Heller, 2nd Amendment, Automatic Weapons etc.

My point is that a bunch of civilians, in defiance of the government, wanted to keep weapons which were clearly not suitable for civilian self defense, nor were they common among the populace. The government wanted to take away those weapons. My questions were whether it was reasonable for those civilians to own such military hardware, and whether it was reasonable for the government (which had a very capable standing army) to want to take the cannons away. Asking for my point is not an answer to those questions.
Click to expand...

OK. Yes it was reasonable forthe British to take them away. At least from their perspective. Now, you say these were owned by private citizens. I am not so sure. They may even have been given to the communities by the British subject to the Crown of course, for the common defense. At that time under the organized militia it might have made sense. Not in today's context.
 
The point is that you missed the point in post #52: "The relevance of A1.8.11 is that it speaks to the potential scope of the Second Amendment." The Founders could have borrowed more concepts from the English Bill of Rights and written "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, suitable to the average infantryman, shall not be infringed." But they did not restrict the Second Amendment to common infantry weapons and A1.8.11 shows that they also expected citizens to even be able to own warships - the most complex weapons system of the day.
Click to expand...

That is an incredible leap of logic and has no basis in fact at all. Letters of marque like the organized militia was determined to meet a need at that time. The organized militia was replaced by the National Guard and Letters of Marque replaced by a capable Navy. BTW these warships were not in the hands of regular people. They were owned by experienced business owners who knew how to sail. A1.8.11 has no relevance to the second amendment.
 
Yes it was reasonable forthe British to take them away. At least from their perspective.
Click to expand...
From the perspective of the Founders, it was more reasonable to allow the citizen-militias to keep military hardware, and that's one reason why they revolted against the British and also why they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Back then, one way you got to be a militia leader was to be a rich guy who could buy some cannons or other military hardware. So yes, many of them were private ventures.
 
Letters of marque like the organized militia was determined to meet a need at that time. The organized militia was replaced by the National Guard and Letters of Marque replaced by a capable Navy.
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree, because I do not subscribe to a "living Constitution" approach, nor do I believe that the actions of Congress can supplant the Constitution (except through Article 5 amendments).
 
They were owned by experienced business owners who knew how to sail.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it was their station in life that earned them the... privilege?... to own war ships?

Hmm... that has the reek of elitist snobbery to me.


J.C.
 
That is an incredible leap of logic and has no basis in fact at all.
Click to expand...

Where is the leap of logic? Is it that the Founders wrote what they meant in the Second Amendment, even though they could have added the restrictions that you intuit? Or is it that A1.8.11 of the Constitution recognizes private ownership of weapons that your view of the Second Amendment excludes.
 
A different take on the debate?

This discussion I gather is about 922(o).

My personal objective: having 922(o) over-turned as unconstitutional! My desire is to also overturn the Washington State ban on machine guns. Given the above objectives, let me state at the outset that I have no concerns about private ownership of machine-guns (actually, automatic weapons) by law-abiding Americans and I long for the the pre-1934 era America.

The heart of the issue is the SA. And in the the SA the relevant clauses in my opinion are "keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed." I believe that these clauses forecloses any rational debate against my position, which I will now try to explain.

According to the Oxford dictionary of the two words I believe are often misunderstood are "bear" and "arms", according to the Oxford Dictionary of English from that era of the crafting and enacting of the BOR, "bear" simply meant to carry, and "arms" meant any weapon carried.

Thus by definition, "arms" means any weapon carried, thus edge weapons, knives, swords, axes, bow and arrow, spear, shield are all weapons. This also means M16s, G3s, M4s, BARs, M14s, M249s, MP5s, MP7s, UZIs, Thompsons, sub-machine guns, etc. Because based upon the fact that these are all shoulder fired, they "shall not be infringed."

So, what is not arms? Any munition (explosive, or explosive device) that is not deployed by being carried, for example missiles, nuclear weapons, artillery, aircraft, ships, etc. Since missiles are not generally shoulder fired, I would include LARS, and stinger missiles as not being arms, but given the meaning arms, they might be included. Machine guns BTW are crewed manned weapons that are generally mounted to be operated, and are intended for sustained automatic fire, unlike service rifles and sub-machines.

The problem for those that do *not* trust lawful private ownership of automatic weapons, is that they need to *invent* meanings or subscribed limitations to get around the very clear and simple meaning of the SA.

This situation IMHO, is no different that what the US Supreme Court has done to the 4A. We are experiencing death by a thousand cuts, as politics *invents* meanings that do not exist in the plain and simple language of the constitution in order to infringe on *our* rights* as guaranteed by the Constitution, after all it is only a piece a paper!

A movie that I believe is relevant to this discussion is Patriot. "Aim small, miss small." and "Who taught you all of those things? To ride, shoot and fight."

Speaking for myself for moment, growing up I was a military brat, my family tree is full of men and women who have served! Thus I've never had any apprehension about lawful civilian ownership of automatic weapons.

Criminals on the other hand, is exactly why this right is so dear to me and my family.

