What classes of firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment?

[Jeezy]

No one was arguing against that point to begin with. "In common use" means many many cops/soldiers are using it all the friggin time.

...but that's exactly what we were arguing. That's what Heller and McDonald make exceptions for, which is where the conversation started.. And that's exactly what I said COULDN'T be derived from just "cops/soldiers." I would think it's pretty obvious that

a. Most people aren't cops or soldiers.
b. Most gun owners aren't cops or soldiers.
c. Most gun owners aren't competitive skeet shooters.

You can account for almost all normal gun owners if you include stuff like muzzle-loading rifles, pump action shotguns, revolvers, and semiautomatics similar to the M1911. That's pretty much your average American gun owner.

 

[Jerry]

...but that's exactly what we were arguing. That's what Heller and McDonald make exceptions for, which is where the conversation started.. And that's exactly what I said COULDN'T be derived from just "cops/soldiers." I would think it's pretty obvious that

a. Most people aren't cops or soldiers.
b. Most gun owners aren't cops or soldiers.
c. Most gun owners aren't competitive skeet shooters.

You can account for almost all normal gun owners if you include stuff like muzzle-loading rifles, pump action shotguns, revolvers, and semiautomatics similar to the M1911. That's pretty much your average American gun owner.

The prefatory clause regards what kind of arms are covered, not who can keep&bear them, so it doesn't matter what most civilians are or are not.

According to Heller, the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the operative clause in no way diminishes the right of the people to keep and bear the types of arms which are suitable for militia duty.

If only 1% of the population is military, yet most of that 1% use assault rifles, then therefore the whole rest of the other 99% of the national civilian population get to have assault rifles. That's the Heller decision.

 

[Jeezy]

The prefatory clause regards what kind of arms are covered, not who can keep&bear them, so it doesn't matter what most civilians are or are not.

Correct. The prefatory clause regard what kind of arms are covered...and the kind of arms that are covered are COMMON arms. So all of this applies.

According to Heller, the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the operative clause in no way diminishes the right of the people to keep and bear the types of arms which are suitable for militia duty.

If only 1% of the population is military, yet most of that 1% use assault rifles, then therefore the whole rest of the other 99% of the national civilian population get to have assault rifles. That's the Heller decision.

Wrong. You're misinterpreting the language completely.

From 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.”

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 other words, it doesn't protect the kind of weapons you would actually NEED for militia to be as effective as army. It protects the kind of weapons MOST PEOPLE would have at home to BRING to militia duty, if called upon.

THAT'S what he means by degree of fit: the fact that private ownership of weapons doesn't correspond to modern defense needs, and how making military-grade weapons illegal for private ownership is irrelevant to the general right itself. In other words, just because assault rifles are illegal and revolvers aren't really that useful on a straight-up modern battlefield, doesn't mean you CAN'T own a revolver. Why? Because that's the common weapon of private defense.

And while we're reading the decision:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.

 

[roflpublican]

Correct. The prefatory clause regard what kind of arms are covered...and the kind of arms that are covered are COMMON arms. So all of this applies.



Wrong. You're misinterpreting the language completely.

From Heller:



In other words, it doesn't protect the kind of weapons you would actually NEED for militia to be as effective as army. It protects the kind of weapons MOST PEOPLE would have at home to BRING to militia duty, if called upon.

THAT'S what he means by degree of fit: the fact that private ownership of weapons doesn't correspond to modern defense needs, and how making military-grade weapons illegal for private ownership is irrelevant to the general right itself. In other words, just because assault rifles are illegal and revolvers aren't really that useful on a straight-up modern battlefield, doesn't mean you CAN'T own a revolver. Why? Because that's the common weapon of private defense.

And while we're reading the decision:

[/QUOTE] Originally Posted by Antonin Scalia

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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. [/QUOTE]

so essentially they could impose the condition that you be martian to buy a gun, or require you to qualify in space.

 

[Jerry]

Correct. The prefatory clause regard what kind of arms are covered...and the kind of arms that are covered are COMMON arms. So all of this applies.



Wrong. You're misinterpreting the language completely.

From Heller:



In other words, it doesn't protect the kind of weapons you would actually NEED for militia to be as effective as army. It protects the kind of weapons MOST PEOPLE would have at home to BRING to militia duty, if called upon.

