YES, Gun Ownership IS an Individual Right. Eugene Volokh

[Captain Adverse]

Odd how "liberal" now means more government control (restriction?) and less personal freedom.

Exactly why I don't credit most people who claim the label "liberal" as actually representing Liberalism. IMO it's just progressive-leftists and socialists in sheep's clothing.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

(Sigh) I have already expressed what I consider those limits. I am not "haggling," I am quite clear on the point.

Oh, and one more thing - I wanted to thank you, because it's the debate with you in which I am forced to "up my game" that enabled me to discern an argument that is (at least in my own view) more effective. That's why I like debating - it forces me to either defend what I believe, or to admit error...and in either case I win since in the first instance I win the debate, but in the second instance some of my ignorance is removed.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You're quite clear about what YOU believe...and like it or not, you have agreed that there are limits to the "shall not be infringed" 2A. "Shall not be infringed" does not imply any limits whatsoever on age, record, mental capacity or lack thereof, or even on how "arms" is defined...but you listed above quite a few limits...meaning that you are by your own definition violating the specific language of the 2A. If we all agree that there are and must be limits on the 2A (as you have already admitted), then it really becomes a determination on what those limits must be.

Fortunately, you are not the final arbiter as to what those limits are; indeed, only SCOTUS is, and a future SCOTUS - as we have already seen more than once in American history - may very well interpret the 2A differently from how it is currently interpreted.

Not really.

Again, words have meanings.

Arms are weapons and accoutrements a person can carry. Can you carry a tank, cannon, or battleship?

Arms are weapons that can be used by the individual over and over in self defense. Can you use a grenade, law, or stinger missile more than once?

Arms are weapons one can use personally for defense without personal harm to oneself or what one is protecting while using them. Can you deploy a Nuke, ebola, or mustard gas in self-defense without harming yourself or endangering what you are trying to protect?

 

[Moot]

Odd how "liberal" now means more government control (restriction?) and less personal freedom.

And here I thought Conservatives were all for private prisons and incarcerating people that exercise personal freedom.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Oh, and one more thing - I wanted to thank you, because it's the debate with you in which I am forced to "up my game" that enabled me to discern an argument that is (at least in my own view) more effective. That's why I like debating - it forces me to either defend what I believe, or to admit error...and in either case I win since in the first instance I win the debate, but in the second instance some of my ignorance is removed.

And I have no problem debating with anyone of this mindset.

 

[Captain Adverse]

And here I thought Conservatives were all for private prisons and incarcerating people that exercise personal freedom.

Really? How so?

 

[Hari Seldon]

My response?

Four of the Justices in Heller felt it was a collective right tied to the militia and supported Justice Berger's view...fortunately for the originalist interpretation...FIVE held otherwise.

That does not mean that I think the Amendment grants individuals access to any/every weapon or weapons platform they wish...I am informed by the literature of the day and the various Militia Acts which indicated what kinds of arms were expected of the common militia recruit when mustered. They limit it to the arms a soldier would carry as basic kit. Not "special" weapons, ordinance, crew-served weapons, or area effect weapons.

No Right is "absolute," otherwise (for example) slander and libel would be protected and legal.

So grenades are okay.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So grenades are okay.

See posts #37, #42, and #53.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Not really.

Again, words have meanings.

Arms are weapons and accoutrements a person can carry.

Can you carry a tank, cannon, or battleship?

Arms are weapons that can be used over and over. Can you use a grenade, law, or stinger missile more than once?

Arms are weapons one can use personally for defense or offense without personal harm to oneself or what one is protecting while using them. Can you deploy a Nuke, ebola, or mustard gas in self-defense without harming yourself and what you are trying to protect?

Please refrain from hyperbolic postulations - such are beneath you. As I told you a long time ago, when someone is highly intelligent - as you are (and that is with no sarcasm) - using such arguments actually weakens your stance, for people expect better of you. When a highly intelligent person uses arguments that would be more expected of someone much younger or less intelligent, it makes the intelligent person seem disingenuous.

As to your argument, you can use a mortar more than once, and you can use a grenade for self-defense. and both of those can be carried and used by one man...and while a grenade is a single-use, so is almost any rifle from before the Civil War, if one didn't have extra ammo and gunpowder. You can use a block of C4 for self-defense if you know where the bad guys are coming from, given time to set it up. More importantly to modern times, you can use a drone with a firearm attached for self-defense, or a drone with an explosive attached. Such are already being used in Syria, you know...and it's only a matter of time until people are killed here stateside using drones in either of those two fashions.

