What 2A restrictions (if any) do you support and why?
- Thread starter efgf
- Start date
When?
copenhagen
New member
They should be. I have 66 acres in SC where I could have a helluva lot of fun making craters in my woods with AT4's and LAAW's. 4th of July and New Years would gain a whole new meaning!!!!! 
Might I add, I am not joking, I do think they should be legal. Existing laws need to be enforced. Yeah, you know the ones I'm talking about. The ones against homicide? One could cause just as much damage with a completely legal bulldozer as with an AT4. It probably wouldn't be as fun, but hey... Who knows?
Might I add, I am not joking, I do think they should be legal. Existing laws need to be enforced. Yeah, you know the ones I'm talking about. The ones against homicide? One could cause just as much damage with a completely legal bulldozer as with an AT4. It probably wouldn't be as fun, but hey... Who knows?I see. So I guess that our legal definitions of libel and slander, as well as murder, assault, ADW, kidnapping, et cetera, ad naseum were all handed down to Moses by God?Pat H said:
So, in the distant future when someone invents a plant-cracking bomb, your grandchildren will have an absolute, unfettered, uncontrolled, unrestricted right to have one in their foyer? Excuse me... only if they're rich & elite enough to own one? *snort*Pat H said:
So you'd be perfectly comfortable and not lose any sleep if your neighbor had one of those leaky old Atlas rockets laying on his property complete with that cranky Rocketdyne LR89 engine and W-3 warhead (3.75 MT range)? I'd personally hate to live near a 200,000 lb flying fuel tank that was always leaking LOX and Kerosene.
What's that? It infringes on your safety or that of your family? Think again. He has a right to own it and the gov't can't restrict his possession of it, so you've said.
I didn't say you couldn't own one. I just said it would not be protected as a "militia weapon". You want one, go buy it, subject to FAA regulations (which prohibits weaponry).mvpel said:
I think we're getting too far afield here. The basic premise that you can own a thermonuclear weapon, a 500-lb JDAM, ICBM, claymore or even an RPG under the guise of it being a "militia arms" is an exercise in something less than mature wisdom.
All of your arguments are those of utility, as such, cannot be tolerated as justifications for the state to limit a right. Your argument can also be seen as a ad Populum.
Wildalaska
Moderator
reductio ad absurdum
WildwhydowegivehimaplatformAlaska TM
Does anyone remember reading a piece comparing arguments against 2A to 1A.
Went something like: When our founding fathers wrote the bill of rights the idea of high speed communications was a quick horse. They couldn't have envisioned modern assault presses and high speed internet able to disseminate vast volumes of information at the stroke of a key.
It was a fun read. It went on, but I can't find the article. Anyone have it?
Went something like: When our founding fathers wrote the bill of rights the idea of high speed communications was a quick horse. They couldn't have envisioned modern assault presses and high speed internet able to disseminate vast volumes of information at the stroke of a key.
It was a fun read. It went on, but I can't find the article. Anyone have it?
One thing I oppose is laws stripping certain categories of people of their
2A rights. A professor of Constutional Law pointed out to me that the US
Constitution does NOT proved for forfeiture of rights-the government cannot
strip a native born citizen of their citizenship-and I will not tolerate a 2A
exception. If we are going to strip people of their 2A rights then it should be written into the Constitution as part of a general forfeiture of rights clause.
Someone who has a criminal record does not forfeit his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, his right to a fair trial, etc., etc., etc.
2A rights. A professor of Constutional Law pointed out to me that the US
Constitution does NOT proved for forfeiture of rights-the government cannot
strip a native born citizen of their citizenship-and I will not tolerate a 2A
exception. If we are going to strip people of their 2A rights then it should be written into the Constitution as part of a general forfeiture of rights clause.
Someone who has a criminal record does not forfeit his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, his right to a fair trial, etc., etc., etc.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Where would you like me to start? The snide remarks about Government Schools? the misconstrued, twisted or simply wrong expositions of history? The agenda driven analysis? The net commandoing? The conspiratorial weltanshauung? The denigration of the rule of law? The lack of legal knowledge?
