Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Define "reasonable." That's the problem. What many people would agree to be a reasonable type of firearm to own for protection, the NRA membership would say that anything goes, any sort of restriction in their eyes is unreasonable.
Originally Posted By mele How about people arm themselves with the type of guns that were available back when the Constitution was written. I have no problems with people stockpiling those or carrying them around.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>How about people arm themselves with the type of guns that were available back when the Constitution was written. I have no problems with people stockpiling those or carrying them around.<< LOL! I'm not a fan of guns beyond those kind either. The problem is (and again, this shows the hypocrisy of the right-wing) is that they make the same argument about freedom of speech or expression. "The Founders certainly never envisioned pornography or a crucifix submerged in urine when they wrote about free speech!" They never envisioned automatic weapons, either. Well, I suppose it has to be a two-way street. We do put reasonable limits on free speech, and we should on guns. But we can't use the "the founders didn't envision it" argument if we don't want that used in other areas.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Maybe we should have guns submerged in urine. You'd have to really need to use a gun badly to reach in and grab it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Better yet, limit guns to those prissy little Deringers that weasely city slickers in old westerns always had hidden up their sleeves. It's tough to do the whole "Go ahead. Make my day." thing with a Deringer. Yeah, you could kill someone with one, but you half expect a little flag reading "BANG!" to pop out of the barrel.
Originally Posted By mele I still like Chris Rock's idea of making bullets really, outrageously expensive. To (very badly) paraphrase him "Shoot, he must have done something to deserve it, there's $50,000 worth of bullets in him."
Originally Posted By EdisYoda So, how about that North Pole Ice melting? Well, they are talking about this decision over in that thread we might as well talk about the Ice here.
Originally Posted By X-san Come on, Ed, you know gun conversations are cooler! ***What does the term "arms" mean in the context of the Second Amendment? By your rule above, don't use historical context - base your answer only on the words, or in this case, word, at hand as written in the Constitution.*** ***I would say a fair reading of the second amendment should allow a citizen to bear reasonable arms.*** The constitution doesn't say "reasonable", it just says "arms. And aren't you the literalism in this conversation? What the heck do you mean, "fair reading"? Where was your acknowledgment of "fair reading" when you were arguing that the constitution is invalid unless you believe in Jesus? Anyway, as SD said, without historical context the constitution states that Americans have the RIGHT to own weapons of such a nature that you could fight an army (a "well-organized militia" in todays terms). So, again, guns don't even apply. You couldn't possibly fight an army with a mere gun. Personal, fully-functional tanks, rocket launchers, even nukes are fair game and every American has the right to own any of them (wasn't there a Boston Legal episode recently where a town was fighting for their right to possess their own nuclear weapon?). And the fact that, taking the historical INTO account, the NRA has twisted the second amendment into meaning "everyone has the right to have a gun, just because" without any matching up of what "arms to fight a militia" back then has to do with "arms to fight a militia" now...well, that's just silly. The amendment has nothing to do with personal "self-defense" as in fighting criminals, it has to do with collective self-defense, a means to wage war.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Talking about Boston, when I lived there, the drivers were so bad I thought about buying a M1 Abrams Tank... fully loaded... purely for defensive driving, of course!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The amendment has nothing to do with personal "self-defense" as in fighting criminals, it has to do with collective self-defense, a means to wage war. >>> I've got a bunch more to say about this case, as not only is it an interesting case overall, there are many facets of it that really bring out certain aspects of how people view things that are just fascinating. Also, let me say that I've not read the actual court opinion yet, nor have I read opinion-based editorial coverage on the ruling other than what people have said in this thread. Some of what I say might be changed once I do those things, but I wanted to get my thoughts out before those things happen. But, you've made me alter my charted course and I'll address what you said above now. Perhaps the primary situation in this case is: does the Second Amendment establish an individual right to keep and bear arms, or is it just a collective right for citizens to bear arms outside of formal government control (especially the federal government)? I think that regardless of one's opinion on gun control or guns in general, it is unreasonable to interpret the Second Amendment as not granting an individual right to keep and bear arms. And since this is a Constitutional question and really a historical question, and not a policy question, there's no need to go into a bunch of debates about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. In fact, I would argue that one should NOT go into such things when considering whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right. I