What weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment? (1 Viewer)

[M14 Shooter]

Please state your opinion and lay out your argument for same.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS in effect created a test to see if any given weapon was covered by the protections affordrd to the right of the people to keep and bear arms by linking that weapon to its effectiveness if employed in militia service - that it must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Thw weapons must be suitable for use in the missions the militia was expected to undertake -- generally. lendint assistance to or creating resistance against the standing army.

So, what weapons are covered today? To determine this, we must look at the militia as seen though history.

The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry, raised and employed locally by local leaders, sometimes at the behest of the state government and sometimes not. Today, like then, militia units would be infantry companies, and so, if the militia is to effectively assist or resist the standing army, any weapon (or one similar) commonly found in a typical infantry company would be protected by the 2nd.

This includes, pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, machineguns, light mortars and, possibly, light anti-armor weapons.

So, the 2nd certainly protects my right to own my .45, my M14, my shotgun and my M-60.

 

[SKILMATIC]

IMO I beleive americans should be able to have everything except a nuke. Reason why is to instill into the gov that it can not be more powerful than the people. Now of course there must be a way of instilling that the weapons that are bought are safely handled and restrained. I would love to be able to buy my own F-14 or a M1 abrahm. Or even just a AT-4.

 

[Conflict]

I have several guns but my favorite is by far my AR-10.

 

[TimmyBoy]

M-2 ****in' 4, 9 baby. I toted that weapon strapped around my neck like damn John Rambo out of hollywood when I was overseas with rounds all wrapped around me. My Platoon Leader would inspect every morning with a white glove before going on patrol. If any tiny speck of carbon was found, I was low crawling on the ground as punishment. He did it, because he used to be a SAW gunner in Ranger Battalion and he knew how easily it jammed up. The cleaner it was, the less likely it was to jam up and we would be in a world of **** if we needed the SAW and it jammed up because I didn't keep it constantly spotless.

 

[TimmyBoy]

IMO I beleive americans should be able to have everything except a nuke. Reason why is to instill into the gov that it can not be more powerful than the people. Now of course there must be a way of instilling that the weapons that are bought are safely handled and restrained. I would love to be able to buy my own F-14 or a M1 abrahm. Or even just a AT-4.

You better have alot of cash if you want to own a M1 Abrams. The cost alot of cash to maintain, drive and shoot too. But, hey, if you don't mind busting your ass for a long time, you can have a few short moments of fun shooting a tank table 8 or something. But that would require alot of hard work getting it ready to shoot a tank table 8.

 

[Conflict]

I wonder who the heck voted that the 2nd ammendment should constitute the domestic wielding of nuclear munitions? WTF! I believe in the 2nd ammendment whole heartedly... but for pitty sake there were no nukes when the constitution was drafted. Nor were there any Abrams tanks I suppose. Don't get me wrong... if I had the money I would invest in one. I don't know how i'd use it... if nothing else I'd keep it in the garage show it to all my buddies. :mrgreen:

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder who the heck voted that the 2nd ammendment should constitute the domestic wielding of nuclear munitions?:

And I'd like to hear the argument for the 2nd only protecting flintlocks.

 

[GarzaUK]

Why would anyone need a automatic rifle in a house? Seriously for what purpose? Pumping 20 rounds a second into a squirrel? It baffles logic. Fair enough a rifle to hunt with, maybe a pistol tops, but a sutomatic weapon?

I don't mean to offend but what sorta guy needs a piece of metal to make himself feel like a man??

Then you Americans have the gall to get all shocked and angry when a pissed off kid gets his hands on a gun with an with a couple of uzis and performs a Matrix style slaying of his school.

In the UK we are allowed a hunting rifle and we have to keep that in a gun club. No pistols, nothing else. The last school shooting was back in 1997, done with a pistol when pistols were legal.
We don't need metal detectors in our schools.
Only 65 gun related deaths last year in a mutli cultured population of 60 million.

 

[Deegan]

I don't like assault rifles, I think they should be banned, but it's a protected right, as it is vauge as to the types, and numbers of weapons. I understand the joy some take in using these weapons, my uncles are big time gun heads, but there is a place for this activity. I would like to see them kept at target ranges, for those who enjoy shooting them, but there is no reason to carry one around. I also don't like hand guns, they are easily hidden, and have killed more folks then any weapon, but again, they are protected.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why would anyone need a automatic rifle in a house? Seriously for what purpose? Pumping 20 rounds a second into a squirrel? It baffles logic. Fair enough a rifle to hunt with, maybe a pistol tops, but a sutomatic weapon?

The right to arms is not based on your perception of "need".

The right to arms necessarily protects military weapons because the intent of the 2nd is to see that the people will always have access to weapons suitable for assisting and resisting the standing armny.

I don't mean to offend but what sorta guy needs a piece of metal to make himself feel like a man??

