US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:48 am

StruckingFuggle wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:The DC 'sniper' was not really a sniper, either. And wasn't caught due to his actual crimes in DC, but one committed in Montgomery, Alabama prior to his attacks in DC. Furthermore, the weapon used was stolen - which would mean the ban would likely not have prevented it, as a crime was committed just to get it.
Depends. Where did he steal it from?

Does it matter? He could just as easily have bought it on the black market - committing a different crime, but with the same result. The point is that he was willing to commit a crime to get the tools he needed to commit another.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That would mean not touched at all, wouldn't it?
Depends. Does it mean all arms, or just that arms can be kept and carried? It doesn't say that you have unlimited choice of weapons. Nor, particularly, are scopes or flash suppressors "arms".[/quote]

Ok. So let's just ban everything except one kind of handgun. Then it's not breaking the 2nd Amendment? That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Furthermore, in order to avoid infringement, the government should be as lenient as they can be.

Banning certain characteristics from being manufactured into weapons or such - that's not infringing the right to keep arms.
No, it's breaking other parts of the Constitution.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
adciv
Redshirt
Posts: 11723
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:20 am
Real Name: Lord Al-Briaca
Location: Middle of Nowhere, MD

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by adciv » Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:54 am

Martin Blank wrote:Refer back to my prior hypothetical example of two pistols, one in matte black and one nickel-plated. One is called the AP9, one is called the AP9N. Are they not two different model numbers?
Depends. I've seen a lot of items in catalogs where the manufacturer would call it the same model number. The -N would be merely a specification.
StruckingFuggle wrote:Banning certain characteristics from being manufactured into weapons or such - that's not infringing the right to keep arms.
I'm going to put forth for you a 'hypothetical' example. One that is actually based on a court case. Lets say I pass a law that bans all handguns. It doesn't violate the 2nd amendment as you can still poses other arms, right? Now lets say I then pass a 2nd law banning all rifles. Then all shotguns. Then all muzzle loaders. And so on. Do any of these violate the constitution individually or only collectively?
Repensum Est Canicula
The most dangerous words from an Engineer: "I have an idea."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
StruckingFuggle
Redshirt
Posts: 22166
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by StruckingFuggle » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:07 am

collegestudent22 wrote:Does it matter? He could just as easily have bought it on the black market - committing a different crime, but with the same result. The point is that he was willing to commit a crime to get the tools he needed to commit another.
I take issue with the assertion that buying a gun "on the black market" is as easy as stealing a gun. And no, the point isn't just that he was willing, but also that he was able.

Ok. So let's just ban everything except one kind of handgun. Then it's not breaking the 2nd Amendment? That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Furthermore, in order to avoid infringement, the government should be as lenient as they can be.
Then by your argument, grenade launchers, rpgs, flamethrowers, napalm, and semtex should all be commerically available to everyone, without restriction or need for license, either.

No, it's breaking other parts of the Constitution.
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't change that it's not a violation of the second amendment.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."

"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:17 am

StruckingFuggle wrote: I take issue with the assertion that buying a gun "on the black market" is as easy as stealing a gun. And no, the point isn't just that he was willing, but also that he was able.
You would be surprised how easy it is to buy a gun, or anything else for that matter, on the black market. How else do you think gangs and cartels get automatic weapons?
Then by your argument, grenade launchers, rpgs, flamethrowers, napalm, and semtex should all be commerically available to everyone, without restriction or need for license, either.
Not quite. I think it could easily be limited to small arms, but then again, I don't think anything usable by the police should be prevented from use by the average citizen.
No, it's breaking other parts of the Constitution.
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't change that it's not a violation of the second amendment.
So I should just ignore the rest of the Constitution in discussing Amendment Numero Dos? Where, then, is the "Whole Constitution" discussion thread?
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
StruckingFuggle
Redshirt
Posts: 22166
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by StruckingFuggle » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:27 am

collegestudent22 wrote:You would be surprised how easy it is to buy a gun, or anything else for that matter, on the black market. How else do you think gangs and cartels get automatic weapons?
I think by having connections that are less than common.
Not quite. I think it could easily be limited to small arms, but then again, I don't think anything usable by the police should be prevented from use by the average citizen.
But the Constitution makes no such provisions.

So I should just ignore the rest of the Constitution in discussing Amendment Numero Dos? Where, then, is the "Whole Constitution" discussion thread?
No, you shouldn't, but you also shouldn't bring it up as a violation of the second amendment. That's not a difficult concept.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."

