What weapons does the 2nd protect?

[Iriemon]

Were you going to add your response to the poll or were you going to continue to avoid the question asked in the OP?

I have money riding on the latter...

I'm going to continue to express my opinions and views on the subject as I see fit. If you have a problem with it, take it to a mod.

 

[Goobieman]

I'm going to continue to express my opinions and views on the subject as I see fit. If you have a problem with it, take it to a mod.

So, you -aren't- going to address the question that was asked, and you -are- going to continue to avoid same.

Easiest $10 I ever made. Thanks for your help.

 

[shuamort]

Realizing I'm opening a can of worms, I'm not sure it is clear that there was a consensus view that the 2dA was designed to provide for the capability of an insurgency against the government, and I seem to recall reading things to the contrary. The language in the 2A speaks about the militia being necessary to the security of a free state, which most logically is read that the militia is necessary for the defense of the nation. You could read it to mean that the militia is necessary to keep the people free from Govt tyrrany (though the language speaks of free state, not free people). Some viewed the militia as being necessary to maintain order in the nation, such as when Washington called out the militia to put down an insurgency (the Whiskey rebellion) not fight for it.

Yeah, it is a can of worms and a portion of the debate that it's best to tread lightly as it's definitely hard to find a non-biased source. One of my favorite sources, The Straight Dope, had this to say.

However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons. They considered these citizen militias vastly preferable to standing armies, which in their experience had been instruments of oppression. They also had no professional police force upon which to depend for defense of their lives and property. It seemed natural to them that ordinary folk should have the right to own guns.

 

[Goobieman]

For the several of you that think the 2nd protects semi-automatic rifles but not 'assault weapons'.... why?

 

[Iriemon]

So, you -aren't- going to address the question that was asked, and you -are- going to continue to avoid same.

Easiest $10 I ever made. Thanks for your help.

I addressed the question asked. The 2A logically read provides the right to bear anything that are "arms", everything on the list, and more.

Enjoy the $10.

 

[Goobieman]

I addressed the question asked. The 2A logically read provides the right to bear anything that are "arms", everything on the list, and more.

So you agree that, as per the arguments laid down in this decision, the 2nd protects all firearms, from hanguns and shoguns, thru assault rifles to machineguns such as the the M60 and M2HB.

Good to hear! :2wave:

 

[DeeJayH]

Trying to devine what the original founders had in mind is to some extent an exercise in futility. They passed the second amendment in an environment where most folks were part of the organized militia (which the founders deemed so crucial that they noted in the Amendment itself that a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state) and in which arms consisted of single shot muskets that had to be manually reloaded after every shot. It is doubtful they could have conceived of an environment where no organized militia existed and "arms" can include things like machine guns and missles.

If you interpret the amendments based on its words, the right provided is the right to "bear arms". Logically, anything you can be armed with falls within the paramaters of the right. That would include any kind of projectile weapon, grenades, satchel charges, RPGs, AA missles, etc.

aren't you the one that mocked me for saying 'we need to take into account the mindset and the times in which the Founding Fathers lived.'
to which you retorted, 'you will keep that in mind next time we debated the constitution?'

innnnnnteresting

 

[Iriemon]

So you agree that, as per the arguments laid down in this decision, the 2nd protects all firearms, from hanguns and shoguns, thru assault rifles to machineguns such as the the M60 and M2HB.

Good to hear! :2wave:

I'm hard pressed to find a good argument that those are not "arms". Whether you can read the amendment without consideration of its original intent in applying it today is another matter. But looking at the language itself, those weapons, and hand gernades, shoulder fired missiles and RPGs and things like that are all things someone can be armed with and are arms.

 

[Goobieman]

But looking at the language itself, those weapons, and hand gernades, shoulder fired missiles and RPGs and things like that are all things someone can be armed with and are arms.

How do these weapons not fall under the catrgory of "dangerous and unusual weapons" that the court considers outside the protection of the 2nd?