But even if we (rightly IMO) dismiss all that, you already said that you believe that crew-served weapons should not be allowed. Problem is, the loader in that crew is NOT a requirement, but a "really nice to have". One man CAN carry and operate a light machine gun. It wouldn't be easy, but it can be done. So what's the limits? Who determines which shade of gray is too dark or too light? Times change, and so do interpretations by SCOTUS.

 

[Casper]

See posts #37, #42, and #53.

To add a twist:
What about theses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0U2U-CD7MM
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqyLoU_0Av4
Easy to carry, I have carried both, and they are reusable.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Please refrain from hyperbolic postulations - such are beneath you. As I told you a long time ago, when someone is highly intelligent - as you are (and that is with no sarcasm) - using such arguments actually weakens your stance, for people expect better of you. When a highly intelligent person uses arguments that would be more expected of someone much younger or less intelligent, it makes the intelligent person seem disingenuous.

As to your argument, you can use a mortar more than once, and you can use a grenade for self-defense. and both of those can be carried and used by one man...and while a grenade is a single-use, so is almost any rifle from before the Civil War, if one didn't have extra ammo and gunpowder. You can use a block of C4 for self-defense if you know where the bad guys are coming from, given time to set it up. More importantly to modern times, you can use a drone with a firearm attached for self-defense, or a drone with an explosive attached. Such are already being used in Syria, you know...and it's only a matter of time until people are killed here stateside using drones in either of those two fashions.

But even if we (rightly IMO) dismiss all that, you already said that you believe that crew-served weapons should not be allowed. Problem is, the loader in that crew is NOT a requirement, but a "really nice to have". One man CAN carry and operate a light machine gun. It wouldn't be easy, but it can be done. So what's the limits? Who determines which shade of gray is too dark or too light? Times change, and so do interpretations by SCOTUS.

Mortars are crew-served weapons, and while in desperation or extremis one may be used individually, they are not designed to be.

Grenades are not standard issue unless going into combat, and then on an as-needed basis.

You are misusing the word "single-use" when alleging any rifle (or more appropriately any musket) from before the civil war because they were designed for use with bullets and powder, and in extremis with plug bayonet as a spear or club in close quarters.

I was not being hyperbolic. I have pointed out that my view is informed by history of use and the Militia Acts.

I have no opinion about drones yet, but I have stated that if in the future the average infantryman carried a "plasma rifle in the 40-watt range" then I would advocate citizen access too.

No less than I argue infantry weapons of today rather than muskets of 1776 when facing today's military/police forces as a citizen-rebel.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Odd how "liberal" now means more government control (restriction?) and less personal freedom.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". For the purposes of this subject, that saying can be adjusted thus: "One man's freedom-destroying regulations is another man's way of making sure his kids have the best chance to grow up to adulthood."

Which is the more precious freedom - the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to live, grow, and love? Because it's no accident that we (1) have more guns than people in America and (2) have a MUCH higher homicide rate than any other first-world nation.

To continue the discussion about freedom, a lot of conservatives argue that they should be free to discriminate against others...whereas a lot of others (pick your minority or non-WASP demographic) want to be free FROM discrimination. Which is more important - freedom to discriminate against others, or freedom from discrimination by others? If you choose #2, the only way to achieve that is by implementing those oh-so-dreaded guv'mint regulations that take away the "freedom" to discriminate against others based on race, creed, color, religion, or gender identity.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

This was a case of FEC limits on free speech - the SCOTUS ruled in favor of barring those limits.

They did...for now. Times change, and so do SCOTUS decisions. That's my point.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Mortars are crew-served weapons, and while in desperation or extremis one may be used individually, they are not designed to be.

Grenades are not standard issue unless going into combat, and then on an as-needed basis.

You are misusing the word "single-use" when alleging any rifle (or more appropriately any musket) from before the civil war because they were designed for use with bullets and powder, and in extremis with plug bayonet as a spear or club in close quarters.

I was not being hyperbolic. I have pointed out that my view is informed by history of use and the Militia Acts.

I have no opinion about drones yet, but I have stated that if in the future the average infantryman carried a "plasma rifle in the 40-watt range" then I would advocate citizen access too.

