Ok Gun regulators answer me this question.

[Goobieman]

Banning types of guns would never be considered a ban on all guns, which is what the poster said.

Banning any gun is the same as banning Catholicism.

1) If any guns are excluded from private ownership, the the argument is then that guns cannot be privately owned."

Yes... because if any guns are banned, then guns have been banned. No other way to argue it.

 

[Ajay]

what part of "shall not be infringed" gives you so much trouble?

I don't think you're being honest or rational. Name me one person of consequence that ever argued against the "shall not be infringed" wording. You are arguing with make believe ghosts. I agree with the latest SCOTUS rulings, I just do not share your prediliction for distortion and misrepresentation.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am not arguing the 2nd amendment. I am arguing where the 'intent' stems from. The founders didn't ratify the Constitution, unless of course you are considering every single adult male of voting age living in the United States at that time to be a founder.

ok lets cut to the chase--what does the second amendment mean and what does it guarantee

 

[Ajay]

Banning any gun is the same as banning Catholicism.


Yes... because if any guns are banned, then guns have been banned. No other way to argue it.

and banning Catholicism would not be banning Christianity.

you wrote 'any' guns

you're trying to distort your own words? not good.

 

[Ajay]

ok lets cut to the chase--what does the second amendment mean and what does it guarantee

I said a long time ago, I agreed with the latest ruling. You're not acting very rational.

 

[TurtleDude]

I said a long time ago, I agreed with the latest ruling. You're not acting very rational.

so what is your point?

 

[Harshaw]

I never said no one ever argued there is NO individual right to own guns. I told you, I've argued against that argument.

Sure you did. You did it here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...ors-answer-me-question-27.html#post1059058629

Though I will allow that you probably didn't know you did, as you really don't know enough about the topic even to know that.

 

[Harshaw]

And, you (Ajay) still have not explained exactly how these scholars' arguments were correct. My guess is that you don't even know what the arguments are.

 

[Goobieman]

and banning Catholicism would not be banning Christianity.

If any religion is banned, then the free exercise of religion is banned. Bannign any religion violates the 1st amendment; that some religions may not be banned is irrelevant.

you wrote 'any' guns

Yes. If any guns are banned, then guns are banned. Bannign guns violates the 2nd amendment; that some guns may not be banned is irrelevant.

 

[TurtleDude]

If any religion is banned, then the free exercise of religion is banned. Bannign any religion violates the 1st amendment; that some religions may not be banned is irrelevant.


Yes. If any guns are banned, then guns are banned. Bannign guns violates the 2nd amendment; that some guns may not be banned is irrelevant.

The silence is deafening.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yes. If any guns are banned, then guns are banned. Bannign guns violates the 2nd amendment; that some guns may not be banned is irrelevant.

That makes sense. And there is no reason in principle not to exclude artillery guns, ICBMs, WMDs and other forms of arms. Remember, the second amendment does not protect just the right to keep and bear "guns" but to keep and bear "arms." Therefore if any arms are banned, then the right to "keep and bear arms" is infringed.

 

[Goobieman]

That makes sense. And there is no reason in principle not to exclude artillery guns, ICBMs, WMDs and other forms of arms. Remember, the second amendment does not protect just the right to keep and bear "guns" but to keep and bear "arms." Therefore if any arms are banned, then the right to "keep and bear arms" is infringed.

Those weapons are not considwered "arms" as the term is used in the 2md.
But, so long as you agree that every class of firearm you care to mention is protected by the 2nd, I'll let you argue all you want that it also protects ICBMs.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Those weapons are not considwered "arms" as the term is used in the 2md.

You're going to have do better than that. Why are they not considered arms? Because Goobie said so? That ain't gonna hack it, I'm afraid.

Where do you draw the line between arms and non-arm weapons? What about knives? What about grenades? What about ordinance weapons?

I know logical consistency isn't something you care about, Goobie, but it does matter in the law.

 

[Goobieman]

You're going to have do better than that. Why are they not considered arms? Because Goobie said so? That ain't gonna hack it, I'm afraid.

I already cited US v Miller. The language there describes what weapons are covered by the 2nd.

Where do you draw the line between arms and non-arm weapons? What about knives? What about grenades? What about ordinance weapons?