 

[Iriemon]

aren't you the one that mocked me for saying 'we need to take into account the mindset and the times in which the Founding Fathers lived.'
to which you retorted, 'you will keep that in mind next time we debated the constitution?'

innnnnnteresting

How was that mocking you, and how does that apply to the present discussion?

 

[Iriemon]

How do these weapons not fall under the catrgory of "dangerous and unusual weapons" that the court considers outside the protection of the 2nd?

Are we talking about what the 2dA says or what we think the Court says it says? The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It says nothing that you can infringe the right to bear arms for dangerous and unusual arms.

If we use that as a basis upon which the 2dA shall be infringed, why is a maching gun not dangerous, and why is a hand grenade unusual?

 

[Goobieman]

Are we talking about what the 2dA says or what we think the Court says it says?

I asked you a question. You're not asnwering it.

How do "hand gernades, shoulder fired missiles and RPGs" not fall under the catrgory of "dangerous and unusual weapons" that the court considers outside the protection of the 2nd?

 

[Iriemon]

I asked you a question. You're not asnwering it.

How do "hand gernades, shoulder fired missiles and RPGs" not fall under the catrgory of "dangerous and unusual weapons" that the court considers outside the protection of the 2nd?

How should I know? Ask the court. I have no idea what it means by "dangerous and unusual weapons." That's one of the typically wonderfully vague phrases it uses so it can do whatever it wants.

 

[Goobieman]

How should I know?

So, you plead ignorance on the subject.
Fair enough.

 

[Lightdemon]

Perhaps you should have defined "dangerous and unusual weapons" first before asking that question.

What about a fork? It could be dangerous. And certainly unusual, as I don't think weapon when I hear the word "fork."

So how about giving the definition of the phrase, "dangerous and unusual" before you demand an answer for it.

 

[SmilesAndFrowns]

I believe the 2nd clear protects all "arms." To answer a question asked to another, "unusual and dangerous" to me, means homemade pipe bombs, guns, "arms." Because to me, homemade mechanical marvels such as "arms" is not something that can be safely and reliable built in your garage, consider all the technical skill involved in make such. The "unusual and dangerous" seems to me to describe homemade "arms."

Also, for a present day militia to be affective again a present day aggressor wouldn't the weapons in the Poll be the best "arms" for defending ourselves. To say the least the enemy has theses weapons in some shape or form. And muzzle loader at the writing of the 2nd, was like the assault weapon to them. It was a "machine gun" it was the best technology they had at the time.

 

[Goobieman]

Perhaps you should have defined "dangerous and unusual weapons" first before asking that question.

See, that's the beauty of it -- I don't have to.

He argues that the 2nd protcts certain weapons - RPGs, etc.
For that to be true, they cannot fall under the "dangerous and unusual weapons" category as proscribed by the court. Since he made the claim, the onus is on hm to show that they do not fall into that category, whatever it may be.

Thus, its up to HIM to produce the definition; he then pleads ignorance on the issue, thereby ending any effective conversation on the point, as he necessarily cannot support his assertion.

I wold be -very- interested to see how RPGs, etc, are not "dangerous and unusual weapons" under the context oif this decision. He knows he doesnt have a prayer at showing any such thing, and has run away from it.

But then, he doesnt really want to carry on a conversation here, he wants to deflect and misdirect the conversation towards a straw man that he can beat up at hs leisure.

 

[Lightdemon]

See, that's the beauty of it -- I don't have to.

He argues that the 2nd protcts certain weapons - RPGs, etc.
For that to be true, they cannot fall under the "dangerous and unusual weapons" category as proscribed by the court. Since he made the claim, the onus is on hm to show that they do not fall into that category, whatever it may be.

Thus, its up to HIM to produce the definition; he then pleads ignorance on the issue, thereby ending any effective conversation on the point, as he necessarily cannot support his assertion.

