Another big day for gun owners and the 2nd Amendment

[oly884]

http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Cheese]

So I guess it is time to get that 460 for CCW?

Good news all around compared to what else is on the horizon.

[Good Times]

too bad this can't apply to me since getting a ccw in LA county is virtually impossible. but this is great news regardless!!!

now if they can legalize loaded open carry that'll be awesome too :)

[MTL_4runner]

Good news all around compared to what else is on the horizon.


Gun sales are way up if that's any indication. :D

[RobG]

too bad this can't apply to me since getting a ccw in LA county is virtually impossible. but this is great news regardless!!!

now if they can legalize loaded open carry that'll be awesome too :)


You can ccw in your campsite so there is some relevance. you can also ccw while fishing (not sure why) so just have a license and carry your pole with you.

With how crowded some of the NP campsites are I'm not sure this makes me feel safer.

[Good Times]

The best thing about this new rule is that this will go in effect before Obama takes office and overturning the rule could take months or even years since it will require Obama's administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process!! :D

[dropzone]

hopefully our new leader doesn't invoke too many executive orders in his first few days...

[calrockx]

alright gun nuts, if you caught the press conference today, you saw obama address the issue of guns.

[RobG]

alright gun nuts, if you caught the press conference today, you saw obama address the issue of guns.


So I missed it and don't see anything obvious on CNN, what did he say?

[oly884]

alright gun nuts, if you caught the press conference today, you saw obama address the issue of guns.


Link please?

And really give us a break, do you expect any of us to believe that Obama is going to protect our gun rights? Does his voting record reflect a pro-gun or an anti-gun individual?

Yup, that's what I thought.

[fustercluck]

CHICAGO (AFP) – President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that lawful gun owners have "nothing to fear" from his incoming administration so there is no reason for Americans to stock up on guns.

Gun shops across the country have reported increased sales amid fears that Obama intends to restrict gun sales after taking office on January 20.

While Obama supports gun control, he has repeatedly denied any intention of "taking away folks' guns."

The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the second amendment of the US constitution and gun control is a hot-button political issue.

"I believe in common sense gun safety law, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a press conference Sunday.

"And so, lawful gun owners have nothing to fear.

"I've said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition, and I think that people can take me at my word."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081207/pl_afp/uspoliticsobamaguns_081207211456



I think I understand this man now. It's not what he says that should alarm, it's what he DOESN'T say. What is 'common sense gun safety'? He states he will not take away guns, but has endorsed legislation which makes them impotent or even practically impossible to use. There is a bill waiting to be signed that places a 500% tax on all guns sales and ammunition. if that is signed, and I have no doubt he'll do it for safety's sake, it will remove guns without removing them. If the common man cannot afford to own them due to govt manipulation, that is effectively infringement. I think people are still stinging from the Clinton bans of '93 that lasted 10 years. They can read the writing on the wall and are preparing. I am.

Edit: that's 500% increase on the existing federal tax, making a box of 20 rnds of Federal ammo $67.00+

[oly884]

Ah, but fuster, remember, Obama is the savior and he only tells the truth...

Well, I'm nowhere near where I want to be with guns and ammo, but if when he starts to pull stuff, at least I'm prepared.

And if he's telling the truth, doesn't infringe upon my 2nd amendment rights, and doesn't put left or right leaning judges in for the supreme court, then I'll have more respect for the guy. However, once again, his voting record does not reflect an individual that would do those things.

So, I'll have my "I TOLD YOU SO" shirts ready to distribute.

[fustercluck]

*madly reloading his .223 cases...*

[oly884]

*madly reloading his .223 cases...*


Sadly, I have over 5000 .223 cases to reload, and I don't have a progressive reloader... ugh.

[reggie 00]

*madly reloading his .223 cases...*


Sadly, I have over 5000 .223 cases to reload, and I don't have a progressive reloader... ugh.


What kind of load are you doing?

I just got all kinds of Reloading equip for my birthday, just waiting on the bullets and cases i ordered.

[fustercluck]

*madly reloading his .223 cases...*


Sadly, I have over 5000 .223 cases to reload, and I don't have a progressive reloader... ugh.


I don't use a progressive with rifle cases anyway. In fact, I prefer to single stage load altogether. Most of the time in hand loading is spent in case prep anyway. For 223 I figure I spend about 1 minute per case after they have been agitation cleaned (tumbled or vibrated). After lubing, resizing/decapping, washing, cleaning the primer pocket, trimming (if necessary), chamfering/deburring, re-agitating, checking the flash hole and priming, I can then set up to charge them with powder and seat the projectile. By that time and with a powder measure, single stage loading is the fastest part....plus I get to look at all the shiney metal :hillbill:

Edit: at my rate of case prep, looks like you'll be busy for 83.333 hours. The bright side is that to load 5000 rnds with bulk purchased materials you'll only spend 650+/- compared to 3000.00 for factory loads plus shipping.

[fustercluck]

*madly reloading his .223 cases...*


Sadly, I have over 5000 .223 cases to reload, and I don't have a progressive reloader... ugh.


What kind of load are you doing?

I just got all kinds of Reloading equip for my birthday, just waiting on the bullets and cases i ordered.


Nothing special for .223 cases. I'm just using a Speer #13 data manual for 55g projectiles. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I usually load in the middle range of suggested combinations. For each powder and projectile weight option there are listed three muzzle velocity possibilities; each progressively faster than the previous. I choose the middle one for the powder I'm using.

I buy my .223 bullets in bulk of 1000-4000. More coin up front that way but a greater overall savings. Again, for .223 I don't do anything exotic like ballistic tips or partitioned projectiles. I just get a FMJ 55 grain piece of lead. Bullet choice all depends on application. In my case, .223 hoarding doesn't require tack driver precision. I just need to be able to put lead down range quickly and on target. Powder these days depends on what is available...same with primers ugh.

[fustercluck]

Hey David, when 83.333 hours of case prep overwhelms and lethargy eclipes your resolve, let me know and I'll buy all those cases off of ya...:hillbill:

[oly884]

Hey David, when 83.333 hours of case prep overwhelms and lethargy eclipes your resolve, let me know and I'll buy all those cases off of ya...:hillbill:


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ my friend, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.....

I'm sitting pretty happy with them right now, so I'll just hold on to them. Just dreading when I decide to start the reloading process....

Oh, and I have about 1500 10mm cases to reload as well, on top of 200 300 weatherby cases.

Lucky for me, at least I have a turret on my RCBS reloading press, so I do save some time there!

[fustercluck]

Hey David, when 83.333 hours of case prep overwhelms and lethargy eclipes your resolve, let me know and I'll buy all those cases off of ya...:hillbill:


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ my friend, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.....



Really? I can just come get 'em? Awesome. I'll be right over.....Hehe.

[oly884]

alright gun nuts, if you caught the press conference today, you saw obama address the issue of guns.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090121/pl_nm/us_obama_regulations

I'm going to hope that you're right Cal, because if not, I'm pulling the I TOLD YOU SO out...

[gilby4runner]

So, I'll have my "I TOLD YOU SO" shirts ready to distribute.


Can i buy one????? XL please!

[oly884]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

A little bit from the article...

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

So, what was that about obama not taking our guns? It appears that he clearly support at least making it impossible to get certain types of guns (and who knows where it will stop).

So, all you folks who ragged on Bush for "violating our rights" are you going to fight Obama for doing the same?

[AxleIke]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

A little bit from the article...

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

So, what was that about obama not taking our guns? Oh, right, he's lying.

So, all you folks who ragged on Bush for "violating our rights" are you going to fight Obama for doing the same?


The only thing I take issue with is the Ban.

However, I think its a little overreaching to say "...oboma not taking our guns? Oh, right, he's lying".

I think it should be amended to: "He MAY take away a FEW of our guns."

Keep in mind that I am very much against the Assault weapons ban. I don't support any legislation that restricts a citizen who has no criminal record from doing anything.

I also find issue with broad statements that seem overly biased.

