What arms?

[ttwtt78640]

I agree. I'm just trying to see if those on right and are avid supporters of the 2nd Amendment agree with me on the left that the 2nd amendment needs to be clarified and not just left to assumptions and the whimsy of what people arbitrarily want from day to day.

It is quite clear from the 2A preamble, that militia type weapons were the focus, yet they have evolved into select fire models for the most part. Certainly whatever are commonly used by police officers should not be out of bounds, as they are designed to deal with the same kind of threats to our freedom as we most commonly face.

 

[poweRob]

because of FDR

FDR did nothing that I can recall to the 2nd amendment. What's your point?

 

[Goshin]

Common use is flexible and can change with time. If it became common to make mine fields then it is common. Pretend you are in front of the SCOTUS and have to lay out why I can't have grenade launchers... you fighting against the 2nd amendment. How could you do that without infringing on my rights?

Oh give it a rest, its effing common sense.


And you CAN have a grenade launcher. Under Class III.

 

[poweRob]

It is quite clear from the 2A preamble, that militia type weapons were the focus, yet they have evolved into select fire models for the most part. Certainly whatever are commonly used by police officers should not be out of bounds, as they are designed to deal with the same kind of threats to our freedom as we most commonly face.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State​

A free state from what? Who was this militia to fight to keep the free state?

 

[poweRob]

Oh give it a rest, its effing common sense.


And you CAN have a grenade launcher. Under Class III.

Goshin, the whole point of this thread was to show that when it comes to constitutionality and law, you cannot run under the notion of "common sense" and "assumptions".

It's many peoples view that it is common sense to ban assault rifles and oversized mags. You disagree with their views of what is common sense. So we have to clarify the laws we live by. Don't you agree?

Like I said before, I'm not being argumentative and divisive. I just want clarity to the 2nd amendment which is tauted but never defined as to it's limits.

 

[cpgrad08]

Goshin, the whole point of this thread was to show that when it comes to constitutionality and law, you cannot run under the notion of "common sense" and "assumptions".

It's many peoples view that it is common sense to ban assault rifles and oversized mags. You disagree with their views of what is common sense. So we have to clarify the laws we live by. Don't you agree?

Like I said before, I'm not being argumentative and divisive. I just want clarity to the 2nd amendment which is tauted but never defined as to it's limits.

Minus the fact that your OP had no common sense it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State​

A free state from what? Who was this militia to fight to keep the free state?

Exactly. It was not specified, it was left up to the people. The last such fight was against the crown of England and perhaps a few bands of native Americans that did not like the new deal all that much.

 

[poweRob]

Minus the fact that your OP had no common sense it.

common sense =/= law. They are not the same. I'm simply looking for clarity. People are giving me lines that THEY wish to be in place. But the 2nd amendment absolutely does not allow anyone to draw a line as to what and where. Get mad all you want, I'm just presenting a cogent and positive discussion.

Nowhere in here am I trolling anyone or presenting ad hominems. Perhaps you should do the same.

The hypothetical is, I'm to the right of you on the 2nd amendment. What makes you think that you get to determine what arms I cannot have when the 2nd amendment as written clearly precludes you from doing so?

 

[TurtleDude]

FDR did nothing that I can recall to the 2nd amendment. What's your point?

you appear ignorant of reality then. ever heard of the National Firearms Act of 1934-FDR was the instigator of that and when his AG said a complete ban on machine guns would violate the second amendment, his minions came up with expanding the commerce clause so as to allow federal gun control in violation of the second, ninth and tenth amendments

 

[Unitedwestand13]

you appear ignorant of reality then. ever heard of the National Firearms Act of 1934-FDR was the instigator of that and when his AG said a complete ban on machine guns would violate the second amendment, his minions came up with expanding the commerce clause so as to allow federal gun control in violation of the second, ninth and tenth amendments

is this related to the whole debate of duel federalism and cooperative federalism?

 

[poweRob]

Exactly. It was not specified, it was left up to the people. The last such fight was against the crown of England and perhaps a few bands of native Americans that did not like the new deal all that much.

Well if protecting freedom from a 1st world government is what the 2nd amendment is about (which is usually the argument but usually against our own government tyranny) then I would need SAMs to shoot down the aircraft that 1st world governments have as well as chemical weaponry to take out the mass of incoming troops and a nuke to devistate their Washington D.C. headquarters.

 

[TurtleDude]

is this related to the whole debate of duel federalism and cooperative federalism?

nah its more about a man who had no use for the limits placed on the federal government by the founders and figured he could use the cowered public and the depression as reasons to destroy those boundaries

 

[poweRob]

you appear ignorant of reality then. ever heard of the National Firearms Act of 1934-FDR was the instigator of that and when his AG said a complete ban on machine guns would violate the second amendment, his minions came up with expanding the commerce clause so as to allow federal gun control in violation of the second, ninth and tenth amendments

I did not know much about that at all. Thanks for the heads up. Heard little about it but didn't know the name of it and whatnot.

That being said, where is it now? If it isn't applicable to what's going on today I don't see where it fits into the argument. Assault weapons thrive legally today.