I wold be -very- interested to see how RPGs, etc, are not "dangerous and unusual weapons" under the context oif this decision. He knows he doesnt have a prayer at showing any such thing, and has run away from it.

But then, he doesnt really want to carry on a conversation here, he wants to deflect and misdirect the conversation towards a straw man that he can beat up at hs leisure.

No, it's you who need to produce the definition, as it was you who introduced the phrase to the discussion.

 

[Goobieman]

No, it's you who need to produce the definition, as it was you who introduced the phrase to the discussion.

I did. But I made no claims as to its meaning.
He did. Thus, the onus is on him.

 

[The Mark]

Are we talking about what the 2dA says or what we think the Court says it says? The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It says nothing that you can infringe the right to bear arms for dangerous and unusual arms.

If we use that as a basis upon which the 2dA shall be infringed, why is a machine gun not dangerous, and why is a hand grenade unusual?

I wonder what the writers of the original amendment would have thought about this discussion?

Personally, I would tend to agree that the 2nd amendment protects all arms. I think anyone would agree with that. However, most disagree on what exactly "arms" are.

 

[Lightdemon]

I did. But I made no claims as to its meaning.
He did. Thus, the onus is on him.

What requirements did SCOTUS use to define "dangerous and unusual weapons?"

EDIT: Forgive me, but I just don't know what you're referring to when you use that phrase. And I certainly don't know what SCOTUS means when they use it either.

So can you please help a brother out here?

 

[Goobieman]

I wonder what the writers of the original amendment would have thought about this discussion?

Personally, I would tend to agree that the 2nd amendment protects all arms. I think anyone would agree with that. However, most disagree on what exactly "arms" are.

At the very least, it covers all firearms, which, given that the real issue at hand here is gun control, is all that really matters.

So, those that want to discuss RPGs and nukes and the like can have that conversation to their hearts content, fully understanding that said conversation, having necessarily conceeded that the 2nd covers all firearms, is completely irrelevant to the issue as to what sort of gun control is prohibiited by the 2nd.

 

[Goobieman]

EDIT: Forgive me, but I just don't know what you're referring to when you use that phrase. And I certainly don't know what SCOTUS means when they use it either.

Then its best of you don't follow Iriemon's example in ignorantly making an claim regarding what sort of weapon it covers and what sort of weapon it doesn't.

But then, you're not so silly to do something like that :mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

See, that's the beauty of it -- I don't have to.

He argues that the 2nd protcts certain weapons - RPGs, etc.
For that to be true, they cannot fall under the "dangerous and unusual weapons" category as proscribed by the court. Since he made the claim, the onus is on hm to show that they do not fall into that category, whatever it may be.

Thus, its up to HIM to produce the definition; he then pleads ignorance on the issue, thereby ending any effective conversation on the point, as he necessarily cannot support his assertion.

I wold be -very- interested to see how RPGs, etc, are not "dangerous and unusual weapons" under the context oif this decision. He knows he doesnt have a prayer at showing any such thing, and has run away from it.

But then, he doesnt really want to carry on a conversation here, he wants to deflect and misdirect the conversation towards a straw man that he can beat up at hs leisure.

If you wanted a debate on what the Supreme Court considers to be a dangerous and unusual weapon, then don't start a thread about what the 2A does. There is nothing in the 2A about dangerous or unusual. There is nothing in your OP indicated the debate was to be based on or limited by SC decisions. There is nothing in my responses that my interpretation of the 2A was supposed to be consistent with SC precedent.

I responded to the OP. If you want to discuss what the WC means by "dangerous and usual" be my guest. I couldn't care less.

 

[Lightdemon]

Then its best of you don't follow Iriemon's example in ignorantly making an claim regarding what sort of weapon it covers and what sort of weapon it doesn't.

But then, you're not so silly to do something like that :mrgreen:

Then perhaps you would be kind enough to supply us the definition for "dangerous and unusual weapons?" The way that is used by SCOTUS of course.