teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Why should the military have them?
This is what liberals think about law abiding citizens.I don't really think they "should", but in a world where every country competes for military supremacy, they more or less need to in order to compete with other militaries. Certainly, if I could wave a magic wand and suddenly have the winner of every war in the world be determined by who was able to save the most species from extinction or make the prettiest flower garden or something, that'd be the way to go, but I don't think that's on the tableUntil then, the military is going to continue on it's race to create the most deadly soldier possible.
That doesn't mean we also need to have a race to make the most deadly psychopaths, mass murderers, terrorists, and drug addicts possible.
This is what liberals think about law abiding citizens.
I disagree with that. If you believe that, work through my scenario with the phaser. Imagine that in 50 years soldiers are issued some new high tech phaser that can destroy an entire stadium and kill everybody inside in a matter of seconds. Would you support those phasers being sold to whoever wanted them? .
teamosil said:What do you mean? Obviously most folks are good law abiding folks. But there are 311 million people in this country. There are psychopaths, mass murderers, terrorists, drug addicts, nazis, mentally ill people, cults, white supremacists, black supremacists, conspiracy nuts, extortionists, theives, gangs, organized crime, and assasins amongst those 311 million. Whatever law we make for the law abiding folks also determines what kind of weaponry those folks have access to.
I don't like tying the standard to what soldiers carry because that basically means that the bar will rise steadily over time as to how much destructive force we allow civilians to have.
You are postulating about an imaginary and improbable sci-fi-fantasy weapon that might exist some time in the relatively distant future...or it might not. There is not presently even any theory in physics to account for a handheld "phaser" that had that kind of destructive power... yet you are using this fantasy weapon as an argument against the present established principle of what is "arms".
Your premise here is patently flawed; in fact it is flatly false.
The nuts and scumbags outlined in bold print, who commit felonies with weapons, do not obtain those weapons legally; do not register them or concern themselves with whether those weapons are legal; in short they do not obey the law.
Since the intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure the citizen had parity with the soldier in the employ of a would be tyrant, why shouldn't the standards rise as technology improves?
Spare me the socialist rhetoric. You would delete the 2nd Amendment, like the good socialist you are.What do you mean? Obviously most folks are good law abiding folks. But there are 311 million people in this country. There are psychopaths, mass murderers, terrorists, drug addicts, nazis, mentally ill people, cults, white supremacists, black supremacists, conspiracy nuts, extortionists, theives, gangs, organized crime, and assasins amongst those 311 million. Whatever law we make for the law abiding folks also determines what kind of weaponry those folks have access to.
Spare me the socialist rhetoric. You would delete the 2nd Amendment, like the good socialist you are.
I disagree. If you compare an AK47 to a musket, we've already made that sort of leap once. So, if we're going to apply the logic that was created to deal with muskets to AK47s, my question is, where is the line?
If the right to bear arms is to be treated as an absolute right, we need to define exactly what the boundaries of that right are. The alternative is what we're doing now- to allow the legislature and courts to define the boundaries of the rights as we go along. If you're cool with that, then that's all good. If you're not, then you need a clear cut, objective, line where you believe the right to bear arms is limited.
If you want to contend that it is an absolute right which cannot be infringed, you need to define that right in a way that will always be applicable.
The two largest sources of guns used in crimes, by far, are guns which were either legally purchased by the perpetrator and guns which were stolen from somebody who legally purchased them.
Firearms as Used in Crime
Annual Criminal Abuse of Firearms Nationally: Less than 0.2% of all firearms, and less than 0.4% of all handguns. More than 99.8% of all guns, and 99.6% of all handguns are NOT used in criminal activity in any given year.(BATF, FBI)
Nationally convictions for 'attempt to purchase' by disqualified individuals under Brady now total 7 since early 1994. There are now in excess of 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws on the books, yet few if any have proven clearly effective in reducing violence or a criminal's access to firearms. Some 93% of firearms used in crime are reported as stolen or come from some other uncontrollable source.(DPS/BCI, US DoJ, BATF)
teamosil said:If a gun can't be sold legally, the supply of that kind of gun in the US is radically curtailed. Thats why in countries with far stricter gun laws you don't see nearly so many gun related crimes.