No less than I argue infantry weapons of today rather than muskets of 1776 when facing today's military/police forces as a citizen-rebel.

Shades of gray.

 

[Captain Adverse]

To add a twist:
What about theses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0U2U-CD7MM
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqyLoU_0Av4
Easy to carry, I have carried both, and they are reusable.

Does every infantryman carry one? When I was active duty only a few men in each platoon had an M16 with an M203 modification.

I can tell you that if I was a member of an active rebellion/revolution against the Federal government, then all bets are off and I would grab whatever weapon the loyalist Army troops had access to, and use it to fight them with.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". For the purposes of this subject, that saying can be adjusted thus: "One man's freedom-destroying regulations is another man's way of making sure his kids have the best chance to grow up to adulthood."

Which is the more precious freedom - the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to live, grow, and love? Because it's no accident that we (1) have more guns than people in America and (2) have a MUCH higher homicide rate than any other first-world nation.

To continue the discussion about freedom, a lot of conservatives argue that they should be free to discriminate against others...whereas a lot of others (pick your minority or non-WASP demographic) want to be free FROM discrimination. Which is more important - freedom to discriminate against others, or freedom from discrimination by others? If you choose #2, the only way to achieve that is by implementing those oh-so-dreaded guv'mint regulations that take away the "freedom" to discriminate against others based on race, creed, color, religion, or gender identity.

The fact is that (4x?) more murders are committed with knives than all rifles - thus we need no restrictions on knives and more on rifles because of the right to life overrides the right to own rifles but not knives.

 

[Casper]

Does every infantryman carry one? When I was active duty only a few men in each platoon had an M16 with an M203 modification.

I can tell you that if I was a member of an active rebellion/revolution against the Federal government, then all bets are off and I would grab whatever weapon the loyalist Army troops had access to, and use it to fight them with.

Nope only a select few, I did until I was assigned an M60, which is another discussion.

That is just common sense.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Nope only a select few, I did until I was assigned an M60, which is another discussion.

That is just common sense.

Then my point stands; the militia was asked to report with weapons that would be expected in common use by the basic infantryman of foreign powers that they would face.

The British army regular carried a musket, powder, and shot; the American militia was required to report with a musket, powder, and shot.

So, logically, if the American soldier carries a standard M16 variation (which I understand is semi-automatic with a three-shot "automatic" setting) with ammo, then that's what a citizen militia-man should have access to. I understand there are full-automatic variations, but I believe they are not standard issue for the basic infantryman...although I haven't been keeping up with current tech for a long time.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The fact is that (4x?) more murders are committed with knives than all rifles - thus we need no restrictions on knives and more on rifles because of the right to life overrides the right to own rifles but not knives.

Really? You didn't think I'd see right through your claim? Your claim referred to RIFLES - not all firearms, but RIFLES, which comprises only a small percentage of all homicides-by-firearm. You probably got that from this Breitbart article...


...but Snopes pretty handily showed how this was a classic example of Twain's quip: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Here's the rest of the story that blows up your claim:

According to FBI data for 2016, 11,004 of the 15,070 murders in the United States were committed with firearms. Handguns were the most common type of firearm used in 7,105 cases. In 3,263 cases, the type of gun was not reported to the FBI or was listed as “other” while in 903 instances, the weapon was not identified or was listed as “other.”

THAT, sir, is why you really should learn to be every bit as cynical of your own side as you are of mine.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Really? You didn't think I'd see right through your claim? Your claim referred to RIFLES - not all firearms, but RIFLES, which comprises only a small percentage of all homicides-by-firearm. You probably got that from this Breitbart article...


...but Snopes pretty handily showed how this was a classic example of Twain's quip: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Here's the rest of the story that blows up your claim:

According to FBI data for 2016, 11,004 of the 15,070 murders in the United States were committed with firearms. Handguns were the most common type of firearm used in 7,105 cases. In 3,263 cases, the type of gun was not reported to the FBI or was listed as “other” while in 903 instances, the weapon was not identified or was listed as “other.”

THAT, sir, is why you really should learn to be every bit as cynical of your own side as you are of mine.

Yes, BUT...isn't the argument to remove the AR-15 RIFLE from common use? (One can call it erroneously an "assault weapon," but it is still a rifle).

So doesn't his point have any merit in that argument, especially when you just showed he was correct?

