How to Answer this Anti Point?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wrs840

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
NC
Anti point: "do you read the 2A as an all or nothing provision (meaning any restrictions or banning of classes of weapons violate the 2A)? If not, what limits / regulations do you find acceptable?"

OK. Specifically regarding McDonald: My personal reading of the dissenting opinion on McDonald seems to opine that the 2A is not abridged when carving a specific niche applying to handguns. i.e: the RTKBA is not an issue if a State or Municipal gun prohibition means: "...well, we only disallow handguns".

The antis would say: well we disallow bazookas too, so how is the dissenting opinion ("it's OK to single out handguns just like bazookas") inconsistent with that?

Help me argue with a Liberal.

Thanks,
Les
 
A bazooka is not a firearm. It is an explosive, a destructive device. Firearms have more in common with mortars/howitzers than bazookas, which are self propelled rockets. To further that, I don't think anyone considers howitzers as part of the group of "arms" we have a right to keep and bear.


The 2A isn't going to give us a right to bazookas, RPG's, grenades. etc. Not everything handheld falls under the definition of arms.
 
Last edited:
To further that, I don't think anyone considers howitzers as part of the group of "arms" we have a right to keep and bear.
Click to expand...

Thanks... but their argument is quickly going to be: "where is the constitutional "line" drawn between which "arms" we have a right to keep and bear"?

Les
 
You have an inherent right to arms, not handguns, not rifles, not shotguns or bazookas, ARMS.

The logical fallacy IS restricting the type of arms, the tool does not make a citizen into a criminal.

Take the high road with your friend and explain that you had planned on restricting ACTIONS instead of tools.
 
Thanks... but their argument is quickly going to be: "where is the constitutional "line" drawn between which "arms" we have a right to keep and bear"?
Click to expand...
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Controlling the tools will not make criminals into citizens
 
I think that relating the two would be a pretty false equivalence. Since the justices viewed the case with self defense in mind, their ruling makes sense, seeing that in my opinion a RPG or what have you does not give you the ability to target a specific threat in a controlled manner ( a condition I think is a given for a self defense weapon in the settings that are generally thought of). Same reason we don't get to use claymore mines for home defense. Too much possibility of collateral damage.

Now, I have always thought there is another question to ask. If the 2nd applies to more than just self defense such as defense of state or against the state, are those restrictions on war fighting weapons reasonable. I don't know that I have an opinion on that solid enough to bring up here but I do ask the question occasionally.

My perfect compromise would be allowing us whatever style of weapons your state police are armed with. They face the same conditions that we do, urban areas, lots of people milling around etc.
 
Next thing you know, you'll have 20mm Vulcan in the back of the truck, well its not a bazooka it fires center fired ammo ;-) how's that argument for you?
 
I believe that all arms are weapons but not all weapons are arms. At least arms as defined in the 2A.

On one extreme of the spectrum we have our bodies that can be used as weapons. Our bare hands and feet are the most basic and simplest weapons available to us. Surely we have a right to use them for SD if necessary? At the other extreme end of the spectrum we have nuclear weapons. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that private citizens have the right to own them ( at least I hope so ). So somewhere in between these two extremes there must lie a dividing line between what weapons private citizens may own ( ie arms ) and those that they do not.

To me that line exist with what are called small arms. Weapons small enough and light enough that they can be used by one person against another person. Any "crew served" weapon or one too heavy and powerful for one person to operate would be on the wrong side of that line. Also not included would be any type of bomb or exploding ammunition.

I vacillate as to wether or not this includes full auto weapons. I have had some experience shooting them, though not much, and have no great desire to own one. I will let others fight that battle.

These are weapons that can be called arms. Weapons that are reasonably useful for personal self preservation in a political society.
 