Personally, I will wait to see what legislation is seriously proposed, rather than talk in policy statements. I've seen a lot of politicians promise a lot of things. Not very many have delivered.

Bush actually violated our rights, in huge ways. I will wait until Obama actually does something before getting pissed.

[oly884]

Updated my post a bit...

As far as taking away a FEW guns, well, it's still taking away or preventing the purchase of guns. Take one away, or all of them away, it's still a violation of my 2nd amendment rights.

And as for waiting until Obama does something. I cannot take that avenue, I won't sit idly by as the framework for stripping me of my rights is being established. Showing Obama and the rest of the politicians (regardless of political sides) that this is unacceptable is what needs to be done. I'm not going to defend Bush and what he has done to our civil liberties because there's a lot there that I think he did wrong, but this time around I hope that people are smart enough to stand up and NOT let it happen again.

My main point in bringing this up is that Obama supporters said "he's not going to take your guns..."

And as I said, his voting record doesn't agree with that. And that link I posted, from the White House, agrees with what I have said.

[AxleIke]

Fair enough. I disagree with some of that, but I don't think a discussion on constitutional issues will go very far.

[oly884]

I want Obama to do a great job as president, I'll support him as much as I can, but I will stand against him and his supporters when I feel it is necessary. We have our rights given to us in the Constitution, and we need to defend those rights. We have had a constant attack on those rights in various names (national security, safety on the streets, being healthy, being green, etc, etc.) and much like anyone else, I am not willing to see those rights vanish. I'm done playing the party game, it hasn't got us anywhere. With that said, we should not back down from what we as individuals feel is right or wrong, but we should learn to compromise.

I understand the fear that some individuals have for AR-15's and the like, however, these individuals need to recognize that the 2nd amendment wasn't put in place for hunting as well. If there is a concern about kids or criminals getting their hands on guns, then why not work WITH the people who support guns and handle them day to day to come to a solution.

Imposing AWB's and any other ban whether it be ammunition or a type or look of a gun will only hurt those who are honest and law abiding citizens.

[AxleIke]

Great post.

I don't disagree with your point of view, in fact, I am in full agreement with it.

I DEFINITELY don't stand on party lines. What a waste of time. Standing on sides of individual ISSUES is what will move us forward.

What I disagree with is your "violation of 2nd amendment rights" and your reading of said amendment. This has nothing to do with guns, and all with technical constitutional interpretation.

I would say its more in the nature of a mental exercise than any vehement opposition.

Another thread for another time.

[Good Times]

Regardless of what new laws are in place, the bad guys will still get all of their illegal firearms one way or another. These restrictions just put the law abiding citizens at a significant disadvantage. Why can't the damn politicians understand this?

All they're doing is penalizing the law abiding citizens for the stuff the bad guns engage in. What they need to do is impose stiffer penalties for the bad guys when they engage in the illegal activities.

bah!

[oly884]

Regardless of what new laws are in place, the bad guys will still get all of their illegal firearms one way or another. These restrictions just put the law abiding citizens at a significant disadvantage. Why can't the damn politicians understand this?

All they're doing is penalizing the law abiding citizens for the stuff the bad guns engage in. What they need to do is impose stiffer penalties for the bad guys when they engage in the illegal activities.

bah!


Very great points, but I'll point out that most of the time, these "assault rifles" are not used in crimes. Criminals look for cheap/stolen pistols and rifles to commit crimes. How often do you hear about a store being held up by an AK47/AR15 vs a generic "9mm pistol"?



Great post.

I don't disagree with your point of view, in fact, I am in full agreement with it.

I DEFINITELY don't stand on party lines. What a waste of time. Standing on sides of individual ISSUES is what will move us forward.

What I disagree with is your "violation of 2nd amendment rights" and your reading of said amendment. This has nothing to do with guns, and all with technical constitutional interpretation.

I would say its more in the nature of a mental exercise than any vehement opposition.

Another thread for another time.


Perhaps we can discuss the 2nd amendment here, it's a fitting thread. What is your interpretation of the 2nd amendment? Does it not guarantee the individual's right to keep and bear arms?

I'm sure you've seen this before, but I'll post it just in case. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM (NSFW, language at the very end)

This is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment as well. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the 2nd amendment does not apply to the individual.

[AxleIke]

Oh the second amendment applies to the individual all right. Plenty of constitutional scholars to back me up there. Apparently so do Penn and Teller.

The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Constitutional study allows for LOTS of interpretation on the SPIRIT of any part of the constitution, which is why we have so many differing views on the second amendment.

However, the only rights GUARANTEED by the constitution are those actually stated in the constitution. Thus, your right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed at all by an assault weapons ban. The second amendment DOES NOT say, "the right to keep and bear ALL arms" or "the right to keep an bear arms regardless of classification".

Technically, the federal government could ban all guns except a .22 Long Rifle, and still not be in violation of your right to bear arms. In that case, you do have the right to bear arms. You can own as many .22 long rifles as you like.

People love to read into the constitution more than is actually there. I did too, for quite some time. However, I live with a law student now, who has had several semesters of intense study of the constitution. I made the same assumptions you are, and got turned around pretty quickly after I read the actual wording. The only thing the government has to abide by is what is actually on the paper, and the only interpretation that matters is the Supreme Court's.

Keep in mind, this is all just discussion. I like playing devils advocate, and debating these issues is fun for me. I can sum up my own feelings on guns in a simple sentence: The government can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers. Period.

I am very much invested in personal, individual rights, with little government interference. I don't like the assault weapons ban, and am very much against it.

However, I do recognize that some of the "gun control legislation" actually does help law enforcement on the streets. Banning armor piercing rounds doesn't get rid of them, but it does make them less common, which makes them more expensive, which means fewer criminals will own them. I understand that law abiding citizens can't get them either, but then again, I don't hear about that many burglars wearing kevlar. Never heard of game animals wearing it.

Anyway, thats all for now.

[Robinhood4x4]

People on the gun boards are saying the obama freeze won't affect the nation park regulation because it already went into affect on Jan 9th.

[fustercluck]

By all means, let's boil the frog slowly...

If we are going to split hairs on the actual words of the Constitution, it also doesn't say which arms we can't have either.

[AxleIke]

By all means, let's boil the frog slowly...

If we are going to split hairs on the actual words of the Constitution, it also doesn't say which arms we can't have either.


No, it doesn't. That really doesn't help gun rights activists either. Thats my point. The amendment says what it says, and nothing more. The people of this country can have guns. End of story. Its up to society to determine which guns are legit, and which ones aren't. I think activists need to come up with more convincing reasons for ownership of the weapons banned, and get that word out to their representatives, so we DON'T see guns disappear. A letter with the second amendment on it isn't going to sway them.

I don't like restrictions, as I've said before. I find fault in saying something is "against my constitutional right" when it technically isn't.

Again, just furthering the discussion. Hopefully it can stay civil.

[fustercluck]

Ike, I would invite you to study thoroughly the 2nd amendment. Your law student friend is using the wisdom of ignorance to support either a bias or an equivocation. Either way he finds himself in an illconceived position of power and oppression over individual freedom.

[oly884]

By all means, let's boil the frog slowly...

If we are going to split hairs on the actual words of the Constitution, it also doesn't say which arms we can't have either.


No, it doesn't. That really doesn't help gun rights activists either. Thats my point. The amendment says what it says, and nothing more. The people of this country can have guns. End of story. Its up to society to determine which guns are legit, and which ones aren't. I think activists need to come up with more convincing reasons for ownership of the weapons banned, and get that word out to their representatives, so we DON'T see guns disappear. A letter with the second amendment on it isn't going to sway them.

I don't like restrictions, as I've said before. I find fault in saying something is "against my constitutional right" when it technically isn't.

Again, just furthering the discussion. Hopefully it can stay civil.


Can the same be applied to the 1st amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

By your argument, you could say that a word could be banned but it wouldn't 'abridge the freedom of speech' because you can still speak freely, you just can't say one word. You can also say that people have the right to peaceably assemble, but not here, here, and here, and that would still qualify as legit.