Reductio ad absurdum is easy enough in the typical 2ndA argument here. Thats what it ends up as. I'll be so happy when the Supreme Court rules, even though I doubt it will quiet those who feel that they are the only source of wisdom as to what this country means, stands for and the philosophy it was founded upon.
WilddidyaseeeduardobreakhislegagainstBirminghamAlaska TM
I think to answer this question we need to remember the purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. It was put there to guarantee that we could forcible resist their government if it became intolerably oppressive. Many weapons are useless for this purpose and are only suitable for use by one nation against another or as a deterrent against international aggression.
Nuclear arms cannot be used to guarantee freedom. If We The People had private nukes or other WMDs, then we could NOT use them to free ourselves from a tyrannical government without killing many innocent people.
Similar considerations hold for other weapons that, while not nearly as powerful as nukes or as insidious as biological weapons, necessarily endanger the innocent through their very use or possession. We DO have a right to bear arms, but not when those arms are of such a nature that their very use would definitely violate other people's right to live.
I think the line should be drawn like this: we have the right to own weapons that can be used without a high danger of collateral damage and that would be necessary or useful in a guerrilla uprising against tyranny in our own land. In other words, we have the right to own whatever weapons we might need to defend our freedom. Once we're disarmed below that threshold, we're screwed forever and ever.
Weapons that fulfill this need change with the development of technology. With the current state of art in weapons, I'd say we have the right to own the following at a minimum:
sniper rifles in powerful calibers
semi-auto rifles (we have a right to select-fire weapons also, but actually having them is far from crucial IMHO)
shotguns
handguns
suppressors
high-cap magazines
armor-piercing ammunition, at least for rifles (this will be VERY important in the future -- if you have some, don't shoot it, save it!)
any body armor available to LE and the military
night vision and thermal optics
Nuclear arms cannot be used to guarantee freedom. If We The People had private nukes or other WMDs, then we could NOT use them to free ourselves from a tyrannical government without killing many innocent people.
Similar considerations hold for other weapons that, while not nearly as powerful as nukes or as insidious as biological weapons, necessarily endanger the innocent through their very use or possession. We DO have a right to bear arms, but not when those arms are of such a nature that their very use would definitely violate other people's right to live.
I think the line should be drawn like this: we have the right to own weapons that can be used without a high danger of collateral damage and that would be necessary or useful in a guerrilla uprising against tyranny in our own land. In other words, we have the right to own whatever weapons we might need to defend our freedom. Once we're disarmed below that threshold, we're screwed forever and ever.
Weapons that fulfill this need change with the development of technology. With the current state of art in weapons, I'd say we have the right to own the following at a minimum:
sniper rifles in powerful calibers
semi-auto rifles (we have a right to select-fire weapons also, but actually having them is far from crucial IMHO)
shotguns
handguns
suppressors
high-cap magazines
armor-piercing ammunition, at least for rifles (this will be VERY important in the future -- if you have some, don't shoot it, save it!)
any body armor available to LE and the military
night vision and thermal optics
Federalist 29, "Concerning the Militia"
Hamilton, the embodiment of mainstream big government in his day, intended that the federal government be simply unable to field an army that could be any threat to the armed citizenry. Obviously, that intent has gone out the window.
I again suggest that we look to the USSR occupation of Afghanistan to see what sorts of weapons are needed by a modern local militia resisting a modern tyrannical army. I repeat, we gave them shoulder launched missiles to take out helicopters and tanks. In addition to the things on SteelCore's list, applying the 2A to those types of weapons seems to me in line with the intent that we be able to defend ourselves against an invading army or our own federal standing army, if that should one day prove necessary and prudent.
Of course, by the time that day comes, today's shoulder launched missiles might be as effective as a slingshot against future modern armies, so I'd say the 2A, like the 1st and the 4th, should change with technology.
Hamilton, the embodiment of mainstream big government in his day, intended that the federal government be simply unable to field an army that could be any threat to the armed citizenry. Obviously, that intent has gone out the window.
I again suggest that we look to the USSR occupation of Afghanistan to see what sorts of weapons are needed by a modern local militia resisting a modern tyrannical army. I repeat, we gave them shoulder launched missiles to take out helicopters and tanks. In addition to the things on SteelCore's list, applying the 2A to those types of weapons seems to me in line with the intent that we be able to defend ourselves against an invading army or our own federal standing army, if that should one day prove necessary and prudent.