I've spoke my piece. :)
 
Last edited:
Oh, so it was their station in life that earned them the... privilege?... to own war ships? Hmm... that has the reek of elitist snobbery to me.
Click to expand...
No more like ability and skill and resources together.

Where is the leap of logic? Is it that the Founders wrote what they meant in the Second Amendment, even though they could have added the restrictions that you intuit? Or is it that A1.8.11 of the Constitution recognizes private ownership of weapons that your view of the Second Amendment excludes.
Click to expand...

The leap of logic is that you are taking two completely unrelated elements of the Constitution and splicing them together to make your case. Granting letters of Marque has nothing to do with the second amendment. The types of "arms" we are talking about did not exist in the 18th century. The arms carried by the civilian populace for hunting and protection was about the same as what the military carried. Mostly dictated by cost (hence civvies didn't carry pikes and bayonets) Also, the organized militia had to bring their own arms and ammo to the fight. Not so now.

So, what is not arms? Any munition (explosive, or explosive device that is not deployed by being carried, missiles, nuclear weapons, artillery, aircraft, ships, etc. Since missiles are not generally shoulder fired, I would include LARS, and stinger missiles as not being arms, but given the meaning arms, they might be included. Machine guns BTW are crewed manned weapons that are generally mounted to be operated, and are intended for sustained automatic fire, unlike service rifles and sub-machines.
Click to expand...

Don't understand your logic. The SA doesn't ban explosive devices and why exclude AT-4s and Stingers? I think you need to remain consistent; all should be allowed if you can "carry" them. Nukes can be carried also. You see YOU just as I am making a subjective decision about what arms are. That's why the "common use" test does much better for our cause. I doubt you will ever get public support to overturn the HFA and the courts aren't going to do it either so lets fight a battle we can win. All rights are limited.
 
We can agree to disagree, because I do not subscribe to a "living Constitution" approach, nor do I believe that the actions of Congress can supplant the Constitution (except through Article 5 amendments).
Click to expand...

How about Articles 1 section 2 and 4 section 2. Still think African Americans are considered three fifths of a person?
 
First off TG...watch the tones. The typings you make are starting to come across as arrogant and having the right answer for everything...see below.

Your compatriots have said that they feel the 2nd amendment allows them to carry any and evrything the US Army Infantry does.
Click to expand...

Not really, your pals here would do away with the NFA so no tax!
Click to expand...

As members of TFL, I think it is safe to assume that there is a general concensus of a right to keep and bear arms. Your issue, as well as most of us, is the degree to which that right extends, i.e. what weapons are allowed, what is considered reasonable, what happens when the technology changes, etc.

The only logical way for me to say we could find the answer is to look back into how the 2nd was written. What GoSlash says bears repeating...

It doesn't matter what *I* believe civillians "should" have. It doesn't matter what *you* believe civillians "should" have. Ultimately it doesn't even matter what the Justices themselves think civillians "should" have.

What matters is the letter and intent of the law. The question is "What did the folks who wrote and ratified that think we should have?"
Click to expand...

The justices and the courts in general are supposed to make these decisions based on the ways the law was written, not with personal bias, personal opinion, and/or current day beliefs.

If you do not think you can handle a machine gun or an M203 then don't buy one, but if it is prescribed in the Constitution as being a right of mine to have one, please don't infringe on that.

With today's constantly advancing technology, chemical, biological, explosives, etc. at the disposal of the Army and the rest of the world, it should be known that the reason this right was set forth in the BoR was to make sure this oppresive tyranny of a government did not happen again, it wasn't for the farmers who needed to hunt or the city slickers who needed protection from criminals, it was for the average person to be able to possess the weapons needed to defend themselves from ALL types of enemies, combatants, etc.

As a retired officer I was able to purchase a SIG for far less than what a civilian pays.
Click to expand...
And in regards to your SIG... how is that relevant at all? Other than "I'm one of the priviledged that gets state contract access to get benefits that you don't get?"
It has absolutely no bearing either for or against the citizen militia keeping and bearing arms, or the classes of arms to be borne by the citizen militia.
Click to expand...
No you said the weapons were expensive and I showed they were not.
Click to expand...

Maybe to you they are not, but that could change. If it cost you $5 per round for that SIG, it would surely prohibit your ease of having fun at the range.
 
Boring Accountant,
Sorry if I have offended you but this is an opinion board so people get offended I guess. I feel as do many other gun owners that we need to ease and ultimately erase the stigma of gun owners as a bunch of right wing, nonthinking nuts. The Heller case gives us a fantastic opportunity to establish finally that we have a right as individuals to keep and bear arms. That is a key concept because you say it is how the law was written but reality and truth say it is how the courts (not you or me) interpret the law. You can believe til doomsday that we have a right to own automatic weapons and stinger missiles but if the courts don't overturn the laws prohibiting those in civilian ownership then you are out of luck.
Then there is another court to be dealt with. That is the court of public opinion. Don't think that doesn't weigh into the court decisions! You and I had a little conversation a while back about getting into fistfights and fighting fair and whatnot. I condemned the idea of fighting (which I think has particular importance on a board like this) and told you then and do now that adults who engage in fistfights are dumb. A public perception that gun owners are a bunch of macho idiots hurts us and our cause. I am sure many will say they don't care what the public thinks but it is that public (and they outnumber us!) who will hurt us and take our rights in the end if we act silly and say crazy things. The courts will not help us either. I think Tom Gresham is making some real headway with his Guntalk program and I don't hear him advocating that we carry infantry weapons. That is where I want to go.
 