say this because they are irrelevant. If the Second Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms, this is true regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. And if it doesn't, then that also is true whether or not it's a good idea. It's quite clear from how it's written, and the historical interpretation over the last 200+ years as well as current interpretation, that the First Amendment grants individual rights and not just a collective right. The same is true for the Third, Forth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. Does it pass any test of reasonableness to claim that Amendments 1 and 3-8 all establish individual rights, but that in the case of 2 they decided that would be the best place to just stuck in a collective right? Further, does it seem reasonable that the phrase "the people" in 2 only means people collectively, but "the people" in the other amendments refers to each person individually?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I agree that the government could have a role to play to define what are appropriate "arms" for the populace. >>> Why do you say that? Just above, you said "... we are left only to read words" and specifically argue AGAINST any notion of trying to figure out what was intended beyond the words themselves. Given that, how do you get from: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." to <<< I agree that the government could have a role to play to define what are appropriate 'arms' for the populace. Is it reasonable to permit a paranoid delusional maniac to bear a gun? The government could have a place to say no. >>> If you are looking only at the words of the Second Amendment, how have you come to the conclusion that the government has the right to keep guns away from paranoid delusional maniacs? Even more to the point, you then conclude: <<< But the Constitution does protect the maniac to bear a big stick. >>> I am very interested to know how you came to the conclusion that a maniac has a Constitutionally-protected right to bear a big stick, but not a gun. You say this so matter-of-factly that I take you at your word for it, but I really don't see how any argument could be made that this is the case. <<< I would say a fair reading of the second amendment should allow a citizen to bear reasonable arms. >>> Fair reading? I think I see how it is. Even though you say "we are left only to read words," we still get to use a "fair reading" of those words. The problem with this is obvious: except for the small number of people to whom the Constitution is very clear from any perspective, the rest of us are going to end up disagreeing over what a "fair reading" is. And more to the point, a judge's fair reading is going to be labeled as "legislating from the bench" in all cases where it disagrees with each person's own personal opinion.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I haven't actually heard Obama say anything negitive about gun ownership rights >>> He's very wise to not have done so. One thing smart that most Democrats have figured out is that running on a gun control platform is a losing proposition, with the possible exception of localized races here and there. The issue is that there is a significant contingent of people for which support of private gun ownership is a litmus-test issue. Many of these people are either centrist, independent, or even mildly Democratic (think "Reagan Democrats"), but if gun control becomes an issue, they will vote the pro-gun candidate every time. The number of people on the left who act the opposite are tiny in comparison (there may be just as many people on the left that have the opposite view of gun control, but the numbers of them for whom gun control is a litmus test issue is small).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< How about people arm themselves with the type of guns that were available back when the Constitution was written. I have no problems with people stockpiling those or carrying them around. >>> <<< LOL! I'm not a fan of guns beyond those kind either. >>> If that were the metric to be used in Constitutional interpretation (whereby "arms" was interpreted to refer only to those arms that existed at the time the Second Amendment was written), then that would be problematic. Under that plan, how would you interpret this part of the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" Would you say that the gov't has no restrictions against reading everyone's emails, tapping their phones, or examining their computers? Those means of communication could not have been envisioned at the time the Fourth Amendment was written, yet I hardly think that that means they do not fall under "persons, houses, papers, and effects." I think the only reasonable interpretation is that the authors were referring to a general class of things and not just the particular members of those classes that happened to exist at the time. So, anyone that makes the argument that the Second Amendment is limited to only those arms that existed at the time it was written are on very dangerous ground if they were to apply that same line of reasoning to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>If that were the metric to be used in Constitutional interpretation (whereby "arms" was interpreted to refer only to those arms that existed at the time the Second Amendment was written), then that would be problematic.<< Of course it is. Which is why I also said that it has to be a two-way street. I don't like it when conservatives say that the Founders never meant to protect pornography or other types of expression or speech, because they didn't exist back then. Therefore, it's not fair to say that since certain guns didn't exist, they shouldn't be covered.