Last edited:
I think it's always a good idea to look to original intent, as the Supreme court does. It is clear from reading Madison's work that he intended the amendment to ensure that, when called to service, the militiaman would show up with appropriate arms. This was more formally encoded in the Militia Act of 1792. It essentially required that the militiaman be equipped with a musket, a bayonet, and 24 rounds of ammunition. In other words, the small arms in popular use at the time. I have found that this point usually shuts up the interlocutor quite nicely, although you do have to be prepared to defend the idea of privately held select fire M-16s. The word "Switzerland" should do you in good stead for that line of discussion.
 
I run into that line of argument all the time and frankly I tire of it. What I now use to counter such a line of argument is as follows:

whacky anti gunner:

"That means the 2A,unadulterated -- s the absolute right of your psychotic neighbor to stack his basement floor to ceiling with 55-gallon drums of napalm."

Legaleagle:

Incorrect. Let me just state that I get tired of refuting this argument, so in lieu thereof, let me give you some facts. Your argument is commonly known as the "nuke argument".

Fact one: Not one brief submitted to SCOTUS in either Heller or McDonald made the nuke argument. That is over 80 briefs from the top legal talent in the entire USA.

Fact two: Not one justice either in the majority or the dissent for either McDonald or Heller made the nuke argument.

Which can only mean one of two things:

1.) Your brillant legal accumen far exceeds mere mortals; or,

2.) Your thesis is what is termed in the law as a "loony legal argument" that will lead knowledgeable persons to deride the suggested theory and ignore any other legal argument you may wish to make, even if those other legal arguments were nonetheless valid.

Your choice....”
Click to expand...
 
Arms are common (to contemporary times) individually implemented weapons. Personally, I think it SHOULD include destructive devices such as grenades and LAWs, but that would never fly. There is a 'reasonble' restriction in not allowing destructive devices such as mines, grenades, and the like.

Arms, by modern standards, ought to include individually carried and implemented handguns, shotguns, rifles, SMGs, and machine guns, to include the M2 .50, .240B and SAW belt fed weapon systems (which are the upper limit protected by the 2A IMO).
 
Of course if you study History most of us here on THR will be far to the left of the founders of our Country. Seems as if ole GW had a private cannon and some of his friends had Frigates. You need to educate yoself pardner, we have slipped much further down the slippery slope than we could have imagined possible.
 
Similarities Not Similar

Pistols are not "just like" bazookas.

The argument is dishonest.

Your antagonist is trying to elicit an admission that it is "reasonable" to ban SOME kind of weapon.

Having established that banning something is "reasonable," this will be parlayed into banning something else, and something more, and another something because, after all, if you can ban something you can ban anything, and if you can ban anything you can ban everything.

The Second Amendment speaks to the right of a person to keep and bear arms. The word "weapon" appears nowhere, so introducing that word is disingenuous.

You won't see anyone out there "and bearing" a nuke, a FAB, a bomber or fighter plane, a battleship, or a Polaris-equipped nuclear sub.

No one is proposing that the American everyman "keep and bear" a water-cooled heavy machine gun to defend his home and family.

However . . .

What is this overpowering drive to establish some kind of beachhead for a ban?

Why is it so important to discover a "legitimate" infringement?

By what moral imperative are governments the only righteous entities which may own and employ the big weapons so often invoked as the "clear examples" of why restrictions are needed?

Sadly, governments -- especially governments with complete control of their populations -- have an abysmal record on this, having slain literally millions of their own citizens.

The argument that "big weapons" should only be held by big government (where they'll be safe, don'tcha know) is very poorly founded. There is no evidence that governments are any saner, on the whole, than individuals. Quite the contrary.

So, let us completely put aside this absurdity of gnashing our teeth about private citizens somehow coming into possession of rare, prohibitively expensive, logistically all but impossible to manage big weapons.

The Second Amendment is a guarantee that the common man shall, at his sole discretion, be armed. Armed in the manner of someone expected to be effective in the business of defending his family, his community, and his nation. (Remember? "Well regulated militia?")

Worry less about how well armed a citizen is.