But that's not how it is. Freedom of speech does not mean, you can say this but can't say that. The second you start to make exceptions is the second that you violate the notion of freedom. Either it's all going to be OK, or none of it should be.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Nowhere does it say what types of arms, therefore, the government preventing me (whether now or in the future) to keep or bear an AR-15 is indeed violating my right to keep and bear arms. If you consider an AR-15 an "arm" then any ban it is infringing me (the people) to keep and bear the "arm" and as a result, it is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

[oly884]

On a side note, I'm enjoying this discussion and I hope it can remain civil as well

[fustercluck]

David, the typical retort to the first amendment comparison is that one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. Well, maybe. One can yell 'fire' if the place is indeed on fire. In fact doing so would be heroic.

[oly884]

David, the typical retort to the first amendment comparison is that one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. Well, maybe. One can yell 'fire' if the place is indeed on fire. In fact doing so would be heroic.


One cannot discharge a firearm in a movie theater for the same reason, it's a danger to people. If someone was going to harm another in a movie theater, and you discharged a firearm to stop that harm, you would be considered a hero as well.

[oly884]

David, the typical retort to the first amendment comparison is that one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. Well, maybe. One can yell 'fire' if the place is indeed on fire. In fact doing so would be heroic.


Yelling "FIRE!" in a theater when there is no fire does not mean that you cannot say "FIRE!", it simply means that you cannot use that word in that case because of the harm it can have on people (trampling, panic, etc).

It's the exact same thing for a gun and the second amendment. Preventing where and how you can keep and bear an arm is understandable. Walking into a preschool with an AR-15 on your back would create a panic and bad reactions as well, but no law should prevent you from keeping and bearing that arm in the appropriate manner and place.

[AxleIke]

In what way do you suggest that I study it beyond what I've posted here? I have read it. Its very cut and dried. Once sentence.

If I go out and research opinions on the 2nd amendment, I can find many, many scholarly articles which speak to BOTH sides of the argument. All are well researched, and well cited. Not being a well educated constitutional scholar, I cannot speak to the correctness or error of any of them. I do know that there are many cases that also speak to both sides, which leads to precedent.

If you have another avenue of approach, then I welcome the suggestion.

As for the wisdom of ignorance, I disagree. My law student friend did not express a bias or even an opinion. The discussion was simply me arguing, while she asked me to back up my points from the constitution. Once I had the constitution out, I found my claims very difficult to back up.

I would like to hear your side, personally. You disagree with the points I've made, so I'll ask, "why?"

I agree that what I've posted doesn't lead to a very pretty outcome, much like your metaphor of the frog slowly boiling to death. If you have good evidence to prove me wrong, I'm quite happy to hear it.

I would like to stress AGAIN that this is simply a mental exercise. Not my personal views.

[AxleIke]

Whoops...Too many posts at once there. Hang on...

[AxleIke]

By all means, let's boil the frog slowly...

If we are going to split hairs on the actual words of the Constitution, it also doesn't say which arms we can't have either.


No, it doesn't. That really doesn't help gun rights activists either. Thats my point. The amendment says what it says, and nothing more. The people of this country can have guns. End of story. Its up to society to determine which guns are legit, and which ones aren't. I think activists need to come up with more convincing reasons for ownership of the weapons banned, and get that word out to their representatives, so we DON'T see guns disappear. A letter with the second amendment on it isn't going to sway them.

I don't like restrictions, as I've said before. I find fault in saying something is "against my constitutional right" when it technically isn't.

Again, just furthering the discussion. Hopefully it can stay civil.


Can the same be applied to the 1st amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

By your argument, you could say that a word could be banned but it wouldn't 'abridge the freedom of speech' because you can still speak freely, you just can't say one word. You can also say that people have the right to peaceably assemble, but not here, here, and here, and that would still qualify as legit.

But that's not how it is. Freedom of speech does not mean, you can say this but can't say that. The second you start to make exceptions is the second that you violate the notion of freedom. Either it's all going to be OK, or none of it should be.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Nowhere does it say what types of arms, therefore, the government preventing me (whether now or in the future) to keep or bear an AR-15 is indeed violating my right to keep and bear arms. If you consider an AR-15 an "arm" then any ban it is infringing me (the people) to keep and bear the "arm" and as a result, it is a violation of the 2nd amendment.


I think fuster hit the nail on the head there. The same can be said for fighting words.

You can say anything you want up to the point where it starts to cause harm.

With the second, gun control activists would argue that the restrictions are to prevent harm to the majority of citizens; the guns banned are the most harmful.

Personally, I disagree with both restrictions. Restricting speech just because it might hurt someone is silly. However, by my logic, congress has gotten away with it.

[oly884]

My thoughts on what your friend said:

Only allowing people to own .22lr rifles is indeed allowing the people to keep and bear arm(s), I won't argue that because it is true.

Here's where I don't see how your friend comes to the conclusion. ONLY allowing us to keep .22lr rifles means that we cannot have other rifles, pistols, etc. which is preventing us to keep and bear other types of "arms" therefore it would be preventing me from keeping and bearing arms. Since the definition of "arms" does not describe a Ruger 10/22, but rather all forms of firearms, I cannot buy the notion that keeping and bearing arms can be limited because of someone's incorrect interpretation of what it means.

You are told that you can legally buy an alcoholic beverage, but what would you say if it came down to the point that you could only buy water with 0.1% alcohol in it? By definition that is still buying an alcoholic beverage.

[oly884]

By all means, let's boil the frog slowly...

If we are going to split hairs on the actual words of the Constitution, it also doesn't say which arms we can't have either.


No, it doesn't. That really doesn't help gun rights activists either. Thats my point. The amendment says what it says, and nothing more. The people of this country can have guns. End of story. Its up to society to determine which guns are legit, and which ones aren't. I think activists need to come up with more convincing reasons for ownership of the weapons banned, and get that word out to their representatives, so we DON'T see guns disappear. A letter with the second amendment on it isn't going to sway them.

I don't like restrictions, as I've said before. I find fault in saying something is "against my constitutional right" when it technically isn't.

Again, just furthering the discussion. Hopefully it can stay civil.


Can the same be applied to the 1st amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

By your argument, you could say that a word could be banned but it wouldn't 'abridge the freedom of speech' because you can still speak freely, you just can't say one word. You can also say that people have the right to peaceably assemble, but not here, here, and here, and that would still qualify as legit.

But that's not how it is. Freedom of speech does not mean, you can say this but can't say that. The second you start to make exceptions is the second that you violate the notion of freedom. Either it's all going to be OK, or none of it should be.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Nowhere does it say what types of arms, therefore, the government preventing me (whether now or in the future) to keep or bear an AR-15 is indeed violating my right to keep and bear arms. If you consider an AR-15 an "arm" then any ban it is infringing me (the people) to keep and bear the "arm" and as a result, it is a violation of the 2nd amendment.


I think fuster hit the nail on the head there. The same can be said for fighting words.

You can say anything you want up to the point where it starts to cause harm.

With the second, gun control activists would argue that the restrictions are to prevent harm to the majority of citizens; the guns banned are the most harmful.

Personally, I disagree with both restrictions. Restricting speech just because it might hurt someone is silly. However, by my logic, congress has gotten away with it.


Exactly, but you are still allowed to say the words, it's the context and manner in which the words are used that is deemed harmful, not the word itself. Same can be said with guns. It is the context and manner in which a gun is used that is deemed harmful, not the gun itself. Imagine what would happen if the government treated the 1st amendment the same as the 2nd amendment.

The simple thought of congress banning a word is absurd and would cause many problems with people.

[AxleIke]

Ok...Gotta set a couple things straight here. I think I inadvertently misrepresented what my friend said.

By no means was she supporting anti gun anything.

She was simply sharing with me how and why many of these laws get passed, and using that logic to help me personally sharpen my own pro-gun arguments. Evidently she was completely correct, as we have numerous gun control laws that are not getting struck down by the supreme court. Those laws, such as the assault weapons ban, are passed, and allowed to stand as constitutional for the simple fact that they allow the citizens to still possess some firearms. Its not right, but its what exists.