Certainly, once the guns are out there, we can't get them back. But I'm not proposing making any guns currently legal illegal. I'm just talking about where the line is for you for what sorts of gun not currently legal, or guns not yet invented, where you would say that they are too deadly to be sold to the general population.
I've defined it before on this forum, thus:
1. Any weapon suitable for use in militia service, specifically a weapon defined as a "small arm", suitable for infantry use as a soldier's personal weapon.
2. Any other weapon useable for self-defense, sport, or other lawful purposes.
A weapon capable of "melting a stadium" would probably fall under the headings of support weapons or artillery, if not WMDs, and in any future that I or my kids or grandkids will see would probably not be an infantry small-arm/personal weapon.
The bolded quote is bull.
This definition if fairly vague. What is a militia in your definition? The lethality of a soldier has steadily increased through all of human history. Do you believe that will stop now? If not, is there a line with regards to lethality where you would say that it is too lethal of a weapon to sell to the public?
You may save the snide remarks for someone who will be affected by them. The fact is your example was ludicrously improbable due to energy-density-storage issues, and is a red herring in any discussion about the foreseeable future.Apparently the phaser is too abstract of an example for you to consider it.
Say instead that we're talking about a hand held machine gun with comprable capabilities to one of those helicopter guns that can tear down a house. Would that be over the line for you? How about a hand held machine gun twice that powerful. Certainly things like that are coming, right? Am I correct that you would support that weapon being made available to the public if it were issued to the soldiers? Even if they invented some weapon 20 times more deadly than that?
Your quotes don't respond to my argument at all. I'm saying most guns used in crimes are either purchased legally or stolen from someone who purchased them legally. Stats about what percentage of guns are used in crime or how effective the current gun control laws are are not relevant to that point.
Also, the argument for why a militia needs comprable firepower to what a soldier has relies on the assumption that military strength is primarily determined by soldiers rather than bombers, missles, intel, etc. As I posted earlier, that is no longer the case. So, that would render the militia argument irrelevant, no? Or do you have a response to that argument?
The Constitution as a concept and it reality is a living thing hence some evolution needs to take place. There are parts of the Constitution such as the Bill of Rights that should stand as is since those rights need to be considered inviolate. I did say that the Constitution as a concept is a living thing hence that is why there is a provision for amendments. If one contends that the Constitution was conceived and written as an absolute perfection and no amendment or addition is ever needed then slavery would still be the law of the land as one example.
As long as we're amending the Constitution through the established legal process, rather than just ignoring it or reinterpreting it, I'm okay with that in general...but I agree that the Bill of Rights should remain untouched regardless.
There's a reason why the amendment process is difficult, a very good and wise reason.
1: Its not -my- limitOk. Then I'm definitely not on board with your standard for the kinds of weapons that should be allowed. No way is the goal of a citizenry capable of forming an insurgency worth the unlimited downside that comes with having no limit on the destructive force they're allowed to command.
What do YOU see as the limit, and how does that limit jive with established precedent?This definition if fairly vague. What is a militia in your definition? The lethality of a soldier has steadily increased through all of human history. Do you believe that will stop now? If not, is there a line with regards to lethality where you would say that it is too lethal of a weapon to sell to the public?
Start here:Can anyone provide a sources to the 'original' intent behind the constitution by the signatories of the constitution?
No response from our supporters of judicial activism? I was looking forward to hearing what their thoughts were.
?You proved his point well.
judicial activism is just a term used by those that don't care for the decision. you are governed by laws not by democratic policy. a judge is to lay aside feelings and interpret the law not listen you your one voice crying out or the many voices crying out.
?
The post I responded to was a requestion for information.
What point did -you- see?
That it's difficult or impossible to discern the original intent of the Constitution, as the people who ratified it were not a monolithic entity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?