he is right about one thing: the Founders intended the Militia (ie all armed citizens, per many quotes I've posted before) to be the cornerstone of America's defense, and did not intend for us to have a large standing army such as we have today.

G.

Click to expand...

good answer

I am just thinking how I wish the Second Amendment was specific enough to be taken literally, by having your list, or at least saying that "arms" in the second amendment were only "normal arms."

Also, it is important to remember that when this country was created, there was no real inherent advantage that professional soldiers could have over normal citizens with guns. But today, we need planes, destroyer, aircraft carrieers and nukes to stay competitive. We have no way to defend ourselves from another nation just bombing us to destroy our economy (or something else short of invasion) with just a civilian army.

but I agree, in that with a heavy armed population, there is no real way to be invaded. (unless there was some insane types of biological or radiation weapons)

Ikari said:

That's a misinterpretation. It is clearly obvious you are doing all you can to avoid my posts, you don't respond to anything. The 9th amendment does not say that one right can not infringe upon another. The 9th amendment says that the People have more rights that just those enumerated by the Bill of Rights, and that those rights are equally reserved by the People. The government may not infringe upon the rights of the individual, and our rights are not limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights

That's the meaning of the 9th. It's backed by writings by the founders, try reading the anti-federalist papers. For the love of all that is holy, quit regurgitating your lie about the 9th amendment, about the literal nature of the Constitution, and all the other BS arguments you've made which don't hold up to logic and reason.

Click to expand...

Heres the 9th amendment. lets look at it in its actual form.

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

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

so by that logic you are for banning:


cigarettes
suv's
motorcycles
excessivly large tv's
buffets
fatty foods


i can go on ad nauseum if you would like.




If they are more efficient at "murder" then by the same logic, would they not be also more efficient at preventing murder?

Click to expand...

How do buffets help you defend yourself? For those that saw Gross Point Blank, we obviously understand that an excessively large TV can be used as a defensive weapon though... but the buffet? And fatty foods?

nerv14 said:

good answer

I am just thinking how I wish the Second Amendment was specific enough to be taken literally, by having your list, or at least saying that "arms" in the second amendment were only "normal arms."

Click to expand...

It is more than sufficiently specific. If there is any question, one need only look to the other writings of the Founders to find their original intent. They clearly intended it to be an individual right, of the people, to possess and carry whatever arms were commonplace to the regular infantry, or needful for common purposes like hunting, sport and self-defense.

Also, it is important to remember that when this country was created, there was no real inherent advantage that professional soldiers could have over normal citizens with guns. But today, we need planes, destroyer, aircraft carrieers and nukes to stay competitive. We have no way to defend ourselves from another nation just bombing us to destroy our economy (or something else short of invasion) with just a civilian army.

but I agree, in that with a heavy armed population, there is no real way to be invaded. (unless there was some insane types of biological or radiation weapons)

Click to expand...

I'm not saying we don't need a standing army, and a regular Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. My chief point is that the Founders never intended the "regular army" and "select militia" (ie Nat'l Guard, Reserve) to be sufficiently large and powerful enough to totally overwhelm the "unorganized militia" (the whole body of the people).

Though I am torn on the subject, I'm reasonably sure they didn't intend us to play "world cop" and have all these "foreign entanglements" and overseas military committments either. I struggle with this one, since there are overseas military actions I consider important to our security, but I think we've probably taken it overboard too.

G.

Goshin said:

While I disagree with SouthernDemocrat on almost everything, he is right about one thing: the Founders intended the Militia (ie all armed citizens, per many quotes I've posted before) to be the cornerstone of America's defense, and did not intend for us to have a large standing army such as we have today.

G.

Click to expand...

So few people actually get that. As I stated earlier, at the time of the nation's founding, a regular citizen if they had the means could by any weapon available, whether it was a canon, a warship, or for that matter, an entire navy.

One could certainly argue that the rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer practical in today's world. However, if thats the case, then they should seek to have the constitution amended. As it is, a person can't just ignore the fact that the constitution clearly states that the people have a near absolute right to bear arms.

Also, being I am fairly libertarian on a lot of issues, I would be surprised if this was the only thing we agreed on.

SouthernDemocrat said:

So few people actually get that. As I stated earlier, at the time of the nation's founding, a regular citizen if they had the means could by any weapon available, whether it was a canon, a warship, or for that matter, an entire navy.