All of the rest of the points in this thread were completely constructed by me, especially the 22lr part.

I also think your point is quite good David. In fact, I've used a variation of it in many arguments with anti gun folk. It works very well.

[AxleIke]

By all means, let's boil the frog slowly...

If we are going to split hairs on the actual words of the Constitution, it also doesn't say which arms we can't have either.


No, it doesn't. That really doesn't help gun rights activists either. Thats my point. The amendment says what it says, and nothing more. The people of this country can have guns. End of story. Its up to society to determine which guns are legit, and which ones aren't. I think activists need to come up with more convincing reasons for ownership of the weapons banned, and get that word out to their representatives, so we DON'T see guns disappear. A letter with the second amendment on it isn't going to sway them.

I don't like restrictions, as I've said before. I find fault in saying something is "against my constitutional right" when it technically isn't.

Again, just furthering the discussion. Hopefully it can stay civil.


Can the same be applied to the 1st amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

By your argument, you could say that a word could be banned but it wouldn't 'abridge the freedom of speech' because you can still speak freely, you just can't say one word. You can also say that people have the right to peaceably assemble, but not here, here, and here, and that would still qualify as legit.

But that's not how it is. Freedom of speech does not mean, you can say this but can't say that. The second you start to make exceptions is the second that you violate the notion of freedom. Either it's all going to be OK, or none of it should be.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Nowhere does it say what types of arms, therefore, the government preventing me (whether now or in the future) to keep or bear an AR-15 is indeed violating my right to keep and bear arms. If you consider an AR-15 an "arm" then any ban it is infringing me (the people) to keep and bear the "arm" and as a result, it is a violation of the 2nd amendment.


I think fuster hit the nail on the head there. The same can be said for fighting words.

You can say anything you want up to the point where it starts to cause harm.

With the second, gun control activists would argue that the restrictions are to prevent harm to the majority of citizens; the guns banned are the most harmful.

Personally, I disagree with both restrictions. Restricting speech just because it might hurt someone is silly. However, by my logic, congress has gotten away with it.


Exactly, but you are still allowed to say the words, it's the context and manner in which the words are used that is deemed harmful, not the word itself. Same can be said with guns. It is the context and manner in which a gun is used that is deemed harmful, not the gun itself. Imagine what would happen if the government treated the 1st amendment the same as the 2nd amendment.

The simple thought of congress banning a word is absurd and would cause many problems with people.


I imagine that, should there ever be a word that could kill someone by its very utterance, congress would have no trouble banning it. Words are in a different category from guns.

Congress can ban guns because they can show the public that "this gun was used in X number of crimes, and this gun killed Y number of cops. As you say, the bans only take weapons away from the good guys, and not the bad, but the voters believe it. Then again, my view is that the general American voting public is collectively moronic.

The real travesty is that the assault weapons ban isn't really just on assault weapons. Its about "guns that look scary", such as the AR-15. Semi auto, single shot, no different than any one of a dozen hunting rifles, but it looks mean, so its on the ban list.

[oly884]

Ok...Gotta set a couple things straight here. I think I inadvertently misrepresented what my friend said.

By no means was she supporting anti gun anything.

She was simply sharing with me how and why many of these laws get passed, and using that logic to help me personally sharpen my own pro-gun arguments. Evidently she was completely correct, as we have numerous gun control laws that are not getting struck down by the supreme court. Those laws, such as the assault weapons ban, are passed, and allowed to stand as constitutional for the simple fact that they allow the citizens to still possess some firearms. Its not right, but its what exists.

All of the rest of the points in this thread were completely constructed by me, especially the 22lr part.

I also think your point is quite good David. In fact, I've used a variation of it in many arguments with anti gun folk. It works very well.


Ah, well I stand corrected then, thank you. I'm glad that you're friend and you have brought this up as it has helped me to hone in on my argument as well. The key with any violation to our rights is to not only be vigilant about making the violation known, but that we are able to articulate our point in a manner that does not send the other party/side/etc. into defensive mode. It's about reaching an understanding with people as best we can (sometimes people are just unwilling to work together to a solution, eg. the brady campaign)

[oly884]

I imagine that, should there ever be a word that could kill someone by its very utterance, congress would have no trouble banning it. Words are in a different category from guns.

Congress can ban guns because they can show the public that "this gun was used in X number of crimes, and this gun killed Y number of cops. As you say, the bans only take weapons away from the good guys, and not the bad, but the voters believe it. Then again, my view is that the general American voting public is collectively moronic.

The real travesty is that the assault weapons ban isn't really just on assault weapons. Its about "guns that look scary", such as the AR-15. Semi auto, single shot, no different than any one of a dozen hunting rifles, but it looks mean, so its on the ban list.


Yup, guns kill people, but only when misused or with malicious intentions just like words that have driven people to suicide or murder, so can you lump words in there? Possibly, but it's a pretty hard argument since words are not something you can physically hold. Creating an argument for this one that can come across as reasonable to 'anti gunners' is a bit more challenging.

[AxleIke]

Ok...Gotta set a couple things straight here. I think I inadvertently misrepresented what my friend said.

By no means was she supporting anti gun anything.

She was simply sharing with me how and why many of these laws get passed, and using that logic to help me personally sharpen my own pro-gun arguments. Evidently she was completely correct, as we have numerous gun control laws that are not getting struck down by the supreme court. Those laws, such as the assault weapons ban, are passed, and allowed to stand as constitutional for the simple fact that they allow the citizens to still possess some firearms. Its not right, but its what exists.

All of the rest of the points in this thread were completely constructed by me, especially the 22lr part.

I also think your point is quite good David. In fact, I've used a variation of it in many arguments with anti gun folk. It works very well.


Ah, well I stand corrected then, thank you. I'm glad that you're friend and you have brought this up as it has helped me to hone in on my argument as well. The key with any violation to our rights is to not only be vigilant about making the violation known, but that we are able to articulate our point in a manner that does not send the other party/side/etc. into defensive mode. It's about reaching an understanding with people as best we can (sometimes people are just unwilling to work together to a solution, eg. the brady campaign)


One, you were not in the wrong at all with regard to my friend. It was my fault for being vague.

Second, EXCELLENT post.

I find many of these threads silly because all too often, the gun discussion is anything but. No outside views can be brought in because any contrary opinion is attacked as being "unpatriotic" or "unamerican". There is nothing more American than sharing your own point of view.

Also, attacking someone is simply the defense of a closed mind. I like this forum because, most of the time, people are willing to discuss with you. They may not be as open minded as I'd like, but they are at least willing to have an intelligent discussion.

Cheers!

[fustercluck]

In what way do you suggest that I study it beyond what I've posted here? I have read it. Its very cut and dried. Once sentence.

If I go out and research opinions on the 2nd amendment, I can find many, many scholarly articles which speak to BOTH sides of the argument. All are well researched, and well cited. Not being a well educated constitutional scholar, I cannot speak to the correctness or error of any of them. I do know that there are many cases that also speak to both sides, which leads to precedent.

If you have another avenue of approach, then I welcome the suggestion.

As for the wisdom of ignorance, I disagree. My law student friend did not express a bias or even an opinion. The discussion was simply me arguing, while she asked me to back up my points from the constitution. Once I had the constitution out, I found my claims very difficult to back up.

I would like to hear your side, personally. You disagree with the points I've made, so I'll ask, "why?"

I agree that what I've posted doesn't lead to a very pretty outcome, much like your metaphor of the frog slowly boiling to death. If you have good evidence to prove me wrong, I'm quite happy to hear it.

I would like to stress AGAIN that this is simply a mental exercise. Not my personal views.




Ike, sadly the internet is a poor forum for discussing anything as profound and fragile as personal freedom and human rights. That said, I'll try.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If one reads about and understands that the Constitution was written by formerly oppressed free men, one can see that the second amendment was about preserving that freedom from the rise to power of tyrants foreign and domestic. That recent individual freedom was won by individuals collected as a unit to repel a standing and present army. Those individuals did so by the effective use of strategy, will and arms; not just certain kinds of arms, but those equal to or better than the ones used by their opponents.