Thats a rather childish way of saying you dont really havy anything to say.

Then you Americans have the gall to get all shocked and angry when a pissed off kid gets his hands on a gun with an with a couple of uzis and performs a Matrix style slaying of his school.

I can't recalll that happening here. Perhaps you can refhresh my memory with a news story or somesuch.

In the UK we are allowed a hunting rifle and we have to keep that in a gun club. No pistols, nothing else. The last school shooting was back in 1997, done with a pistol when pistols were legal.
We don't need metal detectors in our schools.
Only 65 gun related deaths last year in a mutli cultured population of 60 million.

The total murder UK murder rate is less than the US non-gun murder rate.
Thus, the "problem" isnt the guns, and the "solution" isnt gun control.

 

[Deegan]

The right to arms is not based on your perception of "need".

The right to arms necessarily protects military weapons because the intent of the 2nd is to see that the people will always have access to weapons suitable for assisting and resisting the standing armny.


Thats a rather childish way of saying you dont really havy anything to say.


I can't recalll that happening here. Perhaps you can refhresh my memory with a news story or somesuch.


The total murder UK murder rate is less than the US non-gun murder rate.
Thus, the "problem" isnt the guns, and the "solution" isnt gun control.

It was Columbine, and it certainly changed my mind.:shock:

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was Columbine, and it certainly changed my mind.:shock:

The kids in Columbine didnt use Uzis.

The kids in Columbine broke several state and federal laws just to get the guns - but one more law would have stopped them?

 

[Deegan]

The kids in Columbine didnt use Uzis.

The kids in Columbine broke several state and federal laws just to get the guns - but one more law would have stopped them?

I just think it's a shame that guns are so available to kids these days, but I blame irresponsible parents, more then I do our laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just think it's a shame that guns are so available to kids these days, but I blame irresponsible parents, more then I do our laws.

That is the proper response.

And you shouldnt blame the parents just because of the "access" to guns, but to allow their kids to devolve to the point that they would do such a thing.

 

[GarzaUK]

The right to arms is not based on your perception of "need".

The right to arms necessarily protects military weapons because the intent of the 2nd is to see that the people will always have access to weapons suitable for assisting and resisting the standing armny.

So the right to arms is:
a) to rebel against the most powerful army in the world
b) to assist the army if a foreign country invades the US

Can you see those two things happening? Seriously.
If there is no need for having a M14 rifle in your house. Why have it? There is no purpose to it. It's illogical.

Thats a rather childish way of saying you dont really havy anything to say.

No, I'm just trying to find out why you need to keep a weapon that is only issued to national armies. I can only think that those guys most be over composating for something. Some men buy fancy cars, some get hair transpants, some buy weapons designed to kill alot of people. Its a power thing, to desire to feel powerful, to feel special.

The total murder UK murder rate is less than the US non-gun murder rate.
Thus, the "problem" isnt the guns, and the "solution" isnt gun control.

a looney without a gun = a looney
a looney with a gun = deaths

Tell me what is the solution to all those gun related deaths? More guns? Ignore it?

 

[FinnMacCool]

I find it slightly disturbing that so many conservatives are in love with guns but nonetheless, when it comes to the issue of gun control, I say just so long as you can keep crazy people and emotially depressed teenagers from buying assault rifles and ****. Its weird but if people really wanted weapons they could get it on the black market anyways so seriously.

Those ****ing racist rednecks though that want to get rid of the two day waiting period and **** are just idiots though. I mean seriously you can't wait two ****ing days to get a hold of your gun? are you that obsessed? I mean come on.

 

[Iriemon]

Please state your opinion and lay out your argument for same.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS in effect created a test to see if any given weapon was covered by the protections affordrd to the right of the people to keep and bear arms by linking that weapon to its effectiveness if employed in militia service - that it must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Thw weapons must be suitable for use in the missions the militia was expected to undertake -- generally. lendint assistance to or creating resistance against the standing army.

So, what weapons are covered today? To determine this, we must look at the militia as seen though history.

The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry, raised and employed locally by local leaders, sometimes at the behest of the state government and sometimes not. Today, like then, militia units would be infantry companies, and so, if the militia is to effectively assist or resist the standing army, any weapon (or one similar) commonly found in a typical infantry company would be protected by the 2nd.

This includes, pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, machineguns, light mortars and, possibly, light anti-armor weapons.

So, the 2nd certainly protects my right to own my .45, my M14, my shotgun and my M-60.

Are you in the militia? If not, arguably you have no constitutional right to have arms of any type.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So the right to arms is:
a) to rebel against the most powerful army in the world
b) to assist the army if a foreign country invades the US
Can you see those two things happening? Seriously.

Tell me about Iraq, and how the insurgency is beating the most powerful army in the world -- and how our effort there is doomed.

