"How does "X" law infringe on your rights?"

[CaseyRyback]

I hear this all the time from anti-gun folks and never really know what to say to it so they'll understand.

ex: anti-gun rhetoric about banning "assault weapons" and the question always comes up..."how does this law infringe on your rights to own a firearm?"

technically, you can still own a firearm, just not that specific kind of firearm. So what do you say in response to this asinine question?

 

[MtnCreek]

Sure you've got freedom of speech, you just cant talk about politics.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Yup. Or freedom of religion - but only between those approved by the Government.

 

[627PCFan]

An attack on the right to own that "type of firearm" is an attack on your future rights to own one.

Also the slippery slope, first that type, then the next type, then the type you do own....

 

[desidog]

The CT AWB makes it impossible for me to buy another AR-15 legally. My right has been infringed. ...and i'm a law abiding, tax paying citizen. How is that not an infringement, when other Americans elsewhere can?

 

[CraigC]

I'd ask why they trust their corrupt government with nuclear weapons, when it can't even run a brothel at a profit but not their fellow citizen with a rifle.

 

[Cump]

If one accepts that the second is based on the natural right to self defense, it is clear that the AWB and other proposed or actual bans infinge -- limiting capacity to defend oneself, restricting ergonomics that allow diverse shooters to find a firearm that works for them, etc.

The problem is that most antis don't think that the 2nd protects the right to self-defense. If they profess they do, maybe they need to be disabused of the Hollywood notion that a single pistol shot, or seven, can stop an attacker, or that guns are one-size-fits-all (and point and shoot).

I think this question about infringement, which antis may not change their opinion on, is ultimately the most important, but it is not the only question when considering policy -- or attempting to persuade.

We can turn it back on them: Can we objectively define the problem that needs to be addressed by some legislation? If not, how can we craft policy? If we can, can the proposal predictably solve the problem? Is it enforceable? Are there any unintended consequences? Our legislators rarely address such questions.

If all that is met, it would still have to pass the constitutional test. That's still contentious, but I've found that a lot of acquaintances that reinterpret or disregard the second can be persuaded, or at least made to think, by the questions of feasibility, enforceability and effectiveness. Of course, some are deaf to reason.

 

[CaseyRyback]

here's another: "How does the 2nd amendment protect my right to own an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and not tanks, RPG's, and ICBMS? Can someone explain to me where the cutoff is?"

that's verbatim from a friend of mine who was discussing this the other day.

 

[AlexanderA]

ex: anti-gun rhetoric about banning "assault weapons" and the question always comes up..."how does this law infringe on your rights to own a firearm?"

technically, you can still own a firearm, just not that specific kind of firearm. So what do you say in response to this asinine question?

Simple. I tell them that gun freedom is indivisible, and what they agree to allow today, can easily be outlawed tomorrow (if we go down that road). I also mention that I happen to collect "evil black rifles," so their "assault weapons" bans affect me immediately and directly.

 

[MtnCreek]

here's another: "How does the 2nd amendment protect my right to own an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and not tanks, RPG's, and ICBMS? Can someone explain to me where the cutoff is?"

If I'm not mistaken, you can own tanks and RPG's, but it is regulated (to the point of infringement).

Cutoff? IMHO, nukes, chem, bio weapons are off limits and there are some nations that should be removed from existence because of their possession of such (how's that for me being a hypocrite ).

 

[Vern Humphrey]

anti-gun rhetoric about banning "assault weapons" and the question always comes up..."how does this law infringe on your rights to own a firearm?"

How does censoring the New York Times infringe on your rights to a free press?

How does sending Bill Smith to jail for speaking against the government infringe on your rights to freedom of speech?

How does banning Blacks, Catholics and Jews from voting infringe on your right to vote?

 

[Drail]

Violation of ANY of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights is a violation. Period. There are no "degrees" of violation. It either is or it isn't. I don't know why that is so hard for some people to understand.

 

[LocoGringo]

here's another: "How does the 2nd amendment protect my right to own an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and not tanks, RPG's, and ICBMS? Can someone explain to me where the cutoff is?"

that's verbatim from a friend of mine who was discussing this the other day.