"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:45 am

StruckingFuggle wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:You would be surprised how easy it is to buy a gun, or anything else for that matter, on the black market. How else do you think gangs and cartels get automatic weapons?
I think by having connections that are less than common.
Arms dealers have to find ways to sell their illegal weapons. Thus, there are ways to obtain them. They might be more difficult than stealing, but they are not outside the realm of possibilities for a criminal to go through.
Not quite. I think it could easily be limited to small arms, but then again, I don't think anything usable by the police should be prevented from use by the average citizen.
But the Constitution makes no such provisions.
It would require a new Amendment, yes. But the Federal Government cannot take action against an Amendment without adding another. This is the same reason the 21st Amendment needed to be passed, and it has not changed. Personally, I would go with the one adciv proposed in this very thread:
adciv wrote:"The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. The federal government shall insure that no private individuals keep or possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. All other forms of weapons and munitions may be owned, borne and possessed by the citizens of the United States without restriction or registration. Such weapons and munitions may not be taxed."
So I should just ignore the rest of the Constitution in discussing Amendment Numero Dos? Where, then, is the "Whole Constitution" discussion thread?
No, you shouldn't, but you also shouldn't bring it up as a violation of the second amendment. That's not a difficult concept.
Did I? I'm fairly certain that I was saying merely that it was an illegal act by the government.

I find it odd how my stance has changed from earlier in this thread, where I said:
cs22 wrote:Maybe assault weapon laws are legal under the Second Amendment (I don't think they are, but I can live with them if the Supreme Court says they are legal), but if it gets to the point where I cannot buy a handgun....
Now, I am much more libertarian on the subject.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
raptor9k
Redshirt
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Earth

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by raptor9k » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:01 am

FYI my comment on the DC sniper was a gentle reminder not to supply examples that don't corroborate your position. He didn't use a rifle with a flash suppressor (honestly, who the hell puts a flash suppressor on a sniper rifle anyway?) so why the hell would you use that as an example of when a flash suppressor would be necessary? Also, just because he didn't have the military title of sniper, wtf else would you call shooting someone at range from a concealed position without detection?

Hell, I'm probably one of the biggest gun nuts on this forum and completely opposed to most forms of gun control. You aren't doing us any favors presenting your half assed, un-researched evidence on the subject.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:38 am

raptor9k wrote:Also, just because he didn't have the military title of sniper, wtf else would you call shooting someone at range from a concealed position without detection?
I wouldn't call 50 to 100 yards "at range" for a trained or practiced shooter, which the 'sniper' was. I can hit a target from 50 yards with an M9 pistol, and I have minimal training.
Hell, I'm probably one of the biggest gun nuts on this forum and completely opposed to most forms of gun control. You aren't doing us any favors presenting your half assed, un-researched evidence on the subject.
Suffice it to say, the man was not a 'sniper' and was not sniping when he went on his spree.

Also, I didn't intend to use the DC sniper as an example of a suppressor being used, but an example of someone who could have used one. Perhaps I could have been more clear on that.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
adciv
Redshirt
Posts: 11723
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:20 am
Real Name: Lord Al-Briaca
Location: Middle of Nowhere, MD

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by adciv » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:57 pm

I don't know. In a way you could argue he was using a flash suppressor/silencer. Look at the setup the two snipers (PLURAL) had in the trunk of the car. The trunk was essentially acting as one big silencer and flash suppressor.
adciv wrote:
StruckingFuggle wrote:Banning certain characteristics from being manufactured into weapons or such - that's not infringing the right to keep arms.
I'm going to put forth for you a 'hypothetical' example. One that is actually based on a court case. Lets say I pass a law that bans all handguns. It doesn't violate the 2nd amendment as you can still poses other arms, right? Now lets say I then pass a 2nd law banning all rifles. Then all shotguns. Then all muzzle loaders. And so on. Do any of these violate the constitution individually or only collectively?
*poke*
Repensum Est Canicula
The most dangerous words from an Engineer: "I have an idea."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Martin Blank » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:02 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:I wouldn't call 50 to 100 yards "at range" for a trained or practiced shooter, which the 'sniper' was. I can hit a target from 50 yards with an M9 pistol, and I have minimal training.
Snipers are gunmen who strive to deliver a single shot, usually lethal, from a hidden position. Distance does not matter. Do you think police snipers take their shots from 500 yards out?

BTW, hitting a target on a regular basis (especially center-of-mass shots) from 50 yards with a 9mm pistol may actually be a matter of some accomplishment. I've been firing guns for a long time and have had professional training, and anything past 25 yards is difficult for me to hit consistently with a pistol.

You're also completely ignoring the issue of reasonableness. From the very beginnings of the Supreme Court, it has recognized that reasonable limitations may be placed on rights. Speech that involves imminent harm, such as a speaker telling his followers to go and attack someone in particular, may be prohibited, and religion that allows human sacrifice may be curtailed. The press may be prohibited from printing libelous statements. A literal reading of the First Amendment would leave all of these possible.