History has numerous instances of an armed populace effectively resisting a standing army - Iraq, Afghanistam, Vietnam (twice) and, of course, the rebellion in the British North American colonies, circa 1775.

If there is no need for having a M14 rifle in your house. Why have it? There is no purpose to it. It's illogical.

LOL
Really? Why dont you lay out the proof.
In what 'legitimate' use of a fire can I not effectively use my M14?

No, I'm just trying to find out why you need to keep a weapon that is only issued to national armies.

I think I made that clear.

I can only think that those guys most be over composating for something.

Then you arent a third as bright as you think you are.

a looney without a gun = a looney
a looney with a gun = deaths

Interesting.
So, the murders in the UK - what do people use?
And you know, of course, that 3x more people in the US are murdered with 'personal weapons' than with rifles like my M-14... right?

And you arent addressing the point -- the NON gun murder rate in the US is higher than the TOTAL morder rate in the UK. Take away ALL the guns, and the rate is still higher.

This points to a 'problem'. that is completely independent of the number of guns in the US.

Tell me what is the solution to all those gun related deaths? More guns? Ignore it?

There are 280,000,000 guns in the US.
Fewer than 10,000 people were murderd with a gun.
0.003% of guns are used to murder
1 gun in 28000 is used to murder
Where is the problem related to the number of guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I find it slightly disturbing that so many conservatives are in love with guns

Strawman, false premise.
Conservatives are no more in love with guns than liberals are with sodomy.

Those ****ing racist rednecks though that want to get rid of the two day waiting period and **** are just idiots though.

What 2-day waiting period?

I mean seriously you can't wait two ****ing days to get a hold of your gun? are you that obsessed? I mean come on.

"A right delayed is a right denied"
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you in the militia? If not, arguably you have no constitutional right to have arms of any type.

The right of the people, not the right of the militia, is protected by the Constitution.
I am of the re people.
Therefore, there is no argument.

 

[Conflict]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. It's a tried and true cliche.

If someone goes on a murderous rampage they will find a way to slaughter. Maybe a Katana sword... maybe statue figurine sitting on the cofee table. There are several ways to die and several ways to kill. When it comes down to why people want to kill the answer is never:

"Derrr... oh.. well I had a gun so I figured I'd shoot somebody."

I mean humans can be stupid but not that friggin' stupid. Usually it is an emotional or psychological matter which causes such desperate grief... I don't see how anyone could objectively blame the gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I mean humans can be stupid but not that friggin' stupid. Usually it is an emotional or psychological matter which causes such desperate grief... I don't see how anyone could objectively blame the gun.

Holophobia.
The irrational fear of inanimate objects.

 

[Iriemon]

The right of the people, not the right of the militia, is protected by the Constitution.
I am of the re people.
Therefore, there is no argument.

"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."

Had the founders intended that any person could possess any weapon, they would have just said: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your argument renders meaningless half the clause. An interpretation which renders words meaningless is illogical.

As you said: The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry, raised and employed locally by local leaders, sometimes at the behest of the state government and sometimes not. Today, like then, militia units would be infantry companies, and so, if the militia is to effectively assist or resist the standing army, any weapon (or one similar) commonly found in a typical infantry company would be protected by the 2nd.

In order to possess arms of warfare, then, as a consitutional proposition, they must be possessed pursuant to an organized infantry unit. There is no basis for the proposition that the founders intended private citizens to be able to independently possess weapons of warfare, except as part of a militia -- today of which the closest thing would be something like the national guard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Had the founders intended that any person could possess any weapon, they would have just said: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your argument renders meaningless half the clause. An interpretation which renders words meaningless is illogical.

Um.... no.
The Founders expressed the reason for protecting the right of the people - that a well-regulated militia is necessary.

This does not place a condition on the exercise of the right.

And if you were right, that the founders intended that membership in the militia is necessary for the right to arms to be protected, then they would not have used the phrase "right of the people", but the "right of the militia" or somesuch.

As you said: The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry,....

And, historically, who were "the people"?
Given that the right of the people is protected, arguments regarding membership in the militia are meaningless.

In order to possess arms of warfare, then, as a consitutional proposition, they must be possessed pursuant to an organized infantry unit. There is no basis for the proposition that the founders intended private citizens to be able to independently possess weapons of warfare,

Right of the people.
Not of the state, not of the militia, but of the people.
The same people mentioned in all of the other amendments.
Given that the right of the people is protected, your argument is without merit.

 

[Iriemon]

And if you were right, that the founders intended that membership in the militia is necessary for the right to arms to be protected, then they would not have used the phrase "right of the people", but the "right of the militia" or somesuch.

No, if the founders intended the people to independently have have M-1 battle tanks, they wouldn't have put in anything about a militia.

Given that the right of the people is protected, your argument is without merit.

Given that your interpretation ignores half the clause, your argument is without merit.