The second amendment was designed to equip the average citizen EQUALLY as well to the average soldier. The average soldier doesn't have a tank or ICBM. The average soldier does have access to claymore mines, RPGs and fully automatic machine guns and rifles, so we have already been infringed quite a bit. So then ask them, "where does the infringement stop and who sets the standard where it stops?" The answer is that the infringement DOESN'T stop.

As stated by someone else earlier, we do have access to fully automatic machine guns and RPGs and tanks, but the ability to obtain them is seriously infringed.

It comes down to a basic understanding of the second amendment. I would encourage you and any other gun owner to read the book The Second Amendment Primer. It is a book that was researched by a lawyer who began as an "anti" but did the research as neutral and was converted to a "pro". It's a dry read, but PACKED with irrefutable info as to the intent of the founders and how far forward they thought as well as how strongly it is based on principle rather than shifting social mores.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Violation of ANY of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights is a violation. Period. There are no "degrees" of violation. It either is or it isn't. I don't know why that is so hard for some people to understand.

The Bill of Rights is a set -- break one, and you break them all.

With the loss of the right to keep and bear arms, you also lose the right to freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of the right to council and to be confronted by the witnesses against you and so on and so on.

Look at the state of things in America today and tell me that isn't true.

 

[medalguy]

Has anyone listened to the rhetoric coming out of Westminster Mass on the suggested ban on the sale of all tobacco products in that town. The nice townfolks are all up in arms (pun intended) because someone wants to BAN something! Even those who do not smoke are mad because they don't want the government telling them they cannot have something that is legal to sell today.

Substitute "firearms" for "tobacco" in their arguments and see how silly it sounds. CBS showed a man holding up a sign saying "What's Next?"

 

[Uncle Nubbs]

"here's another: "How does the 2nd amendment protect my right to own an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and not tanks, RPG's, and ICBMS? Can someone explain to me where the cutoff is?"

I usually say I already own these. I pay tax dollars to develop and produce them and I fund responsible patriot volunteers to operate them on orders from those I choose with my votes.

Otherwise, my stock answer is something along the lines of "if the cops need it to protect my community, than I can have it too"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"here's another: "How does the 2nd amendment protect my right to own an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and not tanks, RPG's, and ICBMS? Can someone explain to me where the cutoff is?

"All the terrible implements of the soldier"
-- Tenche Cox.

However, let me point out that nuclear weapons are not "weapons" now that many nations have them. You can't win a war or a battle with them. You CAN destroy civilization with them, but that's hardly "winning."

Now you CAN own a tank, a jet fighter, an RPG and so on -- you just have to pay the tax. So the argument about limiting the right to bear arms is specious -- and the people who advance it know that.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Smells like a troll around here! Are they in season?

 

[MedWheeler]

Countering such an argument by deflecting the question never works, so ditch the First Amendment analogies.

Instead, remind your questioner that the idea behind the Second was to keep the people on an even playing field, so to speak, with their government. Having the right to bear arms wasn't only about taking them up in support of that government, but also to empower those people to keep it in check.

Restricting the people from accessing weapons actually able to perform adequately in a fight against a well-armed adversary (foreign or domestic) breaks down that portion of the amendment's intent. That's why the argument that the right only applies to weapons of the time the Second was ratified doesn't fly.

If they ask where the line should be drawn (about missiles, grenade launchers, F-16s, etc.), simply reply that the framers of the Constitution did not see a need for any such line.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Countering such an argument by deflecting the question never works, so ditch the First Amendment analogies.

Why? They are perfectly valid. As I said, the Bill of Rights is a set, break one, break them all. The tactics used to vitiate the Second Amendment can and will (and have) been used to vitiate the First, Fourth and Fifth.

 

[Agsalaska]

Its not an easy answer because the law by itself, or the fact that there is a law in the first place, is NOT a violation of the constitution or an infringement of your rights. As soon as you try to give them that argument you have already lost. The 'its says shall not be infringed what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand' argument isn't going to get you anywhere if you are trying to actually be right.

