The Unlimited Right to Bear Arms

That being the case, I believe that the court ducked the issue and wordsmithed their way to a decision.
Click to expand...
The real story is somewhat more depressing.

By the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court, Miller had died and his lawyer could not make the trip to DC in the time allotted. As such, the government argued their case without any opposition.

Justice McReynolds was assigned to write the opinion. McReynolds was known (among other things) for being somewhat lazy and terse. He had to hammer out something, so he left us with the Miller opinion. He didn't seem to care that he was setting an important constitutional precedent.
 
They had NO way of knowing what kind of firepower we would create in the 21'st century, if they had I do certainly believe they would have written 2A very differently, but I think the basic premise of being armed to facilitate personal protection from criminals and tyranny would have ended up the same.
Click to expand...

Its an interesting quagmire but alas, "all tyranny," would be that from a government, or people; and not limited to the Government of The United States. If the 2nd Amendment was to arm people to defend against tyrrany, than you would have to accept that any future weaponry of tyrrany would need to be defended against, and the 2nd Amendment would therefore arm people to take such action. I'm sure nobody imagined gas, warplanes, nuclear weapons, etc. However, keep in mind that they did imagine a world with many governments, and intended the United States to be defended by its people.

The problem is a modern one. Obviously, despite what the intention of the 2nd Amendment may have been, any logical and sane person must admit, that we can not allow the proliferation of WMD's. There is no way to argue that an average citizen of any sort should have such weaponry, when we are a species so rife with mental illness; and such a propensity for violence.
 
I see no reason the average citizen shouldn't have access to Apache's, tanks, howitzers, etc.

However, as these are (in my opinion) merely upheld by the spirit of the second amendment and not by the law of it, I feel like a compromise can be made. Give us suppressors and open the NFA automatic weapon registry. Explosives can stay on the NFA list. Remove the tax on each round of ammo and replace it with a bulk tax -- a single stamp for a transfer of one launcher and ammo, or one shipment of ammo. Allow us to file NFA machinegun and destructive device tax stamps on vehicle and weapon mounted vehicles. Perhaps do random inspections of all "war devices" (artillery, tanks, etc.) to ensure proper safety requirements are met.

But give us our suppressors, give us our "high capacity" magazines, recognize that open carry is a constitutional right and allow states to decide if they want licensing for concealed carry. Re-open the NFA machine gun registry to stop the asinine artificial scarcity that's been created.
 
Really nasty is the fact the federal government uses US tax dollars to buy machine guns for people who are not even citizens... Perhaps we can stop that policy?
 
Interesting that the modern sporting rifle defense of the AR platform is demonizing full auto guns.

I saw a gun advocate on the tube doing just that this morning.

IMHO, if you argue that folks should have Apaches or Carl Gustav's - from a PR POV you move into a category like the Libertarians who want to legalize heroin or meth. It won't sell to the public and that proposal trickles down to weaken support for other progun measures.
 
PR POV you move into a category like the Libertarians who want to legalize heroin or meth. It won't sell to the public and that proposal trickles down to weaken support for other progun measures.
Click to expand...

I'm Libertarian. I'm registered to vote that way...

Just keep in mind that the legalization of all drugs will decimate the infrastructure that holds together transnational criminal organizations, national gangs, and local gangs; thereby causing massive decreases in gang violence.

There are other points behind drug legalization, but the above is very strong and not too far off topic.

If you remove gang violence, than you can safely do away with the National Firearms Act. Could you not? The purpose of the NFA was to regulate what are considered gangster weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act


( Hopefully I was able to tie Libertarianism, drug legalization, and automatic weapons together in a way that was still on topic. ) I hope this makes a little sense to people... I know its somewhat of a confusing issue.
 
The basic Libertarian concept is let people do what they want, and accept the cost of the consequences. It's the price of Liberty.

And I'm fine with that, provided you don't make me pay for the consequences of other people's stupidity.

That's not the system we have running right now, a lot of people are not willing to let (or force, depending on your point of view) people pay the cost for their actions.

We have become so wedded to the concept of the "cost to society" about so much, and we justify what is, essentially tyranny because of it. It is most tyranny in small things, but not always.

People make a big deal about "we don't want everyone" to have Fighter jets, tanks, RPGs, bombs, etc., as if these things are given out like candy on Halloween. They say "everyone" but what they mean is "anyone".
 