THAT'S what he means by degree of fit: the fact that private ownership of weapons doesn't correspond to modern defense needs, and how making military-grade weapons illegal for private ownership is irrelevant to the general right itself. In other words, just because assault rifles are illegal and revolvers aren't really that useful on a straight-up modern battlefield, doesn't mean you CAN'T own a revolver. Why? Because that's the common weapon of private defense.

And while we're reading the decision:

You're quoting the parts of Heller which affirm my argument.

Your point is lost to me.

 

[PirateMk1]

I agree with number 1, provided training courses are provided at low or no cost by the government. Number 2... I don't agree with a land-holding requirement. There's nothing wrong with keeping your mortar in your apartment as long as you understand when and where to fire it.

I would put an exception in that train of thought so long as the apartmnet or rental owner knows and agrees or you pay for the requiste insurance to cover their loses in case something goes boom unintentionally.

 

[Jerry]

I would put an exception in that train of thought so long as the apartmnet or rental owner knows and agrees or you pay for the requiste insurance to cover their loses in case something goes boom unintentionally.

You know...I want to disagree with keeping explosives in a residence....but I slept with an AT4 missile under my bunk for 6 months, so I would feel like a hypocrite.

 

[roflpublican]

You know...I want to disagree with keeping explosives in a residence....but I slept with an AT4 missile under my bunk for 6 months, so I would feel like a hypocrite.

probably had some parts made in china, they did it to the f-22, so why not.

 

[PirateMk1]

You know...I want to disagree with keeping explosives in a residence....but I slept with an AT4 missile under my bunk for 6 months, so I would feel like a hypocrite.

AT-4, nice boom boom. Guarenteed to ruin somebodies day. Welcome to to the Darkside. :darthgunny I propose AT-4 in every home, and chicken or cat in every pot.(Apprently cats taste like chicken.) Thats the way is should be. Too bad its only a fantasy. Oh wel,l since I am dreaming, why not dream big? I'd love my own M1 Abrams with that oh so lovely smoothbore Rheinmetall 120mm L44 M256, and Honeywell ATG1500c Turbine oh my, can Santa put one those in my stocking.:mrgreen:

 

[TurtleDude]

That still doesn't prove commonality, though. You can't prove commonality through a sporting niche.

I mean, there are what...192 million handguns in the US? Of those 48% are revolvers. Another 40% are your run-of-the-mill semiautomatics. The remaining 12% would be either stuff that wasn't reported or what-have-you. In THAT context, does that mean private ownership of magazine-fed machine pistols is common in any way? What if there was a sporting use for machine pistols that didn't alter the numbers? Would THAT make machine pistols common? What if cops were issued machine pistols? Would THAT make them common? No...because common is common. You don't upend it to factors like that.

as I noted you will set a standard based on working backward from your desired position to "prove" that some guns are not protected. I reject your argument because you have already made the unsupported claim that only manually operated rifles are to be protected which is beyond silly

 

[haymarket]

A careful reading of the Second Amendment mentions nothing about CLASSES of firearms. As such, no one class can claim any special Constitutional protection which applies to itself.

 

[Jeezy]

You're quoting the parts of Heller which affirm my argument.

Your point is lost to me.

Because you're literally making the opposite of the argument Scalia is making.

It's degree of fit between weapons that most civilians have to military application, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. What he's saying is that some people argue against the 2nd amendment because the weapons that could make a militia into a truly modern army are illegal. That argument is pointless. Just because a revolver can't take down a B-52, doesn't mean the 2nd amendment is struck down.

Put another way "Well, some people may argue that since M-16 rifles (ie weapons genuinely useful in military service) can be banned or regulated, the 2nd Amendment as a whole doesn't apply. That's preposterous, because the degree of fit from CIVILIAN WEAPONS to the modern battlefield is not important." He's not equivocating that with the reverse argument --- the degree of fit from the battlefield to the house. That would mean ALL military weapons are legal to own, and he's already started from the premise that they aren't.

You're being intentionally obtuse now.