Of course, by the time that day comes, today's shoulder launched missiles might be as effective as a slingshot against future modern armies, so I'd say the 2A, like the 1st and the 4th, should change with technology.
The Federal Government's powers derive from, and were delegated to it, by the Citizens of the Several States which founded said government for the purpose of protecting our fundamental rights.
If the Federal Government has the authority to build, possess, and detonate nuclear weapons, that authority came from nowhere other than we the people. It can't have come from anywhere else. Saying that private citizens can be barred from peaceable ownership of nuclear weaponry is to say that the slave is superior to the master.
If the Federal Government has the authority to build, possess, and detonate nuclear weapons, that authority came from nowhere other than we the people. It can't have come from anywhere else. Saying that private citizens can be barred from peaceable ownership of nuclear weaponry is to say that the slave is superior to the master.
Pat H said:
No, they are not. Read again and tell me how 1st Amendment-limiting crimes like slander and libel were defined.
You can, constitutionally, lose your right to vote for participation in rebellion, or other crime (Am XIV Sec 2). States have prohibited felons from having firearms, voting, holding public offices and engaging in certain occupations - although some states allow restoration of rights after sentence completion which may remove the liability under 18 U.S.C.SS 922(g)(1) for a felon with a firearm. Other states, such as Mass. do not completely restore rights (see US v Oman).
I also find your "professor's" thinking flawed, for according to him we may not strip a citizen of his liberty either. That means we cannot incarerate criminals nor execute persons for even the foulest of crimes. So ask him, again, how the government can incarcerate criminals if they cannot be stripped of some of their rights.
A number of members here take the absolutist position that 2A rights cannot be infringed in any manner at all. Zip, zero, zilch. No restrictions or red-tape involved. The problem I see with this position is it results in claims ad absurdum that any regulations, such as requiring a W-3 nuclear warhead to be stored in a licensed facility, or storing missles in munition bunkers, are "infringments". And I don't buy any kind of slippery slope arguments claiming that allowing limitations on WMDs or munitions warheads will result in neighborhoods overrun by UN troops rappelling out of black helicopters. :barf:
Slander and libel aren't crimes, they're damages inflicted on one person by another, and if successfully litigated, can result in payment of restitution for damages sustained. They aren't limitations upon a right from external sources, such as a government, they're limitations intrinsic to rights. Again, no right grants authority to infringe on the rights of another. That includes damage upon property, which either slander or libel can accomplish.
The right to vote is actually a privilege as is holding an office in government. As I've pointed out, privileges may be suspended or eliminated by government. The restrictions upon convicted felons, who've completed their sentence (probation is a part of a sentence), is unConstitutional and a violation of the Second Amendment.
No, none of that is true. One is not granted the authority to violate the rights of others as a part of the rights possessed. Punishment for violating the rights of others is a long held part of rights. This is not an external limitation on rights, it is an intrinsic part of a or any right.
This is the fallacy known as Ignoratio Elenchi, a conclusion based on an irrelevancy.
Arguments based on utility are unConstitutional grants of power with which most of us are familiar. There is no known "sporting purpose" of a 20mm cannon, therefore all 20mm cannons may be restricted, and their ammunition taxed individually per cartridge. 20mm cannon, even those originally built as semi-automatics, were restricted by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Today, we're hearing the same talk about .50 caliber weapons and ammunition; and even about scope equipped rifles, referred to by the Gun Confiscation Lobby as "high powered sniper rifles".
Your attackers right to life does not include the right to take something from you by force. You may use sufficient force against your attacker to stop the attack, but no more. That the level of force required may be lethal to the attacker is the risk the attacker assumed when the decision to attack someone was made. That concept is the basis from which current law regarding self defense originates. It's not a new concept.
Thanks, PatH. I just wanted your confirmation that your rule about rights did not apply strictly when two fundamental rights were in conflict.
Thankfully, I can't think of any fundamental rights that are inherently in conflict with the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.