Truth is it own champion. Pure truth is universal. It cannot be disproved or confounded. It can only be confused by the sophistry of the nefarious, the misguided or the ignorant.

The truth in the 2nd amendment is that it recognized the preexistent God given right of citizens to guarantee the security of a free State by keeping and bearing arms. Logic would declare that such a defense would need to be effective or why even include that phrase in the Constitution? An effective defense of a free State is only executed by means of better strategy, will and arms than those who would oppress.

A free man has a God given right to any arms likely to used against him by central powers or foreign invaders.

What we have seen is the erosion of the second amendment to the extent that even otherwise patriotic citizens are deceived by nebulous sophistry laced with emotion and incongruity. They are convinced in their ignorance that what is necessary for their enduring freedom is no longer valid or essential. I think there is no greater shame of human rights than a man in chains complicit with his oppressors through ignorance and naiveté.

That a thing is absent from the text of the Constitution is not implicit endorsement of the removal of that freedom. As I understand it, there is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the Constitution, but to remain fair and allow for the most freedom possible, we have adopted that principle.

[oly884]

Ok...Gotta set a couple things straight here. I think I inadvertently misrepresented what my friend said.

By no means was she supporting anti gun anything.

She was simply sharing with me how and why many of these laws get passed, and using that logic to help me personally sharpen my own pro-gun arguments. Evidently she was completely correct, as we have numerous gun control laws that are not getting struck down by the supreme court. Those laws, such as the assault weapons ban, are passed, and allowed to stand as constitutional for the simple fact that they allow the citizens to still possess some firearms. Its not right, but its what exists.

All of the rest of the points in this thread were completely constructed by me, especially the 22lr part.

I also think your point is quite good David. In fact, I've used a variation of it in many arguments with anti gun folk. It works very well.


Ah, well I stand corrected then, thank you. I'm glad that you're friend and you have brought this up as it has helped me to hone in on my argument as well. The key with any violation to our rights is to not only be vigilant about making the violation known, but that we are able to articulate our point in a manner that does not send the other party/side/etc. into defensive mode. It's about reaching an understanding with people as best we can (sometimes people are just unwilling to work together to a solution, eg. the brady campaign)


One, you were not in the wrong at all with regard to my friend. It was my fault for being vague.

Second, EXCELLENT post.

I find many of these threads silly because all too often, the gun discussion is anything but. No outside views can be brought in because any contrary opinion is attacked as being "unpatriotic" or "unamerican". There is nothing more American than sharing your own point of view.

Also, attacking someone is simply the defense of a closed mind. I like this forum because, most of the time, people are willing to discuss with you. They may not be as open minded as I'd like, but they are at least willing to have an intelligent discussion.

Cheers!


Exactly, I firmly believe that a person stand by what they believe. There is nothing wrong with having firm beliefs, but an unwillingness to cooperate or compromise to certain extents is.

Moving back to Seattle really challenged me in the regard being that it is FAR more left leaning than Bozeman ever was, haha. It has helped me to understand that regardless of beliefs, we are all living here and we need to ALL be respectful of those beliefs. I treat those how I want to be treated myself.

I enjoy having my beliefs challenged for two reasons. One is that it may make me change my position on something which helps me grow as an individual. The other is that it can help me to strengthen my beliefs I already hold.

Unpatriotic/unamerican views don't necessarily exist (in some events most people can make the case that, "burn the constitution" would probably qualify as unpatriotic/unamerican). Look back at the founders of this nation, they not only questioned their former government, but they had an outright revolution. The time MAY come, some day, (I hope not) that we have to do the same. I don't see it happening for many reasons, but questioning the government isn't only allowed, it should be encouraged.

I do enjoy good discussions like this.

Cheers back at you!

[fustercluck]

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.


Alexander Hamilton

[fustercluck]

There are many more quotes from the founders relative to the individual right to bears arms. There is no doubt that their position on which arms was general since there is no way to forcast the evolution of arms in the future. Suffice it to recognize that the purpose of the second amendment is undeniably about rejecting through force tyranny and oppression with state of the art weaponry as was done in the revolution.

[AxleIke]

Ok...Gotta set a couple things straight here. I think I inadvertently misrepresented what my friend said.

By no means was she supporting anti gun anything.

She was simply sharing with me how and why many of these laws get passed, and using that logic to help me personally sharpen my own pro-gun arguments. Evidently she was completely correct, as we have numerous gun control laws that are not getting struck down by the supreme court. Those laws, such as the assault weapons ban, are passed, and allowed to stand as constitutional for the simple fact that they allow the citizens to still possess some firearms. Its not right, but its what exists.

All of the rest of the points in this thread were completely constructed by me, especially the 22lr part.

I also think your point is quite good David. In fact, I've used a variation of it in many arguments with anti gun folk. It works very well.




Ah, well I stand corrected then, thank you. I'm glad that you're friend and you have brought this up as it has helped me to hone in on my argument as well. The key with any violation to our rights is to not only be vigilant about making the violation known, but that we are able to articulate our point in a manner that does not send the other party/side/etc. into defensive mode. It's about reaching an understanding with people as best we can (sometimes people are just unwilling to work together to a solution, eg. the brady campaign)


One, you were not in the wrong at all with regard to my friend. It was my fault for being vague.

Second, EXCELLENT post.

I find many of these threads silly because all too often, the gun discussion is anything but. No outside views can be brought in because any contrary opinion is attacked as being "unpatriotic" or "unamerican". There is nothing more American than sharing your own point of view.

Also, attacking someone is simply the defense of a closed mind. I like this forum because, most of the time, people are willing to discuss with you. They may not be as open minded as I'd like, but they are at least willing to have an intelligent discussion.

Cheers!


Exactly, I firmly believe that a person stand by what they believe. There is nothing wrong with having firm beliefs, but an unwillingness to cooperate or compromise to certain extents is.

Moving back to Seattle really challenged me in the regard being that it is FAR more left leaning than Bozeman ever was, haha. It has helped me to understand that regardless of beliefs, we are all living here and we need to ALL be respectful of those beliefs. I treat those how I want to be treated myself.

I enjoy having my beliefs challenged for two reasons. One is that it may make me change my position on something which helps me grow as an individual. The other is that it can help me to strengthen my beliefs I already hold.

Unpatriotic/unamerican views don't necessarily exist (in some events most people can make the case that, "burn the constitution" would probably qualify as unpatriotic/unamerican). Look back at the founders of this nation, they not only questioned their former government, but they had an outright revolution. The time MAY come, some day, (I hope not) that we have to do the same. I don't see it happening for many reasons, but questioning the government isn't only allowed, it should be encouraged.

I do enjoy good discussions like this.

Cheers back at you!


Only thing I'd add to that is:

A patriot does not love his government. He loves his country. Sometimes a patriot must throw off his government, and establish a new one for the betterment of his country.

Questioning the government is not only okay, but it is necessary to keep said government from becoming oppressive.

[AxleIke]

In what way do you suggest that I study it beyond what I've posted here? I have read it. Its very cut and dried. Once sentence.

If I go out and research opinions on the 2nd amendment, I can find many, many scholarly articles which speak to BOTH sides of the argument. All are well researched, and well cited. Not being a well educated constitutional scholar, I cannot speak to the correctness or error of any of them. I do know that there are many cases that also speak to both sides, which leads to precedent.

If you have another avenue of approach, then I welcome the suggestion.

As for the wisdom of ignorance, I disagree. My law student friend did not express a bias or even an opinion. The discussion was simply me arguing, while she asked me to back up my points from the constitution. Once I had the constitution out, I found my claims very difficult to back up.

I would like to hear your side, personally. You disagree with the points I've made, so I'll ask, "why?"

I agree that what I've posted doesn't lead to a very pretty outcome, much like your metaphor of the frog slowly boiling to death. If you have good evidence to prove me wrong, I'm quite happy to hear it.

I would like to stress AGAIN that this is simply a mental exercise. Not my personal views.