 

[poweRob]

nah its more about a man who had no use for the limits placed on the federal government by the founders and figured he could use the cowered public and the depression as reasons to destroy those boundaries

From what little I recall it was about the tommy gun. It was built for WWI I believe and then they started building it for domestic purchase and thats when the mob bought into the tommy gun whole hog and the devestation that they and that weapon could and did cause is why they came up with those restrictions.

 

[TurtleDude]

I did not know much about that at all. Thanks for the heads up.

That being said, where is it now? If it isn't applicable to what's going on today I don't see where it fits into the argument. Assault weapons thrive legally today.

real militia weapons made after May 19, 1986 are banned and that is due to FDR's rape of the judicial fabric of this country

 

[TurtleDude]

From what little I recall it was about the tommy gun. It was built for WWI I believe and then they started building it for domestic purchase and thats when the mob bought into the tommy gun whole hog and the devestation that they and that weapon could and did cause is why they came up with that law.

actually the number of people killed by tommy guns was very small and most of them were gangsters killed by rivals.

 

[Jerry]

This is basically the 2nd amendment part of the forum so I'm in here to ask...

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.​

In you opinion... what arms should not be in the hands of the public? I'm talking from slingshots to nukes. The whole range.

Then justify where you decided to draw the line with regards to the 2nd amendment.

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.

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 are 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.

• Tanksforsale surplus Military vehicles Tanks_Trucks_Jeeps_for_sale_page
• 6 Things You Won't Believe Are More Legal Than Marijuana | Cracked.com
• Armor Page 1
• Civilian Tank Ownership Primer | cars.natemichals.com

 

[poweRob]

real militia weapons made after May 19, 1986 are banned and that is due to FDR's rape of the judicial fabric of this country

What weapons out there specifically can you not own because of this law. I don't know the weapons out there that are restricted from purchase.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well if protecting freedom from a 1st world government is what the 2nd amendment is about (which is usually the argument but usually against our own government tyranny) then I would need SAMs to shoot down the aircraft that 1st world governments have as well as chemical weaponry to take out the mass of incoming troops and a nuke to devistate their Washington D.C. headquarters.

Really? Would you not then also need a command structure and thus be part of a well regulated militia? That is precisely why we decided to have a standing army, now staffed by paid volunteers. That limits your need for arms somewhat, but does not eliminate your need for self defense, wouldn't you agree? Do you really want the street gang nearest you to have those WMDs and high tech systems, or is it best to simply be able defend yourself and your family from the more modest local threats to your freedom?

 

[poweRob]

actually the number of people killed by tommy guns was very small and most of them were gangsters killed by rivals.

Yep. That's what I recall from a bit a watched. They saw that it's ability to wipe out many with such speed and ease is what provoked the move.

 

[Jerry]

Assault rifles are probably out of their imagination and far more powerful that the firearms they were speaking of too. So how do you decide to draw your line of what is and isn't 2nd amendment approved?

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
~snip~

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."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

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.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yep. That's what I recall from a bit a watched. They saw that it's ability to wipe out many with such speed and ease is what provoked the move.

actually it was a classic case of the asshole FDR wanting to get rid of a right he saw counter to his socialist interests. Shotguns killed far more people than tommy guns. Its like the turds in the 50s who saw West Side Story one too many times and thought banning "switchblades" would wipe out motorcycle gangs

 

[poweRob]

Really? Would you not then also need a command structure and thus be part of a well regulated militia?

I could but wouldn't have to be. It would be a matter of choice. Also going onto another argument based off of this, what regulation? Who regulates the regulated militia? Or is it considered that any people who decide to become an armed group is automatically considered "well regulated"?

That is precisely why we decided to have a standing army, now staffed by paid volunteers. That limits your need for arms somewhat, but does not eliminate your need for self defense, wouldn't you agree? Do you really want the street gang nearest you to have those WMDs and high tech systems, or is it best to simply be able defend yourself and your family from the more modest local threats to your freedom?

Of course I don't want an arms race. To get back to my original intent in here though, the constitution as written says pretty clearly that we are allowed to have that arms race.

Also, what it looks like you doing is making the Thomas Jefferson argument that he didn't want a standing army and made the case where we have arms because of no military.

 

[TurtleDude]

I could but wouldn't have to be. It would be a matter of choice. Also going onto another argument based off of this, what regulation? Who regulates the regulated militia? Or is it considered that any people who decide to become an armed group is automatically considered "well regulated"?



Of course I don't want an arms race. To get back to my original intent in here though, the constitution as written says pretty clearly that we are allowed to have that arms race.

Also, what it looks like you doing is making the Thomas Jefferson argument that he didn't want a standing army and made the case where we have arms because of no military.

what weapons do you believe are not protected by the Second amendment

 

[poweRob]

actually it was a classic case of the asshole FDR wanting to get rid of a right he saw counter to his socialist interests. Shotguns killed far more people than tommy guns. Its like the turds in the 50s who saw West Side Story one too many times and thought banning "switchblades" would wipe out motorcycle gangs

That first sentence isn't very well spelled out. If FDR was trying to destroy the 2nd amendment to restrict resistance to his socialist agenda and shotguns killed more people than tommy guns, why didn't he go after shotguns? Clearly, by your own comment, they were by far the bigger threat.