Worry more about the disparity in arms between that citizen and the government who want control of his life, his fortune, and his children.

 
I always thought the 2a was written to protect U.S. citizens from a gone awry U.S. government. If that were to happen time now the 2a wouldn't do us a lot of good. The people are way out gunned. But then again most of the men controlling the big gov guns are the strongest patriots out there.
 
The people are way out gunned.
Click to expand...

You consider 100 armed civilians vs every one soldier, outgunned?

Heavy weapons platforms are only useful when they're manned, and kept maintained, fueled and armed with a constant unbroken supply chain. They are very high maintenance mechanical systems. I wouldn't consider the People outgunned at all.
 
Outgunned?

Thats funny...look at what a fight the Afghans are putting up using mostly old mil-surp rifles. I'm not saying they are kicking our butts over there, but we ain't exactly kicking theirs either.

Don't underestimate The People...urban guerilla warfare is not fought with big guns. (too much collateral damage)

Its not all about the weapons...tactics are just as important.
 
If that were to happen time now the 2a wouldn't do us a lot of good. The people are way out gunned.
Click to expand...
I imagine it wouldn't take a whole lot of firepower to discourage an already unenthusiastic occupying force.
How many volunteers do you think there will be to go impose martial law on the second or third town or neighborhood?
 
Never try to argue with a liberal or teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time and annoy the liberal/pig.
 
I've always believed that 'arms' refers to any armament that an individual soldier would carry. So, I think that a select-fire AR15 or suppressed SR-25 should be just as legal as a 1911 or Baretta 9mm.

Do I expect to win? No. Do I keep repeating it? Sure.

I don't expect a single man to take on a F-16 or a 30-caliber minigun. But, what fighter/bomber pilot is going to strafe or bomb a US city? And how difficult would it be for a hunting rifle to take out the machine gun operator or his support personnel? This isn't Afghanistan either, how many deserters do you think there would be if the military were told to target US civilians?
 
Thats funny...look at what a fight the Afghans are putting up using mostly old mil-surp rifles. I'm not saying they are kicking our butts over there, but we ain't exactly kicking theirs either.
Click to expand...

Americans aren't Afghans. Afghans are hard people living in a hard country who have been fending off one invader or another for hundreds if not thousands of years. And they were occupied by the Soviet Union only a few decades ago, and have the experience and left over weapons to show for it. They can live for months in the cold mountains on nothing but rice, dirty water, and a Koran. Their men spend their childhoods watching their fathers first hand blowing up Soviet BMP and shooting down Hinds. Our boys blow up BMPs and Hinds too...on X-Box Live.

Americans are generally apathetic, lazy, fat, and too accustomed to technology and creature comforts. A 290 pound guy waddling around the woods every weekend carrying an AR and wearing surplus camo might think he's some freedom fighter waiting for his chance to fight back, but he's really just a heart attack waiting to happen. A heart attack that couldn't run more than 20 yards if his life depended on it, which it will if his desired revolution really comes.

If the next revolution was fought by arguing about bullet weight online, we'd win hands down. But it's not. Americans are nothing like Afghans.
 
Last edited:
any armament that an individual soldier would carry.
Click to expand...

I mean firearms in that, not explosives. Someone else pointed out the 'nuke' argument. . . I wouldn't expect a 'area' weapon like a grenade, RPG, or missile to qualify as an 'arm' even if it can be carried and fired by an individual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Alternatives for protectecting RKBA.....
Replies
0
Views
246
BowStreetRunner
B
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
N.Y. High Court Judge Takes Colleagues to Task Over Constitutional Issue in Gun Case‏
Replies
5
Views
1K
Dominus
D
Z
  • Locked
High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
Replies
5
Views
882
Sam1911
S
P
  • Locked
Converting ANTIS
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
A
  • Locked
Alan Gura Files for Cert in Kalchalsky
Replies
6
Views
885
colorado_handgunner
C
Back
Top