Ike, sadly the internet is a poor forum for discussing anything as profound and fragile as personal freedom and human rights. That said, I'll try.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If one reads about and understands that the Constitution was written by formerly oppressed free men, one can see that the second amendment was about preserving that freedom from the rise to power of tyrants foreign and domestic. That recent individual freedom was won by individuals collected as a unit to repel a standing and present army. Those individuals did so by the effective use of strategy, will and arms; not just certain kinds of arms, but those equal to or better than the ones used by their opponents.

Truth is it own champion. Pure truth is universal. It cannot be disproved or confounded. It can only be confused by the sophistry of the nefarious, the misguided or the ignorant.

The truth in the 2nd amendment is that it recognized the preexistent God given right of citizens to guarantee the security of a free State by keeping and bearing arms. Logic would declare that such a defense would need to be effective or why even include that phrase in the Constitution? An effective defense of a free State is only executed by means of better strategy, will and arms than those who would oppress.

A free man has a God given right to any arms likely to used against him by central powers or foreign invaders.

What we have seen is the erosion of the second amendment to the extent that even otherwise patriotic citizens are deceived by nebulous sophistry laced with emotion and incongruity. They are convinced in their ignorance that what is necessary for their enduring freedom is no longer valid or essential. I think there is no greater shame of human rights than a man in chains complicit with his oppressors through ignorance and naiveté.

That a thing is absent from the text of the Constitution is not implicit endorsement of the removal of that freedom. As I understand it, there is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the Constitution, but to remain fair and allow for the most freedom possible, we have adopted that principle.




This was the whole context of my original point. I agree with everything you said. It is certainly in keeping with the spirit of individual liberty, and is obviously the way both of us feel things should be. But all of that is not actually in the constitution, and thus gun control laws are are allowed to stand.

As a counterpoint, I would argue that, because the founders were formerly oppressed free men, they valued freedom above all else, and within that freedom, the ability to choose one's own rights. Hence the ability to amend the constitution. Within article 5, they admitted that what they were doing was not perfect, and could not foresee the problems that would be faced by the people of America in the future.

I would argue that they would see a choice by a majority of the people in this country to be legitimate and legal, even if it went against what they personally believed.

Obviously the argument that congress doesn't ACTUALLY represent us can be made, but that's another topic.

So I would ask the following question:

If a true majority of eligible American voters wanted to make guns illegal, do you feel that the founders would take issue with that?

Personally I don't think the laws passed at the federal level truly represent much of anyone except the special interest groups. But in a theoretical world, I think the question works.

[Robinhood4x4]

I have to say that this is an excellent debate and kudos to all participants.

The natural progression of the arguments above leads to the question at what point should arms be limited? Should everybody be allowed to have nuclear bombs?

[Robinhood4x4]

The simple thought of congress banning a word is absurd and would cause many problems with people.


I believe, recently a court outlawed the words "illegal alien" from use while in court.

[oly884]

Arm
One Example: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense ; especially : firearm
Another: A weapon, especially a firearm

My take, anything that can be used against us by the government should be fair game. Of course, you have to realize that not only the cost of manufacturing, but the transport, storage, etc of a nuclear bomb would make it impossible for all but the richest of the rich to own one, and how many of those people would actually express an interest in owning a nuclear bomb?

[oly884]

The simple thought of congress banning a word is absurd and would cause many problems with people.


I believe, recently a court outlawed the words "illegal alien" from use while in court.


sigh....

It's a sad day when these things don't make bigger news. Do you have a link?

[Robinhood4x4]

Arm
One Example: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense ; especially : firearm
Another: A weapon, especially a firearm

My take, anything that can be used against us by the government should be fair game. Of course, you have to realize that not only the cost of manufacturing, but the transport, storage, etc of a nuclear bomb would make it impossible for all but the richest of the rich to own one, and how many of those people would actually express an interest in owning a nuclear bomb?


But again, it's not a question of practicality, it's an acedemic question. Are you saying that anybody should be able to own one? Based on the definition above, a nuclear bomb is considered an "arm".

[Robinhood4x4]

Here you go.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/nov/judge-ban-use-illegal-and-aliens

google "judge bans word illegal alien". lots more. Evidently, they also ban the word "rape" in some courts.

[fustercluck]

This was the whole context of my original point. I agree with everything you said. It is certainly in keeping with the spirit of individual liberty, and is obviously the way both of us feel things should be. But all of that is not actually in the constitution, and thus gun control laws are are allowed to stand.

As a counterpoint, I would argue that, because the founders were formerly oppressed free men, they valued freedom above all else, and within that freedom, the ability to choose one's own rights. Hence the ability to amend the constitution. Within article 5, they admitted that what they were doing was not perfect, and could not foresee the problems that would be faced by the people of America in the future.

I would argue that they would see a choice by a majority of the people in this country to be legitimate and legal, even if it went against what they personally believed.

Obviously the argument that congress doesn't ACTUALLY represent us can be made, but that's another topic.

So I would ask the following question:

If a true majority of eligible American voters wanted to make guns illegal, do you feel that the founders would take issue with that?

Personally I don't think the laws passed at the federal level truly represent much of anyone except the special interest groups. But in a theoretical world, I think the question works.


The truth is Ike all of what I wrote is in the context of the Constitution. As with any matter, absent context the perception can be distorted as we've seen happen with the Constitution. Out of ignorance or worse, we have focused so much on content that we've ignored context. After hours and hours of reading the Federalist papers and other written opinions of the founders relative to the second amendment, it is clear that what they meant was exactly as I described. Only the illinformed, uninformed or misinformed can conclude or be deceived into thinking otherwise. Some say that the most expensive comodity in this country is ignorance. I say the most dangerous liability is ignorance.

You are correct that in the event that society evolves away from the desire for a freedom there is a mechanism embeded in the Constitution which provides for amendments. That is all I ask. If we are to be disarmed, then do it constitutionally and amend the document as was done with emancipation, taxation etc.

I think the Founders would immediately council against the foolishness of rendering the population vulnerable to the caprices of benevolent governance by removing effective and competitive arms from the individual, but they would recognize the peoples' right to self determination and respect the decision to disarm...until such time as tyranny sprouted.

Again, failure to recognize or accept the environment and context through which the Constitution was crafted is willful failure to understand the nature of that document. Leveraging that ignorance against others' freedoms is treason.

[fustercluck]

I have to say that this is an excellent debate and kudos to all participants.

The natural progression of the arguments above leads to the question at what point should arms be limited? Should everybody be allowed to have nuclear bombs?


Any argument can be distorted by applying extremes and anecdotal evidence. I argue it is not the natural progression of the arguement to go to the extreme. Again, a study of the context and environment through which the Constitution was crafted will reveal the true intent of the second amendment.

The nature of the second amendment is to insure a free State from tyrants both foreign and domestic. As a nuclear weapon is only logical when used offensively on foreign territory, it is not a reasonable weapon to maintain a free State. Small arms at the state of the art, whether that be guns or lightsabers or plasma disintegrators or portable anti-tension devices, are the most effective weapons to put down domestic oppresion. We have the standing military for tossing nukes over seas.

After much personal study and an understanding that human nature does not change, I can see that it is unwise to expect that murderous oppressive revolutions cannot happen here. It is for this reason that the 2nd amendment was crafted. As such I know that as free men we have a God given right to self defense using the most effective weapons for that purpose and that are likely to be used against us by central powers and all forms of tyranny.

Nukes, no. Fully automatic main battle rifles? If that's what can be used against us, by all means possible.

[AxleIke]

This was the whole context of my original point. I agree with everything you said. It is certainly in keeping with the spirit of individual liberty, and is obviously the way both of us feel things should be. But all of that is not actually in the constitution, and thus gun control laws are are allowed to stand.

As a counterpoint, I would argue that, because the founders were formerly oppressed free men, they valued freedom above all else, and within that freedom, the ability to choose one's own rights. Hence the ability to amend the constitution. Within article 5, they admitted that what they were doing was not perfect, and could not foresee the problems that would be faced by the people of America in the future.

