• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

zstep18 said:
Should a citizen be allowed to carry military-grade firearms? Is this limit an "infringement" on a citizens right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

A citizen should be required to.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Anti-Party said:
Interesting stuff. But all of that only broke down one word, Militia. No one debates the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Your not being aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does. A lot. In circles you apparently did not know existed.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

TurtleDude said:
well it depends. a Kabar knife is military grade and so is a beretta M9 or even an old colt 1911 since we still use that in the military. But what we clearly have a right to is civilian police weapons. That isn't even worth debating. Now its obvious to me that the M4 rifle is protected. Stuff like grenades and individually deployable rockets-that's another issue. So once we get rid of the idiotic laws preventing most civilians from owning the stuff that other CIVILIANS are issued for self defense, than we can debate a grenade or a SAM or a belt fed machine gun
Click to expand...

But, my point is that many read the 2nd Amendment in the most literal way, and therefore, according to those people, military-grade weapons are logically fair game.

If one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment is protection against a possible tyrannical government, shouldn't citizens be able to have the same weapons?
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

TurtleDude said:
you just fell for that. the military sidearm is a 15 shot semi auto beretta. No more "powerful" than most police pistols

you just proved you don't have much knowledge about firearms
Click to expand...

No. Like I said before, I misread "sidearm" as "firearm". It was my mistake.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

mac said:
A citizen should be required to.
Click to expand...

Own, perhaps. Not carry. Damned inconvenient to lug a battle rifle with you on your daily business, which is why handguns are preferred.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Viktyr Gehrig said:
Own, perhaps. Not carry. Damned inconvenient to lug a battle rifle with you on your daily business, which is why handguns are preferred.
Click to expand...
It's not really that bad. If I can lug a machine gun while operating construction equipment then others can carry an M4 to the office. That's just a point of theory, it'll never happen until we get attacked on a regular basis like Israel.

Seriously though, my school bag is more cumbersome than a rifle.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Jerry said:
This is a rule of thumb I got from my CCW instructor, and from personally reading the Heller decision and how SCOTUS arrived at what constitutes "dangerous and unusual":

If the item is left alone for 100 years, will it do anything on it's own?

If a grenade is left unattended for 100 years, it will explode. This is true for most explosives, therefore most explosives should be heavily regulated.

If a rifle is left unattended for 100 years, it will be rusted over. This is true of all rifles, therefor no rifles should be heavily regulated.
Click to expand...

Will a fully automatic machine gun do anything on its own? Will a fighter jet do anything on its own? What about a tank?
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

zstep18 said:
Will a fully automatic machine gun do anything on its own?
Click to expand...
It will rust and become inoperable. That's it. The ammunition will also corrode and become inert. Ammunition will not ever explode on it's own. If kept clean, both gun and ammunition can last forever.
Source:
LONG TERM AMMUNITION STORAGE

zstep18 said:
Will a fighter jet do anything on its own?
Click to expand...
A jet is like a car: with the exception of the fuel, a fighter jet will simply corrode and fall apart. JP-8 will become volatile and unstable over time, though this still takes several years.

zstep18 said:
What about a tank?
Click to expand...
A tank is like a car: with the exception of the fuel, a tank will simply corrode and fall apart. JP-8 (yes, tanks run on jet fuel, as do most gun trucks and military construction equipment) will become volatile and unstable over time, though this still takes several years.


***
Like most explosives, an RPG or hand grenade will explode if left unattended. This is true because when a grenade's fuse becomes degraded, it activates, detonating the device. It is impossible to store explosives in a safe manor in an urban setting, while ammunition, firearms and vehicles will never pose a hazard (except for the fuel, as noted).
 
Last edited:
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Jerry said:
Looks like it's time to write a new pre-written response, since I'm seeing this lie more often...