One could certainly argue that the rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer practical in today's world. However, if thats the case, then they should seek to have the constitution amended. As it is, a person can't just ignore the fact that the constitution clearly states that the people have a near absolute right to bear arms.

Also, being I am fairly libertarian on a lot of issues, I would be surprised if this was the only thing we agreed on.

Click to expand...

I have argued this aspect exhaustively with many people on this board who refuse to accept this position.

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.

Click to expand...

No. This is completely wrong. As James Madison said when introducing the Ninth Amendment:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

The Ninth Amendment simply states that the listing of rights in the Constitution is not exhaustive. If you are going to cite the Constitution as justification for your positions you would do well to familiarize yourself with its history.

Goshin said:

It is more than sufficiently specific. If there is any question, one need only look to the other writings of the Founders to find their original intent. They clearly intended it to be an individual right, of the people, to possess and carry whatever arms were commonplace to the regular infantry, or needful for common purposes like hunting, sport and self-defense.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we can tell what the founding fathers did mean by looking at many of their writing. by that I can tell that they were very pro gun. Im sure they would want there to be "assult weapons" that im bitching about. But since they were not very specifc in the second amendment, there is no way to tell what they would have thought about more advances weapons. (nukes, or other weapons)

A law should not be based on cross referencing what is in the books, and what the people who wrote the law were saying at certain times.

The laws themselves should be specific. And if they aren't clear, then they should be made clear. For instance, the first amendment should say that no speech can be infringed upon unless it causes direct harm to others. But it doesn't.

I'm not saying we don't need a standing army, and a regular Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. My chief point is that the Founders never intended the "regular army" and "select militia" (ie Nat'l Guard, Reserve) to be sufficiently large and powerful enough to totally overwhelm the "unorganized militia" (the whole body of the people).

Though I am torn on the subject, I'm reasonably sure they didn't intend us to play "world cop" and have all these "foreign entanglements" and overseas military committments either. I struggle with this one, since there are overseas military actions I consider important to our security, but I think we've probably taken it overboard too.

G.

Click to expand...

No way to tell for sure. Times have changed alot.

But they said many times that they wanted the US to be like Switerland, by being neutral and having a highly armed population. Im sure they would be against us policing the world.

I do think they would be fine with temporary military establishments. (maybe simillar to how Jefferson dealth with the Barbary pirates)

Bodhisattva said:

I have argued this aspect exhaustively with many people on this board who refuse to accept this position.

Click to expand...

At least half if not more of the people that claim to be Libertarians are actually just typical hard core Republicans that think its cool to call themselves Libertarian. So for them to accept that position, they then could no longer support the huge defense budgets of the federal government. So its much easier for them to tell themselves they need an assault weapon to defend themselves against a government that spends well over half a trillion dollars a year on its military (a military that would squash them like a bug), then it would be to accept the true constitutional position of defense of the nation by its people rather than a large standing army. No government can become tyrannical when the primary means of defending the nation lies with the people rather than the government.

Ethereal said:

No. This is completely wrong. As James Madison said when introducing the Ninth Amendment:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

The Ninth Amendment simply states that the listing of rights in the Constitution is not exhaustive. If you are going to cite the Constitution as justification for your positions you would do well to familiarize yourself with its history.

Click to expand...

charming...:roll:

I am just following what the 9th amendment says... if you want to explain why you think that interpretation works, then I would like to hear it. I just don't see how he is interpreting the 9th amendment that way.

As everyone says, I thought we need to take the Bill of Rights literally... and we wouldn't have this problem if we understood that they aren't literal, word for word.

And just to make sure that was the right quotation, I can't see the context of the quote of him reffereing specifically to the 9th amendment. He could be talking about something different.

nerv14 said:

charming...:roll:

I am just following what the 9th amendment says... if you want to explain why you think that interpretation works, then I would like to hear it. I just don't see how he is interpreting the 9th amendment that way.

As everyone says, I thought we need to take the Bill of Rights literally... and we wouldn't have this problem if we understood that they aren't literal, word for word.

And just to make sure that was the right quotation, I can't see the context of the quote of him reffereing specifically to the 9th amendment. He could be talking about something different.

Click to expand...

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.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

nerv14 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

9th amendment said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Dav said:

Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself.

Click to expand...