 

[Moot]

Then my point stands; the militia was asked to report with weapons that would be expected in common use by the basic infantryman of foreign powers that they would face.

The British army regular carried a musket, powder, and shot; the American militia was required to report with a musket, powder, and shot.

So, logically, if the American soldier carries a standard M16 variation (which I understand is semi-automatic with a three-shot "automatic" setting) with ammo, then that's what a citizen militia-man should have access to. I understand there are full-automatic variations, but I believe they are not standard issue for the basic infantryman...although I haven't been keeping up with current tech for a long time.

I think the arms and ammunition used by most militias were kept in a nearby arsenal. Not everyone could afford their own musket let alone ammunition. Here's an example of an old arsenal....

Magazine : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yes, BUT...isn't the argument to remove the AR-15 RIFLE from common use? (One can call it erroneously an "assault weapon," but it is still a rifle).

So doesn't his point have any merit in that argument, especially when you just showed he was correct?

*chuckle* - I should have seen that coming!

There's rifles and then there's rifles, as you well know. I could be wrong, but IIRC a normal 30.06 doesn't come with a banana clip. That, and there's a reason why the AR-15 (and "assault-style" firearms like it) seems to be the weapon of choice of those who commit mass murder. From USA Today:

"Along those lines, they’re very customizable — most average people can figure out how to install accessories like forward trigger grips that let you hold the gun at waist height and spray bullets while stabilizing the gun, laser sights, and you can add high-capacity magazines.”

The ability to add a high-capacity magazine to the rifles is certainly one factor that makes them attractive to people looking to commit mass murder. A 30-round magazine is fairly standard with MSRs (although some states cap the capacity to 10 or 15 rounds), but "drums" holding as many as 100 rounds are also available.

I mean, really? Since when is a 30-round banana clip - much less a 100-round drum - a need for self-defense? You know as well as I do that it's not a need, that the only reason why they're still legal - and why we're having mass murders every year using those - is because the NRA (being the puppet of the "we gotta preserve our revenue stream" gun manufacturers) keeps claiming - in so many words - that their "right" to have such unnecessary magazines is more important than the lives of the innocent men, women, and children who are killed by them.

Which leads me to these questions: at what point does the lives of the people become more important than your "right" to use an AR-15 (or similar) with up to even a 100-round magazine? How many people, how many children have to die before you say "enough is enough"? And at what point will y'all get the memo that the reason that the NRA fights so hard for "gun rights" has little to do with your rights, but much more to do with the revenue stream of the gun manufacturers?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think the arms and ammunition used by most militias were kept in a nearby arsenal. Not everyone could afford their own musket let alone ammunition. Here's an example of an old arsenal....

Magazine : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site

Yes, it is true for militia-volunteers who could not afford to report with muskets, the area militia headquarters often maintained armories, and would issue for-use weapons which were returned at the end of drill. Some could actually be purchased too if I recall correctly, sometimes by paying a little at a time until the volunteer paid it off and it became his property to care for and report with.

 

[PLizzy]

It doesn't matter.

The second amendment, like any other part of the constitution, can be amended itself through legislation. Democratic vote can change what it means to own guns in this country, as well what kind of guns can be further produced, so all these arguments about what the framers in the 18th century did or didn't believe, are completely and utterly moot.

Acting as if prohibiting further production of certain classes of fire arms is the same thing as banning guns, is just NRA propaganda.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Which leads me to these questions: at what point does the lives of the people become more important than your "right" to use an AR-15 (or similar) with up to even a 100-round magazine? How many people, how many children have to die before you say "enough is enough"? And at what point will y'all get the memo that the reason that the NRA fights so hard for "gun rights" has little to do with your rights, but much more to do with the revenue stream of the gun manufacturers?

Dude, emotional appeals? They don't move me.

I am not the one killing children. None of the people I know, or have known in my entire life, who own weapons have ever killed other citizens, either children or adults.

(We are not talking about active duty military personnel in combat situations against hostile forces). I am speaking of civilian gun owners in a civil environment.

It may seem callous, but the fact that some miniscule set of persons who can obtain weapons may use them in atrocious ways does not inform my position on the right of common citizens to keep and bear arms.

No more than I would ban any other tool misused by some to cause harms.

The tool is not the cause, the tool is just a tool. Focus on preventing the causes, not on removing the tool.