As I said...
So long as you agree that every class of firearm you care to mention is protected by the 2nd, I'll let you argue all you want that it also protects ICBMs.
:shrug:

I know logical consistency isn't something you care about, Goobie, but it does matter in the law.

As if you know, and as if you have room to speak.

 

[Harshaw]

You're going to have do better than that. Why are they not considered arms? Because Goobie said so? That ain't gonna hack it, I'm afraid.

Where do you draw the line between arms and non-arm weapons? What about knives? What about grenades? What about ordinance weapons?

I know logical consistency isn't something you care about, Goobie, but it does matter in the law.

Apparently, you haven't even done the minimum of reading the controlling case on the issue.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I already cited US v Miller. The language there describes what weapons are covered by the 2nd.

Right, I remember that, and I realize now I was getting Miller mixed up with the new McDonald case. Anyway, all the old second amendment is out the window now after Heller. Who knows what the new definition of arms is going to be when all is said and done?

As I said...
So long as you agree that every class of firearm you care to mention is protected by the 2nd, I'll let you argue all you want that it also protects ICBMs.
:shrug:

Thanks, but I don't need your permission to be right.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Apparently, you haven't even done the minimum of reading the controlling case on the issue.

Please enlighten me then, I'd love to hear how the controlling case defines arms from you Harshaw. I wonder if you could even tell me what the "controlling case" is. Oh wait, I forgot you don't really know what you're talking about.

 

[Harshaw]

Please enlighten me then, I'd love to hear how the controlling case defines arms from you Harshaw. I wonder if you could even tell me what the "controlling case" is. Oh wait, I forgot you don't really know what you're talking about.

Ummm . . .

Did you not read the rest of the post you quoted?

I just quoted from it. DC v. Heller.

I don't know what I'm talking about? Really? I've been schooling you on legal matters all day.

 

[Goobieman]

Right, I remember that, and I realize now I was getting Miller mixed up with the new McDonald case. Anyway, all the old second amendment is out the window now after Heller. Who knows what the new definition of arms is going to be when all is said and done?

All of the curent 2A stuff is based in part in Miller, and so Miller is still relevant.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission to be right.

So long as you agree that every class of firearm you care to mention is protected by the 2nd...

 

[Guy Incognito]

So long as you agree that every class of firearm you care to mention is protected by the 2nd...

Of course I agree, why do you keep asking me that? Firearms and then some.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're going to have do better than that. Why are they not considered arms? Because Goobie said so? That ain't gonna hack it, I'm afraid.

Where do you draw the line between arms and non-arm weapons? What about knives? What about grenades? What about ordinance weapons?

I know logical consistency isn't something you care about, Goobie, but it does matter in the law.

have you ever bothered to read the documents generated during that era of history? arms meant infantry arms that were individually possessed and carried versus "artillery" or Ordnance.

 

[Goobieman]

Of course I agree, why do you keep asking me that? Firearms and then some.

Well then - there's no reason for you to concern yourself with what I said.

 

[Guy Incognito]

have you ever bothered to read the documents generated during that era of history? arms meant infantry arms that were individually possessed and carried versus "artillery" or Ordnance.

Don't trot that old argument out again. If you want to go with the original intent, then you're going to be stuck with a second amendment that only protects flintlock muskets. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was a term of art that implied militia usage. So, yeah, as it was originally intended by the Framers the second amendment didn't protect a whole heck of a lot.

But thankfully I don't subscribe to textualism. It is impossible to ascertain the original meaning, that's a job for historians. Lawyers aren't historians, they have to interpret that laws they see before them in accordance with contemporary social mores. The scope of the second amendment has expanded greatly since the Framers first protected the right to use your musket in the state militia from federal infringement. If you want to be a textualist or an originalist, the you a logically compelled to a much more limited understanding of the second amendment, if you want to be intellectually honest, anyway. do you want to be intellectually honest, TD? Frankly it never even occurred to me to ask you, but maybe I should. Maybe honestly just isn't what you're going for.

 

[Harshaw]

Considering he didn't even read the excerpt of Heller which I provided for him in a post which he quoted, I doubt very much he has.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Well then - there's no reason for you to concern yourself with what I said.

Why not? Aren't you trying to infringe my right to keep and bear ICBMs just like TurtleDude and all those other liberals?