Thankfully, I can't think of any fundamental rights that are inherently in conflict with the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson
The rights enumerated in the BoR were intended to be absolute. They were to be secure from usurptions by congress, and an over-bearing majority. The 2nd, thanks to the Militia observation, also secures the right to arms from infringements by the several States.
The 5th amendment explains how these absolute and unalienable rights were to be suspended - via due process - period. Keeps those in power from arbitrarily abusing the people by depriving them of their rights, by preventing those in charge from declaring anyone they deem unworthy of constitutional privilege -in this case, it keeps them from arbitrarily DISarming the people.
I have no problem with violent felons being deprived rights in such a manner - it serves as a further deterent to committing crimes. Those with mental illness, if too dangerous to own guns, are too dangerous to be in public - too many other ways to kill or hurt someone besides using guns. Guns aren't the problem. In the mean-time - if the people want to have a process in place that is similiar to due process to deny such people certain rights - then OK.
Arms in the 2nd refers to:
1) those arms and accoutrements a citizen could readily provide himself for militia duty - military arms in common use that he could keep and bear...select-fire rifles, shotguns, SAWs, sniper rifles, pistols, bayonets, magazines, ammo, knives and etc., all subject to guidelines layed down by congress to ensure standards for efficiency - i.e. certain calibers. Personal and effective arms applicable for military & law enforcement duty.
and 2) a broader group of personal arms/firearms that could effectively be used for self-defense and private use - all those arms as above, with no limits on caliber or style. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, FA, SA, bolt, pump, handgrips, barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, lugs, &c. &c. as well as knives and similiar weapons.
The right to bear arms is secured for using those arms for any reason, like all private property, as long as the USE of that right does not infringe on the rights of others. Also allows for concealed carry. It is the misuse of rights that get regulated, not the means to enjoy that right. "Gun free zones" and "gun bans" are unconstitutional.
It was clearly the intent of the 2nd amendment that the people always be able to out-gun the forces of the govt - the standing army. These days too many feel making the army subject to "cilivian control" makes that idea obsolete. Bull - the civilians in charge ARE the would-be tyrants.
It was the intent of the constitution that there never be a large standing army, and that there would always be the well armed, well trained state militias made of the body of the people to defend our liberties. Since all these ideals have gone by the wayside, since the people have chosen to trust the standing army, and have allowed usurptions to make their role in the militia obsolete, some consideration must be made to how this impacts the intent of the constitution. The system of govt has been changed. And the ability for the people to out-gun the army has far broader considerations then originally intended.
No doubt the right to arms is still secured, and restrictions on arms other then those described above are possible, but should be subject to strict scrutiny.
A lot hinges on understanding of terminology
And on that, we are not, sadly, all on the same page. I do see things somewhat differently than most, and feel free to disagree with my conclusions, as long as we agree on the actual meaning of the words we use.
Our so called 2nd Amendment right is what I call a natural right. Others use the term fundamental, but I prefer the term "natural" so as to infer the image of something existing from the basic fact that we exist in nature. All creatures, animal and plant defend themselves in some fashion or other. It is a natural right. No agreement by men, no law, nothing, changes this. We all have a natural right to defend ourselves from harm. Guns are the most effective and efficient means of doing so yet developed by the mind of man through technology. They are our teeth, claws, horns, or spines for defense, and any law attempting to prohibit them is a clear violation of our natural right, just as any law forbidding the lion its claws or the elk its antlers is a violation of natural order.
That being said, I will opine that our society, acting through government has valid justification to deny individuals their ability to exercise the natural right of being armed under certain conditions. We have long accepted the denial of liberty as punishment for a variety of crimes, and we have long accepted the denial of arms to those demonstrated to be incompetant (just as we deny them sharp objects and fire) and denial of arms to those proven to deliberately harm others. We cannot remove the right to arms, we did not grant it. What we do is prohibit the exercise of the right. You can call it removing/revoking your right, but I don't think that those are the proper terms. And using improper terms tends to lead one's arguments astray.
So, I do not support the principle of any restrictions on the ownership of any weapons, up to and including nukes. If you can afford them, go ahead. Understand that along with my support of unresticted ownership I do recognise the government has legitimate authority to regulate the public use of arms outside of personal defense. And that is where most of the arguments break down. One side or the other (usually the anti side) automatically assumes that ownership equals unrestricted public use, and when it comes to larger weapons (such as explosives) they assume their mere existance in private hands constitutes a clear and persent danger to society. Yet they fail to realize that it is individuals, no different that you or I that manage these weapons for our common good, all over our nation, and around the world. The mere fact that they wear a uniform does not make them saints incapable of evil or of error, any more than the fact that I do not (currently) wear one make me a careless ravening monster, a danger to myself and the world at large, who must not be permitted access to anything more than a rifle (if that) for the public good. People are either sane, stable individuals, or they are not, and if you can trust 18 year olds with machineguns and even nuclear weapons, all provided at government expense, how is it unreasonable for those same individuals to be trusted with the same items if they aquire them at their own expense?
Everybody goes off the handle, even hardcore supporters of gun rights when nuclear weapons are added to the argument, but I say, so what? The principle remains the same. If you want a nuke, fine. Build one. And if you do, I'm ok with you owning it. because if you actually can build one, from scratch, I doubt that you would use it irresposibly.
When arguers say "does that mean you can own nukes", well that right there is a semantics trap. Say yes, and the classify you as an irresposible nutcase, who thinks it is just fine for a street punk to have a nuke, with the risk to all of us from that. That is not the case. You can't just go down to the Sportsmans Warehouse and buy a nuclear weapon. Just because I agree that your right to arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment covers nukes as well, because as American citizens we have the right to "every terrible weapon of the soldier", doesn't mean that nukes must be sold to the general public on demand. Or any other arms for that matter. We have no "right" to be provided with any and all arms of our choosing, only that the government cannot, and should not deny us our ability to own such things, if we have the ability to aquire them. And if you say that no, our right don't extend to nukes, then you are admitting that there are limits to our right of ownership of inanimate objects. Not because of what they are, solely because of what we might do with them.
The nuke argument is a drastic extreme, and by no means a practical one, but the point is, if you can find your own source of special nuclear material legally, fabricate your own device, then you have the right to own it. Nukes are a special case, as no nuke was developed by a private firm, for sale to the public, Special Nuclear Material is owned by the government, and they have every right not to sell them to us, should they so choose. And they do so choose. Buy your nuclear material from elsewhere? Fine, as long as you comply with current laws (so basically, you can't do it). Govt doesn't sell them as surplus, so while you have technically a right to own one, you can't buy one legally, so unless you build one, you aren't going to get one. So this argument is useless, and nothing more than an emotional distraction to take the argument to that extreme.
As to the other large weapons, artillery and such, private citizens have owned them in the past, and some still do. Govt regulates the ammo (because of the explosives) but actually they could give a rip about the guns themselves. After all, without the shells, they are just military lawn ornaments.
You and I have a right to own such property as we wish, covered not only by the 2nd Amendment but also by our right of pursuit of happiness. Certainly you cannot use your right to harm others, but short of that, why should it matter? But you do not, in the eyes of the govt, have the right to harm yourself, even if that is your particular path to happiness. Isn't it odd how somethings may be considered as fundamental/God given/natural rights, but only to the point where they conflict with the social norms? And the social norms do change over time.
Today, you have the recognised legal right to own property that was banned in the past, and are banned from owning property that was legal and unrestricted in the past. I wonder what, if anything, we will have a "right" to own tomorrow?
And on that, we are not, sadly, all on the same page. I do see things somewhat differently than most, and feel free to disagree with my conclusions, as long as we agree on the actual meaning of the words we use.
Our so called 2nd Amendment right is what I call a natural right. Others use the term fundamental, but I prefer the term "natural" so as to infer the image of something existing from the basic fact that we exist in nature. All creatures, animal and plant defend themselves in some fashion or other. It is a natural right. No agreement by men, no law, nothing, changes this. We all have a natural right to defend ourselves from harm. Guns are the most effective and efficient means of doing so yet developed by the mind of man through technology. They are our teeth, claws, horns, or spines for defense, and any law attempting to prohibit them is a clear violation of our natural right, just as any law forbidding the lion its claws or the elk its antlers is a violation of natural order.