You have to argue that the restrictions placed on you by the law prevent you from acting on the purpose or intentions. The 1st amendment grants me freedom to be critical of our president. Thats the intention. It does not however grant me the right to verbally threaten him. Thats not the intention.

If you believe, as I think most of us do, that the 2nd amendment is about self preservation and protection against tyranny, that should be the basis for your argument. I can easily argue that a magazine restriction infringes on my right of self defense. I can also rather easily argue that any law that prohibits me from owning anything available to the police prevents my protection against tyranny. Therefore an AR15 restriction is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

I think that gets a little more difficult when you talk about tanks, f-16s, etc. for a few reasons but it can still be made.

 

[herrwalther]

All the rights have some form of regulation. They ebb and flow over the years with different laws and Supreme Court decisions. During the 1960's burning an American flag was punishable with a jail sentence in most states. Now it is perfectly fine as long as no one gets hurt. And you are making some sort of protest.

However, the regulations placed on the Second Amendment if placed on a different "right" it would make your standard civil liberties attorney fill his pants with quite a bit. It is the "cool" thing for politicians to pass gun control because it is easier to consider firearms a privilege and not a right.

 

[caribou]

There are laws, like Gunlaws that infringe apon our Rights to own firearms and there are no laws that effect criminals behavior.

Banning guns from law abiding citizens does nothing to stop crime, prehaps it encourages it because criminals find/know folks who cannot resist.

Banning any gun has never alleviated the criminal problem, keeping guns out of the hands of citizens not only denys them their 2nd amendment Rights, it opens them up to untold personal and civil rights violations, such as Rape, Robbery and Murder, to name a few.

Deny one kind of gun opens the box for criminals in power to make further bans, its called "Precedence" in the legal realm, and opens forth doors for domestic terrorists in our Government to attack the Constitution and the lawfull citizens of this country.

 

[JohnKSa]

"How does the 2nd amendment protect my right to own an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and not tanks, RPG's, and ICBMS? Can someone explain to me where the cutoff is?"

At the time the second amendment was crafted, it was clearly intended to insure that the citizens of the United States would be able to own state of the art military weaponry. The clause about the militia being necessary, commonly misread today, is evidence that the founding fathers fully intended for the citizens to take the place of a standing army. If attacked, the citizens would take up their arms and go to war to protect the country.

Citizens owned everything from the muskets used by soldiers to ships equipped with cannon. There was no line drawn, no cutoff. It wouldn't have made any sense to draw a line because the country was designed to derive its military strength from the weaponry owned by the citizens.

So, the question is where should we draw the line today? In my opinion, any "conventional" modern weapon is merely a progression from a weapon that would have been protected by the original second amendment and I believe the founding fathers would have seen them as being protected just as muskets and war ships were protected in the 1700s. To the extent that it seems bizarre for a citizen to own a tank or a war ship today, that is because of the way our mindset has drifted. It's not because there's some inherent/implied cutoff in the second amendment.

Weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, fall into a very different category. There is, in my opinion, room for debate about whether weapons of mass destruction would be protected by the second amendment. I would not be willing to argue on the side that WMDs should be protected by the second.

 

[AlexanderA]

The whole debate about whether nuclear weapons (or other weapons of mass desctruction) should be protected by the 2nd Amendment is just silly. In the real world, such weapons can only be obtained by well-resourced nation-states, or international terrorist organizations. (We already have laws to deal with international terrorists, no matter what's in their arsenal.) The only purpose of such a debate is as a sort of "reduction to the absurd" talking point for the antis. Whenever they raise this, we should call them out on it, and refuse to play their game.

(I agree that in theory, there are -- or should be -- no limits to what's covered by the 2nd Amendment, but in practice, it's a moot point. Dealing with such a moot point resulted in Justice Scalia's mental gymnastics in the Heller case, which are the Achilles' Heel in that case from the point of view of gun owners. ("Reasonable restrictions.") He should not have gone anywhere near this issue.)