I would argue that they would see a choice by a majority of the people in this country to be legitimate and legal, even if it went against what they personally believed.

Obviously the argument that congress doesn't ACTUALLY represent us can be made, but that's another topic.

So I would ask the following question:

If a true majority of eligible American voters wanted to make guns illegal, do you feel that the founders would take issue with that?

Personally I don't think the laws passed at the federal level truly represent much of anyone except the special interest groups. But in a theoretical world, I think the question works.


The truth is Ike all of what I wrote is in the context of the Constitution. As with any matter, absent context the perception can be distorted as we've seen happen with the Constitution. Out of ignorance or worse, we have focused so much on content that we've ignored context. After hours and hours of reading the Federalist papers and other written opinions of the founders relative to the second amendment, it is clear that what they meant was exactly as I described. Only the illinformed, uninformed or misinformed can conclude or be deceived into thinking otherwise. Some say that the most expensive comodity in this country is ignorance. I say the most dangerous liability is ignorance.

You are correct that in the event that society evolves away from the desire for a freedom there is a mechanism embeded in the Constitution which provides for amendments. That is all I ask. If we are to be disarmed, then do it constitutionally and amend the document as was done with emancipation, taxation etc.

I think the Founders would immediately council against the foolishness of rendering the population vulnerable to the caprices of benevolent governance by removing effective and competitive arms from the individual, but they would recognize the peoples' right to self determination and respect the decision to disarm...until such time as tyranny sprouted.

Again, failure to recognize or accept the environment and context through which the Constitution was crafted is willful failure to understand the nature of that document. Leveraging that ignorance against others' freedoms is treason.


Very good post. Well argued, and well articulated. I agree.

[oly884]

Nukes, no. Fully automatic main battle rifles? If that's what can be used against us, by all means possible.


Just the thought of owning a M249 SAW is making me drool. That, and an M-4, and a HK MP10.

[fustercluck]

Ike, I appreciate the devil's advocate position you assumed. For if we are to defend our perspective, our understanding must be more than the superficiality of parroting the text of the Constitution to those otherwise convinced.

This is not to say that the discussion is over. There may be more another can offer. I invite those comments too. I am gratified that this debate did not decay into emotional bloviations...


The SAW would be a rush, but I'd rather carry an m4. For close quarters combat/defense, I'd like the MP5sd. For urban sharpshooting, I'd like a MK11 mod0. There are others but they are legion....Hehe.

[oly884]

Correct, a SAW would be great, but a M4 is far more practical. I do agree that an MP5 would be sweet, but the MP5/10 would be oh so sweeter! Nothing like some 135 gr HP's going 1800+ fps.

[fustercluck]

Hehe. You are just sold on the 10mm...

I must admit until I saw the ballistic gelatin, I was skeptical about the value of the 10mm. Now I want a Glock in 10 and a Colt Delta Elite in 10. One day David, we'll go shooting. That would be fun.

[AxleIke]

Another point to consider:

Lets say you have a person who agree's 100% with both the original intent of the founders when they created the 2nd, AND that it should be interpreted today the same way it was back then.

What would be your response to that person's statement that its a moot point? They contest that even a well armed group of civilians is simply NO match for the US Armed forces.

Personally, I have to admit that I find this point valid. I do not think we should ban guns at all. I think MORE guns should be allowed out there for this very purpose, but I'm not in charge.

I do believe, even if you made all the weapons available to the public that the Military has, a group of citizens would be easily crushed by our current military might.

The armed forces in this country are among the most well equipped, most highly trained, fighting force in the world. Given the US's current surveillance ability, it would be next to impossible for a group to organize against the government, and, assuming they could, there is no way they'd be trained enough to stand against even one of the 5 branches.

Also consider all the non conventional weapons in our arsenal. Forget Nukes, just drop a few chem bombs, and send in a Haz-Mat team to clean up the carnage. Or, just vaccinate the troops, and spread a healthy dose of virulent small pox through the population, then send in the troops to mop up the lucky few who are naturally immune.

Essentially the argument is: arming a citizen with the weapons that can be used against them is an exercise in futility, and therefore, it would be okay to ban certain weapons, like an Abrams.

And then again, you could argue that this is an alarming prospect, and means we should arm that much more. However, what do you do when a bunch of psychos start driving down the streets of a major city with a battalion of tanks, obtained legally, and kill a lot of people? Sure, they were legit when they did it, and now that they've broken the law, they lose their rights, but that is scant comfort to the families of the deceased.

Again, just food for thought.

[fustercluck]

Another point to consider:

Lets say you have a person who agree's 100% with both the original intent of the founders when they created the 2nd, AND that it should be interpreted today the same way it was back then.

What would be your response to that person's statement that its a moot point? They contest that even a well armed group of civilians is simply NO match for the US Armed forces.

Personally, I have to admit that I find this point valid. I do not think we should ban guns at all. I think MORE guns should be allowed out there for this very purpose, but I'm not in charge.

I do believe, even if you made all the weapons available to the public that the Military has, a group of citizens would be easily crushed by our current military might.

The armed forces in this country are among the most well equipped, most highly trained, fighting force in the world. Given the US's current surveillance ability, it would be next to impossible for a group to organize against the government, and, assuming they could, there is no way they'd be trained enough to stand against even one of the 5 branches.

Also consider all the non conventional weapons in our arsenal. Forget Nukes, just drop a few chem bombs, and send in a Haz-Mat team to clean up the carnage. Or, just vaccinate the troops, and spread a healthy dose of virulent small pox through the population, then send in the troops to mop up the lucky few who are naturally immune.

Essentially the argument is: arming a citizen with the weapons that can be used against them is an exercise in futility, and therefore, it would be okay to ban certain weapons, like an Abrams.

And then again, you could argue that this is an alarming prospect, and means we should arm that much more. However, what do you do when a bunch of psychos start driving down the streets of a major city with a battalion of tanks, obtained legally, and kill a lot of people? Sure, they were legit when they did it, and now that they've broken the law, they lose their rights, but that is scant comfort to the families of the deceased.

Again, just food for thought.


I don't know what the population of the military is right now, but there are 300,000,000 people in the US right now. I think overwhelming numbers of people well armed and steadfast to guarantee freedom and life for their families is likely to conquer any oppressive force foreign or domestic.

How ominous do you suppose the colonial militia was to the greatest army on earth at the time which was the British? I've heard that all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. I say all evil needs to proliferate is for good men to be unable. Would a civil/revolutionary war be bloody and vile? Yes. But I would ask which is more distasteful life under tyranny or death?

To me, either one is inconceivable so a well armed population is likely to prevent even the germination of an oppressive regime let alone allow the development of a gathering threat to be so. In that sense, there is less harm to humanity when it is willing and capapble of defending itself from those who prey on the peaceful. As I stated before human nature has not significantly changed since the dawn of the ages. Given the right combination of circumstances and opportunity, there will be another murderous dictator rise from the dust and exploit the value of men's lives and efforts. Evil has always found a way to steal from the peaceful their lives, their produce and or their freedom.

[AxleIke]

I think you over estimate the number of people willing to fight.

I'd bet you'd get half.

In the time of the Revolution, the technology difference between the Colonists and the British was not nearly as great as the technology difference between the military and us.

I would argue that, even if all arms were legal, very few individuals would be able to afford what is given to most soldiers as standard issue. Even if we had 300 million citizens armed, they'd not have the training, or discipline needed to defeat our Military. Back at the time of the Revolution, battlefield tactics were not that complex. The colonists were able to creatively adapt, and come up with new tactics. Modern warfare is some of the most complex stuff around.

Would a militia be able to afford the support and coordination needed to pull off a massive assault on the government? Doubt it. The rich already control the government through various special interest groups. I doubt they'd fund a group trying to pull down that which keeps them afloat.

The colonists also armed themselves from their local arsenals. We could certainly do the same at our national guard units. They are, after all, the replacement for the "state militias" that existed back then.

I agree that there are far worse things than war. But a good population of this country would swallow just about anything to avoid being uncomfortable.