Even in Heller, the majority recognized the issue of reasonableness in limitations on the right to keep and bear arms. Part III of the opinion covers this (citations removed for clarity):
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
This section may well go on as one of the major portions of Second Amendment jurisprudence guiding future cases. Heller set down the individual right to bear arms, and McDonald v. Chicago may require the states to recognize it as well. But deciding which weapons are allowed would be guided by the above section, which focuses entirely on reasonableness.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:54 pm

Martin Blank wrote: Snipers are gunmen who strive to deliver a single shot, usually lethal, from a hidden position. Distance does not matter. Do you think police snipers take their shots from 500 yards out?
I would still argue that distance matters. A lethal shot with a rifle from 50 yards to 100 yards is nothing. Especially for a weapon like the DC snipers used, an AR-15 with a maximum range of between 400-600 yards. Also, I wouldn't call police 'snipers' actual snipers, but sharpshooters. Even under your definition, they are typically not hidden, but quite obvious on top of buildings or in windows.
You're also completely ignoring the issue of reasonableness. From the very beginnings of the Supreme Court, it has recognized that reasonable limitations may be placed on rights. Speech that involves imminent harm, such as a speaker telling his followers to go and attack someone in particular, may be prohibited, and religion that allows human sacrifice may be curtailed. The press may be prohibited from printing libelous statements. A literal reading of the First Amendment would leave all of these possible.
The issue being that there are already laws curtailing the right under reasonableness circumstances. Those laws include things like the crime of "assault with a deadly weapon", etc. Speech is not banned before you use it. Firearms are. That is the problem. It is reasonable to curtail the right to bear arms in two ways: 1) if you have already used them improperly to cause harm to another that was not in self-defense or 2) there is NO FEASIBLE WAY that it would be used for sporting purposes, self-defense or defense against a corrupt government (i.e. WMDs/large explosives). Removing any sort of small arms from the populace defeats the entire purpose of the Amendment, as criminals and the government will still have access to it.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Martin Blank » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:33 pm

Whether or not the actual definition of a sniper matches your romantic notions of the concept, the shootings in DC were sniping actions.

There are laws against speech that is slanderous, libelous, and threatens imminent harm. Prior to such words being uttered, they are illegal. I don't understand how that is different from limitations on the kind of weapons that can be purchased.

BTW, explosives are very effective against a corrupt government. Cannon were used against the British in the latter half of the 1770s. Ask the US Army and Marines how well explosives work against many of their vehicles. Using your 'a, b, or c' argument, explosives match c, and therefore, by your argument, should be legal.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:56 pm

Martin Blank wrote:Whether or not the actual definition of a sniper matches your romantic notions of the concept, the shootings in DC were sniping actions.
In that case, every single shot fired from outside of pistol range is a sniping action. That seems ridiculous to me.
There are laws against speech that is slanderous, libelous, and threatens imminent harm. Prior to such words being uttered, they are illegal. I don't understand how that is different from limitations on the kind of weapons that can be purchased.
Because it is the use of the speech which is illegal, just as there are certain uses of firearms that are illegal. Banning the kind of weapon is like banning certain words and claiming that because there are other ways to express your idea it isn't a violation of the First Amendment.
BTW, explosives are very effective against a corrupt government. Cannon were used against the British in the latter half of the 1770s. Ask the US Army and Marines how well explosives work against many of their vehicles. Using your 'a, b, or c' argument, explosives match c, and therefore, by your argument, should be legal.
I think they should be. There is a reason I qualified it with the word "large". Of course, I wouldn't leave that up to the government either - but instead determine an explosive yield before passage, higher than which is classified as "large" or a WMD.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Deacon » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:31 pm

StruckingFuggle wrote:I take issue with the assertion that buying a gun "on the black market" is as easy as stealing a gun.
You're actually right. It's not as easy as stealing a gun. It's MUCH easier.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Deacon » Sun May 23, 2010 6:57 pm

Some interesting new developments from a surprisingly vocal Calderon. It seems like nations are starting to test us now, push us much further to see how we'll react with Obama at the helm. I'm not sure we've passed this particular test.

From http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=5840

The wording sounds piquedly frustrated, but hey, I can understand that:
On Thursday, Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico, where prohibitive gun laws prevent good people from having firearms for protection against criminals and governments of dubious legitimacy (historically the norm in Mexico), encouraged Congress to reinstate the federal "assault weapon" ban. With a warning seemingly designed to appeal to those who believe that speaking out against the Obama Administration's policies are one step short of sedition or worse, Calderon said, "f you do not regulate the sale of these weapons in the right way, nothing guarantees that criminals here in the United States with access to the same power of weapons will not decide to challenge American authorities and civilians."


Calderon also misinformed Congress, claiming that violence in Mexico rose significantly after the U.S. ban expired in 2004. In fact, Mexico's murder rate has been stable since 2003 and remains well below rates recorded previously. However, he did not explain why violent crime has declined significantly in the U.S. since the ban expired, or how a ban on flash suppressors and bayonet mounts relates to drug thugs in Mexico or anywhere else.


I like that they used The LA Times to put the lie to his BS.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests