Guns must be protected at all costs- why?

[Antiwar]

With respect:

Replying to @ttwtt78640's comments is counterproductive.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think something like they have in Canada or Israel would be fine with me.

Really? At least you are honest.

Canada introduces law to freeze handgun sales, ban look-alike toys

Canada's government introduced legislation Monday to implement a "national freeze" on the sale and purchase of handguns as part of a gun control package that would also limit magazine capacities and ban some toys that look like guns.

www.reuters.com

https://barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Hannah%20Katz%20-%20Guns%20in%20America%20vs%20Israel.pdf

 

[ttwtt78640]

You come for my knives there's gonna be trouble, pal.

Exactly.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

If people are into "originalist" interpretations, then I would say let's let them have the "original" arms that the 2A was referring to: front-loading muskets. They can even have puckle guns if they really want. Now that would be a truly originalist interpretation.

The Constitution said "Arms" not muskets. That's the "originalist" thinking. That's like saying freedom of the press only applies to the printing press and not tv and the internet. Argument lost.

 

[ataraxia]

The Constitution said "Arms" not muskets. That's the "originalist" thinking. That's like saying freedom of the press only applies to the printing press and not tv and the internet. Argument lost.

These are all just a matter of interpretation. That’s why I think the second amendment just needs to go altogether. It’s hopelessly obsolete, and there’s no point continuing to play around with it to try to make it fit the modern world. It’s like trying to fit a round peg through a square hole.

You want to argue with your line of logic about “arms”, then we should not have even banned nuclear arms for public sale. Arms are arms, right? That’s what the constitution says. Argument lost.

The 2A was written for a time and level of technology which have long been surpassed, and so it’s hopelessly obsolete at this point.

Technology can often be disruptive and becomes a game changers like that. It’s OK to have laws that to try to keep up. Societies which refuse to change their laws with the times become hopelessly dysfunctional, like ours is quickly becoming.

 

[JH Oldoc]

That's like saying freedom of the press only applies to the printing press and not tv and the internet. Argument lost.

You know - that's how the Fairness Doctrine fell.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

[/QUOTE]

These are all just a matter of interpretation. That’s why I think the second amendment just needs to go altogether. It’s hopelessly obsolete, and there’s no point continuing to play around with it to try to make it fit the modern world. It’s like trying to fit a round peg through a square hole.

You want to argue with your line of logic about “arms”, then we should not have even banned nuclear arms for public sale. Arms are arms, right? That’s what the constitution says. Argument lost.

The 2A was written for a time and level of technology which have long been surpassed, and so it’s hopelessly obsolete at this point.

Technology can often be disruptive and becomes a game changers like that. It’s OK to have laws that to try to keep up. Societies which refuse to change their laws with the times become hopelessly dysfunctional, like ours is quickly becoming.

The Constitution isn't about changing technology. It's the principles and ideas that formed our government and our rights.

It has stood the test of time qute well and don't see it needing radical changes because it doesn't represent the liberal agenda.

 

[ataraxia]

The Constitution isn't about changing technology. It's the principles and ideas that formed our government and our rights.

It has stood the test of time qute well and don't see it needing radical changes because it doesn't represent the liberal agenda.

Uh, no. The Constitution has been changed many times. I am sure you must be aware of this. The founders of this country never meant for it to be some religious revelation of eternal truths.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history... [T]he detail of the formation of the American governments... may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven... it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses... Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”
― John Adams, The Political Writings of John Adams, [A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, 1787]

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. "
-letter, Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

The Constitution was written by use of reason and senses, not unquestioning adherence to supposed eternal principles, blindly adhered to regardless of changing technology and circumstances. It's not a religion. It's OK to have some common sense and use our brain sometimes, just like they did in dealing with their circumstances.

 

[JH Oldoc]

The Constitution isn't about changing technology. It's the principles and ideas that formed our government and our rights.

It has stood the test of time qute well and don't see it needing radical changes because it doesn't represent the liberal agenda.

What could "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" mean?

Does Federalist 29 help?

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29

avalon.law.yale.edu

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

 

[Linuxcooldude]

What could "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" mean?

Well regulated means in good working order, not regulating firearms. In fact the militia act required personal firearm ownership to those who were of legal age.

 

[JH Oldoc]

Well regulated means in good working order, not regulating firearms. In fact the militia act required personal firearm ownership to those who were of legal age.

Certainly understandable that the government wasn't in a position to provide arms to all members of the Militia.
Where you suggesting that in good working order means that the gun owner should keep his weapon well oiled?

Late edit above.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Uh, no. The Constitution has been changed many times. I am sure you must be aware of this. The founders of this country never meant for it to be some religious revelation of eternal truths.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history... [T]he detail of the formation of the American governments... may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven... it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses... Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”
― John Adams, The Political Writings of John Adams, [A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, 1787]

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. "
-letter, Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

The Constitution was written by use of reason and senses, not unquestioning adherence to supposed eternal principles, blindly adhered to regardless of changing technology and circumstances. It's not a religion. It's OK to have some common sense and use our brain sometimes, just like they did in dealing with their circumstances.