Sorry if I have offended you but this is an opinion board so people get offended I guess. I feel as do many other gun owners that we need to ease and ultimately erase the stigma of gun owners as a bunch of right wing, nonthinking nuts. The Heller case gives us a fantastic opportunity to establish finally that we have a right as individuals to keep and bear arms. That is a key concept because you say it is how the law was written but reality and truth say it is how the courts (not you or me) interpret the law. You can believe til doomsday that we have a right to own automatic weapons and stinger missiles but if the courts don't overturn the laws prohibiting those in civilian ownership then you are out of luck.
Then there is another court to be dealt with. That is the court of public opinion. Don't think that doesn't weigh into the court decisions! You and I had a little conversation a while back about getting into fistfights and fighting fair and whatnot. I condemned the idea of fighting (which I think has particular importance on a board like this) and told you then and do now that adults who engage in fistfights are dumb. A public perception that gun owners are a bunch of macho idiots hurts us and our cause. I am sure many will say I don't care what the public thinks but it is that public (and they outnumber us!) who will hurt us and take our rights in the end if we act silly and say crazy things. The courts will not help us either. I think Tom Gresham is making some real headway with his Guntalk program and I don't hear him advocating that we carry infantry weapons. That is where I want to go.
Click to expand...


You comments don't offend me, but I do take exception to the thought that we need to bow down and kiss a liberal's rear to erase this perception that owning guns, carrying guns and shooting guns is somehow wrong.
Call it macho, call it crazy call it whatever you like. But I own guns, shoot guns, carry guns and don't give a hoot if it offends someones sensibilities. Think my attitude "hurts the cause"? IMO not nearly as much as capitulating to a bunch of feminists and "men" with and extra X chromosone.



Almost forgot, put me in that crazy no limit group:rolleyes:
 
TG,

Dont worry, your comments don't offend me at all. I mean like you said its an opinion board, but I suspect part of the reason you are bringing this up is it is important to you and you want people to agree, back, be supportive of it. With that in mind, those of us who do not 100% agree with you, there is no need to resort to the comments you made, plain and simple. Am I offended, not in the least. Will write more later, Quitting TIME.
 
the reason this right was set forth in the BoR was ... for the average person to be able to possess the weapons needed to defend themselves from ALL types of enemies
Click to expand...
I don't see how that's right ... for the average person to be able to defend himself against any enemy would require a private military force. The requests for the Second Amendment ended with the assertion "that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power". I don't see how we can construe that to mean that the intent was for every individual to have his own military power.
 
The anti's take on this:

Anti Gun Hysteria


A sign of the mayhem ahead if the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling that sweeps away the right of states to enact gun control can be found in Kansas
...

But without the right of states to prohibit such sales, we would be – hypothetically – returning to the days of Al Capone style shootouts with automatic weapons. This would not just be devastating to citizens; it would severely increase the risks to our police officers

...

The potential availability of machine guns to just about any American is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right; it’s a recipe for carnage on a scale that we have yet to see.

Just look at what’s happening in Kansas and hope that the Supreme Court applies some common sense when it comes to our Constitutional right to be protected from gun madness.
Click to expand...
 
Frankly, as I read this debate, I find myself wanting to repeat the following words; "keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed."

Any ban is an infringement. I don't think I need to say more.

Now, if the conversation is about regulation, that is a different kettle of fish. But, regulation can not under the SA include a ban.

If you want to ban any class of arms, the solution is simple, propose a constitutional amendment, get the senate, house and enough state legislatures to agree and you can ban anything you want.

Until then, the words like "need", "purpose of use", and even "military" and "militia" have no place in the conversation, and are not rational given the SA as it is written today!

That I believe is at the heart of this debate, people are not comfortable with the meaning of the SA and seek to limit it by trying to reinterpreting the SA.

IMHO, that is just silliness.

I really believe this issue is that simple.

:D
 
TN Gent,

You answered one of my two questions. The other was: do you think it was unreasonable for the Founders of our country to want to own serious military hardware like cannons outside of the control or wishes of the government?

Your answer kind of implies that you do, since you believe it was reasonable for the British to want to disarm the colonists, but I did not want to make that assumption without asking for clarification. So, will you answer the second question?
 
But without the right of states to prohibit such sales, we would be – hypothetically – returning to the days of Al Capone style shootouts with automatic weapons. This would not just be devastating to citizens; it would severely increase the risks to our police officers
Click to expand...

What is it with people who think machine guns are so dangerous, or machine gun owners will be so reckless? The 160,000 machine guns in civilian circulation have caused no such problems, and it has been pointed out that you can generally kill more people with an AR-15 than an M-16 on burst mode because the M-16 is harder to control and will run out of ammo faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top