Yes actually you do, you don't need a SAW but you're going to want something with a lot of stopping power if a methed out freak breaks into your home.

nerv14 said:

but when you have your definition of an "arm" then can't a nuclear rocket launcher fit under that catagory of something "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".

Click to expand...

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?

I would be curious what people think "ordinary weapons are"

Click to expand...

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

There is no strong argument. How can there be?
People have the right to arm themselves.
Some people worry that the government may be stripping them of their right to bear arms to make them more submissive to government will and interests.

Goobieman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

nerv14 said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you want to do that, fine. However, in doing so, you concede the argument that it then also covers any and all firearms.

Arguing to change the constittion is fine, so long as you agree that until it is changed, the 2nd prohbits banning 'assault weapons'.

Goobieman said:

If you want to do that, fine. However, in doing so, you concede the argument that it then also covers any and all firearms.

Arguing to change the constittion is fine, so long as you agree that until it is changed, the 2nd prohbits banning 'assault weapons'.

Click to expand...

Yes, in a sense. The problem is that we didn't even get to that arguement yet because unless the Bill of Rights is agreed on not being taken completely literally, then you can't classify that firearms are just "normal weapons" only from the Bill of Rights.

nerv14 said:

Yes, in a sense. The problem is that we didn't even get to that arguement yet because unless the Bill of Rights is agreed on not being taken completely literally, then you can't classify that firearms are just "normal weapons" only from the Bill of Rights.

Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

nerv14 said:

But how are you coming to that by definition, arms are just normal weapons that the military uses?

Click to expand...

Thats what the USSC came up with. There's some question as to if that definition covers grenade launchers and light ATMs, but for most purposes regarding the 2nd amendment, that discussion need not be had.

Without question,the term covers all firearms.

Goobieman said:

Thats what the USSC came up with. There's some question as to if that definition covers grenade launchers and light ATMs, but for most purposes regarding the 2nd amendment, that discussion need not be had.

Without question,the term covers all firearms.

Click to expand...

But there is a difference in the USSC coming up with a not completely literal interpretation of the second amendment (which I believe has rightfully happened) and people saying that the Supreme court is still literally following the Second Amendment by just defining what arms are. (which has not happened, and would not make sense)

I mean, the definition of arms is not in debate... because it can be looked up. All it says is that they are weapons. Once again, I don't think that you really think that rocket launchers and light ATMs aren't arms.

I agree that fully automatic weapons aree supported in the Second Amendment, if I would be am willing to break it or not as a politician is another story. However, we should still accept that since the Second Amendment needs to be interpreted for its intended meaning by the founders, instead of depending on the definition of arms, which includes arms that maybe should not be included in the Second Amendment.

This is because we can at least agree that nuclear rocket launchers are litereal arms (=weapons) but they should be illegal to own.

nerv14 said:

I mean, the definition of arms is not in debate... because it can be looked up. All it says is that they are weapons. Once again, I don't think that you really think that rocket launchers and light ATMs aren't arms.

Click to expand...

False. The dictionary term is not the same as the legal term.

I agree that fully automatic weapons aree supported in the Second Amendment, if I would be am willing to break it or not as a politician is another story. However, we should still accept that since the Second Amendment needs to be interpreted for its intended meaning by the founders, instead of depending on the definition of arms, which includes arms that maybe should not be included in the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

There's no supportable argument that allows for the exclusion of full-auto firearms from the protection of the 2nd.

WHAT?
The definition of arms can easily be debated. If used in a proper way a ****ing pencil is an arm or "weapon" as you gave the definition.
Arms are simply weapons designed to kill in specific manner. Firearms, therefore, kill through force trauma by a projectile.
Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
This move by the government could be taken as an attempt to disarm the people and make them more submissive to the will of the increasingly Socialist government now in place.
:doh

Goobieman said:

False. The dictionary term is not the same as the legal term.

Click to expand...

What determines the legal term?

Once again, if someone must actually interpret that, then that means that the Second Amendment can't be interpeted literally. I am just saying that there is inherent leeway in the Bill of Rights.

I call it the document not being taken completely literally.

There's no supportable argument that allows for the exclusion of full-auto firearms from the protection of the 2nd.

Click to expand...

??? I am not saying the opposite. you don't want to respond to my post, that fine but if you do, then at least watch what I am saying.