Nobody seems to be arguing that that the Constitution cant be changed (aka amended), but are arguing that until it is amended then it’s content and clear intent must be respected as written.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Certainly understandable that the government wasn't in a position to provide arms to all members of the Militia.
Where you suggesting that in good working order means that the gun owner should keep his weapon well oiled?

Late edit above.

What the militia clause clearly doesn’t mean is that the 2A was not meant to apply to “military style” guns.

 

[ataraxia]

Nobody seems to be arguing that that the Constitution cant be changed (aka amended), but are arguing that until it is amended then it’s content and clear intent must be respected as written.

As written, sales of nuclear arms to the public should not be banned by law. Nuclear arms are just a type of arms, and as such, openly available to all.

I can't think of a better deterrent to potential government tyranny, if you think that's the original purpose of the 2A.

I think everyone realizes that the 2A, as written, is hopelessly obsolete. It's just that no one wants to say it.

 

[JH Oldoc]

What the militia clause clearly doesn’t mean is that the 2A was not meant to apply to “military style” guns.

I don't know on that. If the militia members were intended to provision themselves in defense of the country and state then it wouldn't be a bird gun, but rather something suitable to warfare.

PS: Oh, okay, ttwtt - lot's of negatives in your post there.
I think we agree.

 

[JH Oldoc]

I can't think of a better deterrent to potential government tyranny. As written, sales of nuclear arms to the public should not be banned by law.

I've always wanted my own tactical nuke.
Should I write to Santa at Christmas time?

 

[ataraxia]

I've always wanted my own tactical nuke.
Should I write to Santa at Christmas time?

Nah. You'd probably do better writing to a Republican congressman.

 

[ttwtt78640]

As written, sales of nuclear arms to the public should not be banned by law. Nuclear arms are just a type of arms, and as such, openly available to all.

I can't think of a better deterrent to potential government tyranny, if you think that's the original purpose of the 2A.

I think everyone realizes that the 2A, as written, is hopelessly obsolete. It's just that no one wants to say it.

That is pure nonsense, but you be you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't know on that. If the militia members were intended to provision themselves in defense of the country and state then it wouldn't be a bird gun, but rather something suitable to warfare.

PS: Oh, okay, ttwtt - lot's of negatives in your post there.
I think we agree.

The 1994-2004 AWB law was a negative as well.

 

[ataraxia]

That is pure nonsense, but you be you.

It looks like nonsense to you because you are choosing to put your own interpretation on the 2A. But to someone just reading exactly what's written in the Constitution, how is it nonsense?

 

[ttwtt78640]

It looks like nonsense to you because you are choosing to put your own interpretation on the 2A. But to someone just reading exactly what's written in the Constitution, how is it nonsense?

Perhaps you should read the DC v Heller decision.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ataraxia]

Perhaps you should read the DC v Heller decision.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The only thing in "common use" at the time were front-loading muskets. The "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" obviously should include prohibiting these crazy new assault weapons designed primarily for killing large numbers of civilians quickly and efficiently.

If you like DC v Heller, then surely you agree with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion on it:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Antonin Scalia

 

[JH Oldoc]

The only thing in "common use" at the time were front-loading muskets. The "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" obviously should include prohibiting these crazy new assault weapons designed primarily for killing large numbers of civilians quickly and efficiently.

If you like DC v Heller, then surely you agree with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion on it:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Antonin Scalia

However, if you agree that the US Constitution is a living document then you agree that while they (muskets) were state of the art weaponry then, what is state of the art now.
...but, never minding the weapons themselves, what was the purpose of owning the weapons (state of the art for warfare)?

..because you were a trained Militia member under regulation, or because you were an unattached citizen with a constitutional right to own one?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The only thing in "common use" at the time were front-loading muskets. The "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" obviously should include prohibiting these crazy new assault weapons designed primarily for killing large numbers of civilians quickly and efficiently.

If you like DC v Heller, then surely you agree with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion on it:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Antonin Scalia

Your “at the time” addition appeared nowhere in the Heller decision.

 

[RF667799]

Both should be a little harder than they are now. Obviously. At least as hard as getting a drivers license. This class of potentially hazardous equipment is not any less dangerous than driving a car. The laws concerning them should match.

From what I hear, the rifle used in Illinois was legally owned by the shooter. If that was the case, then he did possess a license issued by the state of Illinois to own that gun, and he was required to pass a criminal background check to obtain that license. Which is not required to obtain a driver's license in Illinois. Nor is a driver's license required to merely possess a motor vehicle.

You always try this avenue, and you always end up not liking it.