 

[Jeezy]

as I noted you will set a standard based on working backward from your desired position to "prove" that some guns are not protected. I reject your argument because you have already made the unsupported claim that only manually operated rifles are to be protected which is beyond silly

What I said was that any weapon beyond that doesn't have the same 2nd amendment protections, meaning that the right to own it would not be unequivocal. Not like, for example, revolvers...which are revolvers. Once you're getting into the realm of automatic weapons, state and federal governments can and have regulated them with impunity. Why? Because they're not common.

 

[TurtleDude]

what gun control proposals do you support

Don't support Jeezy

 

[lpast]

What I said was that any weapon beyond that doesn't have the same 2nd amendment protections, meaning that the right to own it would not be unequivocal. Not like, for example, revolvers...which are revolvers. Once you're getting into the realm of automatic weapons, state and federal governments can and have regulated them with impunity. Why? Because they're not common.

JFK was killed with a bolt action rifle.....

 

[PirateMk1]

What I said was that any weapon beyond that doesn't have the same 2nd amendment protections, meaning that the right to own it would not be unequivocal. Not like, for example, revolvers...which are revolvers. Once you're getting into the realm of automatic weapons, state and federal governments can and have regulated them with impunity. Why? Because they're not common.

They used to be fairly common until the Firearms act.

 

[Jeezy]

They used to be fairly common until the Firearms act.

You're already qualifying the word "common", which is what everyone has been doing.

"Common among soldiers. Common among skeet shooters. 'Fairly' common."

You're all trying to derive commonality from niches.

 

[PirateMk1]

They used to be fairly common until the Firearms act.

No common period. Thompson machine gun ring any bells?

 

[Jeezy]

No common period. Thompson machine gun ring any bells?

You're citing me out of context. I used the Thompson as an example to show that police possession does not define commonality, and cited the cops' responsiveness to being outgunned with the Thompson. I don't think I ever EVER said the Thompson should be legal because it was common among everyone. It was most common among gangsters.

 

[Jerry]

Because you're literally making the opposite of the argument Scalia is making.

It's degree of fit between weapons that most civilians have to military application, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

"Degree of fit" regards the relation between weapons in common use by the military and the personal right to own that weapon. Which weapons civilians actually own today has nothing to do with anything.

What he's saying is that some people argue against the 2nd amendment because the weapons that could make a militia into a truly modern army are illegal. That argument is pointless. Just because a revolver can't take down a B-52, doesn't mean the 2nd amendment is struck down.

I agree that particular argument is invalid, but that's not all which Heller says. Civilian weapon" is like "assault weapon": it doesn't mean anything real.

You're being intentionally obtuse now.

 

[H. Lee White]

DC v. Heller, the decision that OP unwittingly cites, explicitly acknowledges that assault weapons,....

Show this explicit language.

Anything beyond shotgun/manual rifle is a no.

Show this explicit language as well.

 

[H. Lee White]

For machine guns which are not covered, the example I used was the M2. This is not an individual weapon. This is a crew-served weapon requiring more than one person to operate.

The M249 and M60, and M40B (but not the M240G) ARE personal weapons: they require only 1 person to operate.

The M60 and M240 are crew-served weapons - gunner and assistant gunner/ammo bearer - and so are, according to you, not protected.
HOWever.... they differ from the M249 only in caliber.
SO.. explain why the M60/M240 do not qualify whole the M249 does

 

[H. Lee White]

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 not seeing any of these 'classes' of firearm you speak of in this sentence, are you?

Clearly, the dicussion here revolves around which sort of firearms qualifies as "arms" as the temr is used in the 2nd.

 

[H. Lee White]

OP doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

Funniest thing I've read all day
:lol:

 

[Jerry]

SO.. explain why the M60/M240 do not qualify whole the M249 does

Not sure why I need to keep saying it: Personal weapons.

M240L: LIGHT VERSION OF M240B
The other machine-gun upgrade is the M240L, a lightweight version of the current M240B machine gun. The M240B is extremely reliable, but at 27.5 pounds it’s proving too heavy for soldiers to carry in rugged terrain such as the mountains of Afghanistan.

As a short-term fix, the Army fielded about 500 MK48 machine guns to forces deploying to Afghanistan. The MK48 is about 9 pounds lighter but lacks the long-term durability of the M240B.

Weapons officials maintain that the M240L’s titanium receiver shaves about 5 pounds off the weight of the M240B. The Army hopes to start fielding about 9,000 M240Ls to airborne and light infantry units by late summer.