Back then the Musket and Kentucky Long Rifle were 'in common use at the time', and so those arms were protected. Today the M16 is 'in common use at the time', and so the M16 is protected. In 50 years should sci-fi laser rifles become 'in common use at the time', laser rifles will be protected for private ownership by the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Where does it say anything about "common use" in the 2nd Amendment? Now you're just making stuff up, something conservatives always do.

I mean, if you want to drop the originalist pretense, I'm with you, but you can't have your originalism and eat it to. Semi-automatics didn't exist in the 1790s, so by definition the founders didn't mean them when they used the term "arms".
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

mac said:
What a complete lack of logic. We can no more ban semi-automatics than we can the internet...because of original-ism.
Click to expand...

Yeap, so when orginalist talk rubbish about social security not being in the Constitution, you agree that it's rubbish.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

head of joaquin said:
Yeap, so when orginalist talk rubbish about social security not being in the Constitution, you agree that it's rubbish.
Click to expand...

anyone who has claimed that almost all of the massacres in the USA involved ASSAULT RIFLES has no standing to call anyone else's position rubbish. You constantly spew dishonest and ignorant rants about the constitution and the second amendment
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

head of joaquin said:
Where does it say anything about "common use" in the 2nd Amendment? Now you're just making stuff up, something conservatives always do.

I mean, if you want to drop the originalist pretense, I'm with you, but you can't have your originalism and eat it to. Semi-automatics didn't exist in the 1790s, so by definition the founders didn't mean them when they used the term "arms".
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS decision, both in the US v Miller and DC v Heller cases, used that common use terminology in refering to permissible civilian arms covered by the 2A.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

head of joaquin said:
Where does it say anything about "common use" in the 2nd Amendment? Now you're just making stuff up, something conservatives always do.

I mean, if you want to drop the originalist pretense, I'm with you, but you can't have your originalism and eat it to. Semi-automatics didn't exist in the 1790s, so by definition the founders didn't mean them when they used the term "arms".
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your opinion.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....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." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."

~snip~

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.
Click to expand...
In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:

  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Boo Radley said:
OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?
Click to expand...
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Accessories, not 'arms' in and of themselves. However, if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...

  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Jredbaron96 said:
I'm sorry America, but I'm afraid I don't believe in personally owned ICBM's.
Click to expand...
  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

The Giant Noodle said:
Why are civilians NOT allowed to own tanks?
Click to expand...
Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.




*****
Wiseone said:
Do you have to spam the same post in every single topic about guns?
Click to expand...
Here we had to link to this law yeat again. We have to keep repeating ourselves, so rather than write it out manually over and over and over, a lot of us just save it to a word doc.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

TurtleDude said:
anyone who has claimed that almost all of the massacres in the USA involved ASSAULT RIFLES has no standing to call anyone else's position rubbish. You constantly spew dishonest and ignorant rants about the constitution and the second amendment
Click to expand...

Oh dear. How the facts chaff your talking points.

I love the "there is no such thing as an assault rifle" meme. It's one of the gun lovers best efforts to make facts disappear.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Jerry said:
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your opinion.


In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:

  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Accessories, not 'arms' in and of themselves. However, if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...

  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.




*****

Here we had to link to this law yeat again. We have to keep repeating ourselves, so rather than write it out manually over and over and over, a lot of us just save it to a word doc.
Click to expand...

God I love gun lover blowback.

Whoosh, right over your head.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

head of joaquin said:
You can apologize for criminal slaveowners and their violence somewhere else. The issue here is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Mason, who drafted the language in the Virginia constution cribbed for the 2nd Amendment, tells us: to kill and suppress slaves.

So much for the fictive NRA narrative about how the 2nd Amendment is to protect our rights against the government. The 2nd Amendment was passed so Southern slaveowning criminals could continue to kill, rape and torture black people.
Click to expand...

So you find one supposed reference for nefarious motives, and all the other references and reasons given in those references amount to nothing. Well, with that kind of "thinking" you can believe anything at all that you want to believe. And, apparently you do. As I have said elsewhere, willful ignorance is exceedingly difficult to cure.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Anti-Party said:
*admin if this belongs in guns sorry, feel free to move it*

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.