There was a sizable population of those people during the revolution too.

What turns a lot of people off is that, if you win, you get labeled "patriot", but if you lose, you get labeled "traitor" or "terrorist". Lots of "fair weather" people out there.

[fustercluck]

Yeah, Ike, as I read my post, I can see that having my attention divided between the computer and the wild blatherings of a thirteen yr old on turbo boost has left my thoughts incoherent.

When I have a few moments of undivided attention tonight I'd like to have a do-over. Hehe. Now I'm off to the local asian restaurant with the formidable and hungry Mrs Fuster....

[AxleIke]

By all means. My posts are a bit disjointed as I'm supposed to be working. Ah well.

[RobG]

This is quite enjoyable. :popcorn: Looking forward to round 2.

[gabe]

Sorry to jump into you guys' debate but...

I think we are forgetting that a large number of the U.S. population has served and been trained in our awesome military. Thus, we do have the training needed to defend ourselves from the government. And anyone that has been trained, can train. The military trains you to be a leader also. So we would have a bunch of military trained leaders teaching the rest of the "militia".

Not to mention, our current military is just like you and me... they have just as much right to decide to fight with the government or against the government.

The only disadvantage would be our lack of good weapons. We would be going up against a military with jets, tanks, ships etc... basically all the resources it could handle. Including satellite observation.... scary
But, if we were not restricted in the arms we are able to bear, I think that people would have a better chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government.

[gabe]

If one reads about and understands that the Constitution was written by formerly oppressed free men, one can see that the second amendment was about preserving that freedom from the rise to power of tyrants foreign and domestic. That recent individual freedom was won by individuals collected as a unit to repel a standing and present army. Those individuals did so by the effective use of strategy, will and arms; not just certain kinds of arms, but those equal to or better than the ones used by their opponents.


I think this pretty much sums it up. It's what I was going to say... just not so eloquently :P

This issue is one of the main reasons I haven't moved back to California.
I just don't think I can give up my AR15. Even if it isn't full auto, I couldn't live with a permanently fixed magazine that only holds 10 rounds. What do you do in a real life situation, after you've shot 10 rounds, and the bad guys are still coming?

[AxleIke]

Sorry to jump into you guys' debate but...

I think we are forgetting that a large number of the U.S. population has served and been trained in our awesome military. Thus, we do have the training needed to defend ourselves from the government. And anyone that has been trained, can train. The military trains you to be a leader also. So we would have a bunch of military trained leaders teaching the rest of the "militia".

Not to mention, our current military is just like you and me... they have just as much right to decide to fight with the government or against the government.

The only disadvantage would be our lack of good weapons. We would be going up against a military with jets, tanks, ships etc... basically all the resources it could handle. Including satellite observation.... scary
But, if we were not restricted in the arms we are able to bear, I think that people would have a better chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government.





Without the military on the side of the government, there really isn't a point to the "defense against a tyrannical government" argument. Can't enforce a tyrannical regime without military might to back it up.

All of these arguments have to have some hypothetical element to them; in this case, I assume that the military unit would act as one, and choose to respect the oath's they took when they enlisted.

To address your other point about all arms being legal, I will go back to affordability. We can all afford to have some cool guns. But not THAT many. And certainly very few can afford to own advanced weaponry, such as RPG's, TOW missiles, Tanks, Jets, and satellites. Even if we currently had the right to own all that cool stuff, there exists a very real possibility that it would make little difference.

I agree that ex-military could easily train people in the basics, but how many could actually train people in the higher level stuff, like tactics, and overall battle strategy.

And, given the government's ability to ferret out information, I doubt a project the size needed to overthrow the government could even get off the ground.

[fustercluck]

Okay Ike, I'm back. My date with Mrs. Fuster turned out to be hotter than I anticipated...hehe.

Anyway, my point should have been that the 2nd amendment provides for a well armed population which theoretically would smother even the initial temptation for an oppressive govt to develop.

Remove that barrier, and we are vulnerable to the caprices of benevolence and the natural corruption that power breeds. There is truth to the principle of Peace through strength that Reagan promoted.

Though guns are dangerous and destructive, despotic dictators are even more so. I could name at least 10 in history who through forcible execution of their ideals, murdered millions of innocent women and children; commiting the oldest sins in the newest ways.

In modern society we have a distorted understanding. We have only experienced the damage of misused firearms. We have no personal experience living with bondage and oppression. We have never had a despotic govt. roll over our society with blood and horror as has been done historically. We have never helplessly watched our family and friends starve to death or worse by virtue of nefarious power. We ahve never had to put down tyranny. We have only seen what we are presented by those whose agenda is to disarm us.

[AxleIke]

Okay Ike, I'm back. My date with Mrs. Fuster turned out to be hotter than I anticipated...hehe.

Anyway, my point should have been that the 2nd amendment provides for a well armed population which theoretically would smother even the initial temptation for an oppressive govt to develop.

Remove that barrier, and we are vulnerable to the caprices of benevolence and the natural corruption that power breeds. There is truth to the principle of Peace through strength that Reagan promoted.

Though guns are dangerous and destructive, despotic dictators are even more so. I could name at least 10 in history who through forcible execution of their ideals, murdered millions of innocent women and children; commiting the oldest sins in the newest ways.

In modern society we have a distorted understanding. We have only experienced the damage of misused firearms. We have no personal experience living with bondage and oppression. We have never had a despotic govt. roll over our society with blood and horror as has been done historically. We have never helplessly watched our family and friends starve to death or worse by virtue of nefarious power. We ahve never had to put down tyranny. We have only seen what we are presented by those whose agenda is to disarm us.


Good post.

First of all, let me congratulate you on a night well spent away from the interweb. I'm jealous.

However, I would argue that guns are much less "protective" of a tyrannical government, and much better at removing a tyrannical government once formed.

I completely agree that we should have the right to bear arms in the event that our government throws out the constitution, and begins oppressing us.

However, if our government maintains its adherence to the Constitution as written, then I would argue that the second amendment is far down the list of "protective" amendments.

The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and fourteenth essentially protect us from legitimate laws being passed to oppress us. As long as our government obeys those basic rights, it would be nearly impossible for us to become victims of tyranny.

I think guns are paramount to guaranteeing that, should our government change radically, and we become oppressed, we can fight them off. I think they are the last line of defense. There are quite a few legal options to avail ourselves of prior to violent action.

[fustercluck]

Again Ike, you are right. The aggregate effect of the amendments of the Constitution are to obstruct a sudden seizure of power and freedom. It also serves as a miner's canary; warning of imminent danger should an incremental trend surreptitiously move to steal our freedoms one by one: metaphorically, boil the frog slowly.

So I ask, has govt trespassed the constitution before? Is it doing so now? The last line of defense of liberty is the ability to effectively FORCE our righteous will on govt run rouge with the froth of covetousness of power fresh on it's terrible maw.

I stand in sober resolution in defense of the principles of individual liberty and moral responsibility that the 2nd amendment guarantees. Any infringment of it is unconstitution an hence immoral....even treasonous.

[fustercluck]

Sorry to jump into you guys' debate but...

I think we are forgetting that a large number of the U.S. population has served and been trained in our awesome military. Thus, we do have the training needed to defend ourselves from the government. And anyone that has been trained, can train. The military trains you to be a leader also. So we would have a bunch of military trained leaders teaching the rest of the "militia".

Not to mention, our current military is just like you and me... they have just as much right to decide to fight with the government or against the government.

The only disadvantage would be our lack of good weapons. We would be going up against a military with jets, tanks, ships etc... basically all the resources it could handle. Including satellite observation.... scary
But, if we were not restricted in the arms we are able to bear, I think that people would have a better chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government.





Here, there is no jumping in. All are invited. You make a good point. In fact, I think most of our military would refuse to serve under a tyrant. There are those however who for what ever reason are incapable of recognizing a tyrant when they see one or are conflicted by benefits received from the tyrant. They are the ones who if the environment is right and we are unable to oppose, will roll over freedom and life to force their will and exploit our produce and lives.