That being said, I will opine that our society, acting through government has valid justification to deny individuals their ability to exercise the natural right of being armed under certain conditions. We have long accepted the denial of liberty as punishment for a variety of crimes, and we have long accepted the denial of arms to those demonstrated to be incompetant (just as we deny them sharp objects and fire) and denial of arms to those proven to deliberately harm others. We cannot remove the right to arms, we did not grant it. What we do is prohibit the exercise of the right. You can call it removing/revoking your right, but I don't think that those are the proper terms. And using improper terms tends to lead one's arguments astray.
So, I do not support the principle of any restrictions on the ownership of any weapons, up to and including nukes. If you can afford them, go ahead. Understand that along with my support of unresticted ownership I do recognise the government has legitimate authority to regulate the public use of arms outside of personal defense. And that is where most of the arguments break down. One side or the other (usually the anti side) automatically assumes that ownership equals unrestricted public use, and when it comes to larger weapons (such as explosives) they assume their mere existance in private hands constitutes a clear and persent danger to society. Yet they fail to realize that it is individuals, no different that you or I that manage these weapons for our common good, all over our nation, and around the world. The mere fact that they wear a uniform does not make them saints incapable of evil or of error, any more than the fact that I do not (currently) wear one make me a careless ravening monster, a danger to myself and the world at large, who must not be permitted access to anything more than a rifle (if that) for the public good. People are either sane, stable individuals, or they are not, and if you can trust 18 year olds with machineguns and even nuclear weapons, all provided at government expense, how is it unreasonable for those same individuals to be trusted with the same items if they aquire them at their own expense?
Everybody goes off the handle, even hardcore supporters of gun rights when nuclear weapons are added to the argument, but I say, so what? The principle remains the same. If you want a nuke, fine. Build one. And if you do, I'm ok with you owning it. because if you actually can build one, from scratch, I doubt that you would use it irresposibly.
When arguers say "does that mean you can own nukes", well that right there is a semantics trap. Say yes, and the classify you as an irresposible nutcase, who thinks it is just fine for a street punk to have a nuke, with the risk to all of us from that. That is not the case. You can't just go down to the Sportsmans Warehouse and buy a nuclear weapon. Just because I agree that your right to arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment covers nukes as well, because as American citizens we have the right to "every terrible weapon of the soldier", doesn't mean that nukes must be sold to the general public on demand. Or any other arms for that matter. We have no "right" to be provided with any and all arms of our choosing, only that the government cannot, and should not deny us our ability to own such things, if we have the ability to aquire them. And if you say that no, our right don't extend to nukes, then you are admitting that there are limits to our right of ownership of inanimate objects. Not because of what they are, solely because of what we might do with them.
The nuke argument is a drastic extreme, and by no means a practical one, but the point is, if you can find your own source of special nuclear material legally, fabricate your own device, then you have the right to own it. Nukes are a special case, as no nuke was developed by a private firm, for sale to the public, Special Nuclear Material is owned by the government, and they have every right not to sell them to us, should they so choose. And they do so choose. Buy your nuclear material from elsewhere? Fine, as long as you comply with current laws (so basically, you can't do it). Govt doesn't sell them as surplus, so while you have technically a right to own one, you can't buy one legally, so unless you build one, you aren't going to get one. So this argument is useless, and nothing more than an emotional distraction to take the argument to that extreme.
As to the other large weapons, artillery and such, private citizens have owned them in the past, and some still do. Govt regulates the ammo (because of the explosives) but actually they could give a rip about the guns themselves. After all, without the shells, they are just military lawn ornaments.
You and I have a right to own such property as we wish, covered not only by the 2nd Amendment but also by our right of pursuit of happiness. Certainly you cannot use your right to harm others, but short of that, why should it matter? But you do not, in the eyes of the govt, have the right to harm yourself, even if that is your particular path to happiness. Isn't it odd how somethings may be considered as fundamental/God given/natural rights, but only to the point where they conflict with the social norms? And the social norms do change over time.
Today, you have the recognised legal right to own property that was banned in the past, and are banned from owning property that was legal and unrestricted in the past. I wonder what, if anything, we will have a "right" to own tomorrow?