Originally Posted By X-san **Does it pass any test of reasonableness to claim that Amendments 1 and 3-8 all establish individual rights, but that in the case of 2 they decided that would be the best place to just stuck in a collective right? Further, does it seem reasonable that the phrase "the people" in 2 only means people collectively, but "the people" in the other amendments refers to each person individually?** Actually, yes. It does pass the "reasonableness test" in this case (imo, of course). Why? Let's look again. "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." There is something in the wording of this particular amendment which doesn't exist in any of the others, 1-8. Only in the second amendment do they provide a REASON for the right. All the others simply state the right, and what exceptions may be made. That being the case, I think it's VERY different in terms of how it applies to everyday people. In other words, now that we have a standing army of our own, the second amendment only really applies to THEM and not ordinary people. Or, it applies to all of us in the sense that we have the right to rise up against THEM (I'd like to see someone try, though...that's be one dead enemy combatant right there), and to interpret it that way I would submit that there should be no controls on weapons for personal use whatsoever (yes, I'm talking tanks and missiles...how else can you fight the U.S. Army OR a similar enemy?). That's my take on it, anyway.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Only in the second amendment do they provide a REASON for the right. All the others simply state the right, and what exceptions may be made. >>> That is the crux for one of the basic problems with the 2nd Amendment: the sentence doesn't "parse" according to the rules of the English language (at least as used today) because of the wording and punctuation used. This in of itself makes it difficult to ever come to a final conclusion as to its meaning, as we can really never determine the meaning of the sentence from even a grammatical standpoint, let alone a more broad one. <<< In other words, now that we have a standing army of our own, the second amendment only really applies to THEM and not ordinary people. >>> Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Considering the context of the Bill of Rights, do you really believe that the 2nd Amendment was intended to guarantee the right to join the standing army? It's very clear what governmental abuses the Bill of Rights is intended to protect against: restrictions on free speech, intrusive police procedures, abusive punishment, protection of private property, and so on. Do you really think that they felt the need to protect the right to join the Army was so important that they included it among all these other rights? Put another way, do you think that the detriment to society as a whole from allowing the government to restrict who can join the Army is anywhere near the abusive possibility of any of the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?
Originally Posted By X-san Well, the conclusion was that OR the other (that we have the right to arm ourselves such that we could battle an army...which, actually, I believe is the true intent of the 2nd amendment).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Well, the conclusion was that OR the other (that we have the right to arm ourselves such that we could battle an army...which, actually, I believe is the true intent of the 2nd amendment). >>> If the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide us (we the people) the ability to battle an army (assumedly of the standing government), how is that purpose accomplished by interpreting it as granting the right to join the army?
Originally Posted By X-san It isn't. What I was trying to say was you could look at it either one way, OR the other. My main point is that the amendment grants the right to have weapons and explains the reason why. Therefore all Mrk's talk about "reasonable arms" is just that. The amendment says nothing about how big a gun is allowed, just that it is and shall not be infringed. Also, wasn't this written before the colonies actually HAD an official "standing army"? If that were the case, I do think you could make an argument that the army as it exists now takes care of the "issue". But again, that's just one argument (the other being that we need the ability to rise up against enemies both foreign AND domestic, something that I agree with but consider to be impossible in this day and age). What I think it DOESN'T address is the concept of requiring a weapon for self defense against criminals or in order to hunt for dangerous or delicious animals.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< My main point is that the amendment grants the right to have weapons and explains the reason why. Therefore all Mrk's talk about "reasonable arms" is just that. The amendment says nothing about how big a gun is allowed, just that it is and shall not be infringed. >>> That's certainly true. And please note that as a point of order I haven't yet gotten around to stating my opinion on the ruling as it comes to the DC handgun ban. <<< Also, wasn't this written before the colonies actually HAD an official "standing army"? If that were the case, I do think you could make an argument that the army as it exists now takes care of the "issue". >>> It was. But to restate what I've already said: the notion that since we now have a standing army, that somehow negates the people's need to protect themselves from a government run amok and using its powers against the domestic population is a fallacy. And I don't mean to say that we actually have such a need today - only that just because we have a standing Army isn't what makes it not so.