IMHO, if you argue that folks should have Apaches or Carl Gustav's - from a PR POV you move into a category like the Libertarians who want to legalize heroin or meth. It won't sell to the public and that proposal trickles down to weaken support for other progun measures.
Click to expand...
Agree.

The idea being that type of expanded freedom in weapon aquisition up to military grade is a drastic over reach and will do nothing but weaken the "Need" for citizens to protect themselves with reasonable weapons( not missles, tanks, etc.). Keeping the fight within a defendable perameter and not aligning with such unreasonable things as an Apache loaded with functioning military grade missiles makes pure sense.

Whether you believe ( or it is fact) that the intent of the second amendment was legally intended for all states from the beginning or it was given/defended later by the Supreme Court, the truth still remains that people have a need to hunt and to defend themselves from harm. Because of that need we have the rights in many places to do so. Some places more than others, and those rights need to be defended (even expanded to other states). Better done with one voice than many voices with many differing opinions such as Apaches, Howitzers that don't fit into the fight in a positive light nor in the majority of second amendment supporters. Stay focused, stay united.

They had NO way of knowing what kind of firepower we would create in the 21'st century, if they had I do certainly believe they would have written 2A very differently,
Click to expand...
Many laws are written for the current and foreseeable future. Without truly knowing what it would be like would have never changed the amendment of the time. Keep in mind, they wrote laws that allowed changes needed or preferred in the furture to be possible. Therefore the future could adapt or change it to suit the needs of the people at that time.

We tend to speak about the "intent of the Founders" as if they all agreed. But it's hard to believe that they all did agree. Fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1786-87. Thirty-nine signed the proposed Constitution. Thirteen left without signing, and three refused to sign.
Click to expand...
Not all in agreement, the signing would be the same as a vote of support by the majority. Reguardless of the 16 not signing, only 3 refused, the majority still agreed. I think the "Intent of the Founders" was depending on the "Vote". There rarely is a case where all agree, therefore being a country founded on the freedom of the people to vote (Democracy), we often see the majority as the intent of the people. Same goes for the Founders.

If you mean to change the context of the reference to be more factualy identifiable among all I guess we would need to state/refer to it as "the intent of the majority of the founders" but where is the point? That the "intention of the majority" isn't the same as the "intent of all" ? Kind of lost me on the value of the point .:confused:
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
IMHO, if you argue that folks should have Apaches or Carl Gustav's - from a PR POV you move into a category like the Libertarians who want to legalize heroin or meth. It won't sell to the public and that proposal trickles down to weaken support for other progun measures.
Click to expand...

I think there is ample space between a radically libertarian view of the right detached from context and history, and rejection of arguments in defense of some facet of a civil right because the public will not like it.

There is certainly a difference between advocacy and understanding. When someone expresses an understanding that the right should protect possession of whatever is in an individual soldier's range of equipment, dismissing that understanding as bad public relations is an error even if it is actually bad PR.

My sense is that there is a genre of argument on these pages in which one party means to discuss PR, while the other is trying to figure out a reasonable reading of the Amendment. The parties cannot find agreement because they are discussing two different matters.
 
Since the interpretations of the amendments and the Constitution are part of the social context, the issues are related.

While some folks (shall not be ...) think the 2nd is a physical law of the universe, it is subject to interpretation. A slight change in justices and Heller would have been quite the horror show for the RKBA.

The PR aspect of pushing for tanks, full auto and bazookas is quite relevant. Those who want to talk the abstract make that mistake.
 
Zuki gets it.

And yes, Glenn, they are related, and so fit topics in a general discussion about our rights. But there is a difference between what we feel our rights ought to be, what they actually are in the real world, and what is "politic" in discussing the abstract with those who have no opinion, or a differing opinion.

Most here recognize the difference between the libertarian ideal and what is practical, or possible. Outside of the gun culture, few do, at least on the subject of arms.

Stand on the street corner (although today I suppose it would be "tweet"), and say we have a fundamental right to tanks, machineguns, RPGs, jets, etc., and you will instantly be labeled a total nutcase, and nothing else you say will be listened to. I get that. And I get that, while discussing it is a valid philosophical point, being (at best) labeled a nutcase, does nothing to help our cause, and quite often the reverse.

So, where do we go now, in the discussion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top