I'm blown away by how many different interpretations I've heard of the 2nd Amendment. There are 3 words that have multiple definitions which make it more complicated than what it seems. Regulated, Militia and State. I've also heard people debate the term Arms.

The kicker is that everyone I talk to is absolutely certain their definition is the correct one and has a very long drawn out story of why. :peace
Click to expand...

Hmm - well honestly. I always thought it was poorly written and needed to be proofed before scribed permanently . . . "A well regulated Militia: being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed"

AND

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

But with how it's written - it can be interpreted to mean that only through a well regulated militia can the citizens have the right to bear arms - and only the right to a militia cannot be infringed.

It's a matter of the 'being' and ',the' both referring to the subject of the sentence: the well regulated Militia.

They really should have been more precise with their wording and sentence structure.

In fact - the confusion over the Constitution is a good example as to why we now have 'lawyer jargon' at nauseum in documents, legislation and legal forms . . . because all that fine print is necessary to define every single little term and cover every little word and phrase thoroughly so there are no arguments.

All those years ago - it wasn't that important to be very CLEAR on what you were saying and what you meant. . . they needed an index and a glossary - and badly.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What other rights can we interpret can we interpret what free speech means?
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

ChrisL said:
I've read that when the founders crafted the Second Amendment, the idea was that every capable man be armed and ready for any kind of conflict that might arise. I also read that many of the founders were against a government-controlled standing army because they thought that it could be used to suppress the people if the government ever became too powerful.

At the time when the second amendment was crafted, the founders and the people were acutely aware of governmental tyranny and wanted to prevent that, hence they gave the power to the people with the right to bear arms.

I'll find that link again later and post it.
Click to expand...

So you are saying our founding fathers knew certain governments were bad and said we have the right to bear arms?!?

You don't have to do the research to prove this for me lol........
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

head of joaquin said:
Oh dear. How the facts chaff your talking points.

I love the "there is no such thing as an assault rifle" meme. It's one of the gun lovers best efforts to make facts disappear.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there. I personally don't believe in the ban of Modified Assault Rifles but today the Right Wing acts like they don't know what they are. Yet the day after the Colorado shooting I was on the Armelite Rifle forums and they talked about the AR-15 being a "M-16 modified for civilian use" A month or so later the Armelite website no longer said that. They said their guns were only flowers that shot feathers and more innocent than a hammer. lol

I get why people want to keep them. I just don't understand the reason for the brainless debate.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Jerry said:
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your opinion.


In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:

  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Accessories, not 'arms' in and of themselves. However, if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...

  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.




*****

Here we had to link to this law yeat again. We have to keep repeating ourselves, so rather than write it out manually over and over and over, a lot of us just save it to a word doc.
Click to expand...

I got confused with the red "yes" when most of thered were "no"s. And the green "no" when most of them were red. Then you said a tank isn't a weapon. Can you please tell me one other purpose for a tank? "If I had one, I'd use the barrell to plow my garden" not acceptable.. :)
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal attacks, the baiting and the flaming.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

head of joaquin said:
So much for the fictive NRA narrative about how the 2nd Amendment is to protect our rights against the government. The 2nd Amendment was passed so Southern slaveowning criminals could continue to kill, rape and torture black people.
Click to expand...

This is the most egregious, and frankly stupid, misrepresentation of history I have ever seen on this subject. It's shameful.

The first unconstitutional gun control legislation in this country was passed specifically for the purpose of keeping those same former slaves from fighting back against the KKK. The 2nd Amendment was passed so that every American citizen-- in the North, South, East, or West-- could defend themselves, whether against our government or against a foreign government or against criminals. Fighting against the 2nd Amendment-- fighting against the gun rights of any free person, anywhere-- is historically and still today choosing the side of the oppressor at the expense of the law-abiding and peace-loving citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom