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

[MedWheeler]

I also agree that WMDs are not included in what the Constitution's framers had in mind.

War was fought in a far more "honorable" manner (if war can be called as such) back then, with only actual combatants being in participation. The targeting of non-combatant civilians was highly frowned upon, and generally against the rules of engagement (though the laying to waste of towns was apparently still on the table.)

A WMD is hardly a weapon of war. It's typically an option a tyrannical government uses to keep its subjects in check. Even nuclear weapons would be hard-pressed to be considered a weapon of war. Developed more as a weapon to "end wars", and proliferated t the point of such abundance that it is all but impossible to eliminate them, they simply exist in our arsenal because they exist in others. That's why they were used in one war, and one war only, despite the fact that wars have raged on across the globe ever since.

Once our own government and people agree on the idea that WMDs, including nuclears, are acceptable as legitimate weapons of war, then I guess they would come to the table as being among what the framers of the Second had in mind, as extreme as that may seem.

 

[rule303]

Has anyone ever tried to form 4 an ICBM? I wonder if there is anything legally preventing an individual from owning one. Obviously, your average person couldn't come close to being able to being able to afford one, but I wonder if it would be technically possible with enough hoops jumped through?

 

[flphotog]

First, the weapons they are talking about are not "Assault Weapons"

 

[MtnCreek]

Has anyone ever tried to form 4 an ICBM?

You'd probably have better luck form 1'ing it.

 

[CaseyRyback]

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

maybe look in the mirror?

 

[jyeatts]

I'd also point out the Gun Control Act of 1968 which states that guns in common use cannot be banned.

 

[DeepSouth]

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?"

It has been explained to me as........ Small arms.

 

[tomrkba]

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?

It's simple: the state or Federal Constitution does not say "...except those the government does not like."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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.

Actually, it does. On this forum, as I recalled, I debated a troll and asked him that question, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

He came back fulminating and said it was a "Stupid question."

And my response was, "Who's stupid? The question or the guy who can't answer it?"

He had no reply to that.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

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?

How does "X" law infringe on my gun rights?

It gives the idiots who ask that kind of question the feeling of the moral high ground requiring that I reveal private details of my private gun collection in order to "prove" that my rights have been violated.

Why not ask, "How does a ban on gay marriage infringe on your marriage rights?"

You have to admit to being a sodomite to answer that question in a meaningful way.

It's a trick question.

How does "X" law infringe on my gun rights?

It puts you in the position of "admitting" you are a gun nut to prove your point.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Why not ask, "How does a ban on gay marriage infringe on your marriage rights?"

THAT is a very good response.

Or, if your opponent is male, "How does a ban on abortion infringe on your rights?"

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It's not about still being able to 'exercise' our RKBA even if we might be limited in our choices, its about the right not being infringed. It's not about exercising the right, it's that the right shall not be infringed. Limiting our choices infringes upon the right. Its about seeing it in the proper perspective - the perspective the Second Amendment was written in that reflected the protection we must have of that God given inalienable right that secures our freedom from tyranny.

Woody

 

[cuervo]

Something to consider even before quoting the 2nd amendment...

The constitution gives specific enumerated powers to the government. The power to regulate firearms is not on that list, therefore all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. They have skirted that ruling with Interstate Commerce which is why you have to do a 4473 on interstate sales but they can't regulate sales that occur within the states. I would argue this also makes the NFA unconstitutional.

Bringing the 2nd Amendment into play, I believe that the citizenry, aka the unregulated militia, should have access to the same small arms as the regulated militia.

 

[AlexanderA]

jyeatts wrote:

I'd also point out the Gun Control Act of 1968 which states that guns in common use cannot be banned.

I must have missed that. Where in the GCA '68 does it say that?

The Heller case said something like that, but not exactly.

 

[george burns]

Come on Casey you know your asking leading questions. The framers base many things they wrote on Ideals, they figured we would be smart enough to figure out what made sense as the future demanded. Just as the average soldier didn't have a Cannon back then, the average man doesn't have a tank now.
Could it happen, sure Arnold Shwartzenager has a tank. I guess if you had the proper permits licenses and cash you could but a fighter, like Tom Cruise has.
But a nuclear device is regulated by so many agencies that you would never get the clearances to own one. Also to land an F111, or F16, you need an airport that allowed military jets to land and take off there, plus a ground crew, spare parts, etc., you get the picture now. I you meet the requirements you can get just about anything you want.
The idea was to protect us against tyranny.

 

[AlexanderA]

DeepSouth wrote:

It has been explained to me as........ Small arms.

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment limits the right to "small arms." As a matter of fact, the (attempted) British seizure of arms that was fresh in the Framers' memory, when they drafted the 2nd, was when the British marched on Concord to try to take the cannon and powder that the colonials had stored there. And in the 18th century, private citizens (privateers) maintained warships fully equipped with cannon, etc. That's why the federal government, in the constitution, is given the power to issue "letters of marque and reprisal" (those are licenses for private warships to raid the enemy and seize his goods -- a form of legalized piracy). The existence of privateers presupposes a right of private individuals to keep and bear cannon.

Actually, everybody on the frontier had "small arms" to provide food and to protect themselves from hostile Indians. Nobody disputed this, and there would have been no need for a 2nd Amendment to enshrine as a "right" something that was so universal and accepted. No, the 2nd Amendment is all about militarily effective arms, and those necessarily include crew-served and heavy weapons.

 

[Field Tester]

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.

For me it's a personal philosophy of discriminate vs. indiscriminate weapons.

 

[AlexanderA]

Field Tester wrote:

For me it's a personal philosophy of discriminate vs. indiscriminate weapons.

Once you admit that there's a "cutoff" for what's protected and what's not protected under the 2nd Amendment, then it becomes a matter of negotiation between the antigunners and the pro-gunners as to where exactly that cutoff line is. I don't think we want to go down that road, because eventually -- based on the balance of political power -- only "Fudd" guns, or double-barrelled shotguns, may be permitted. The 2nd Amendment is really about military parity of the civilian population with its own government, or with foreign invaders.

 

[bikerdoc]

Dont feed the troll.

 

[Potatohead]

The framers base many things they wrote on Ideals, they figured we would be smart enough to figure out what made sense as the future demanded.

...Aaaand that's where they went wrong, figuring we were smart enough..

 

[AABEN]

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?

What do you call an assault weapons? When you know the different then you can give them a come back. It pays to know your guns and the laws before you go there.

 

[Sol]

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?

I usually ask a question to answer a question.

If guns (all guns, because let's be honest here, end goal for anti-gun people is to eliminate civilian ownership) are so bad, why do the anti-gun mouthpieces and politicians own guns and have armed guards for their protection?

Why are government entities (groups of people) exempt from said laws? SAFE act, LEOSA, MG rules by-passes?

One can argue that the police and whatnot are exempt because they work for the government. Ultimately a person, a citizen is the end user of said weapon. Cops and other governmental executive entities shoot people, not to defend daddy government, but to defend themselves from bodily harm.

How does "x" infringe on my rights?
Well it tips the balance of power from servant to master.
I can afford an AR-15 for my protection, I can't afford round-the-clock off-duty or retired LEO as bodyguards.

Anti-gun people are voting themselves into a caste system and don't even know it.

A government to the people, for the people and by the people.*

 

[Field Tester]

Field Tester wrote:



Once you admit that there's a "cutoff" for what's protected and what's not protected under the 2nd Amendment, then it becomes a matter of negotiation between the antigunners and the pro-gunners as to where exactly that cutoff line is. I don't think we want to go down that road, because eventually -- based on the balance of political power -- only "Fudd" guns, or double-barrelled shotguns, may be permitted. The 2nd Amendment is really about military parity of the civilian population with its own government, or with foreign invaders.

I don't agree. I think there is a cut off for everyone. That's why I said it was my personal philosophy rather than my interpretation of the 2nd. Everyone has an idea of where gun control starts. I wouldn't give prisoners firearms, but I'm personally ok with felons having them. That's my personal cut off. I believe I should own destructive weapons freely, grenades, RPGs, bombs etc... But I don't think I should have access to biological or chemical warfare.
See, my own personal cut off. I don't think it does anyone harm discussing it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

But I don't think I should have access to biological or chemical warfare.

But you already have access to chemical and biological warfare.

The deadliest known biological agent is botulinum toxin, which has often been made accidentally by not properly sterilizing the jars during home canning.

And nerve "gas" can be made from commonly available ingredients.

 

[hso]

The authors of the Constitution and BOR saw no problem with everything from pikes to cannon being owned by citizens under the 2A. This included the most advanced weapon system of the day, the warship. These facts are lost to most, but anyone who's gone through an American History class can be reminded of privateers operating under letters of marque into the 1800s (well after the BOR was written). It wasn't until the 1930's, over 120 years after the 2nd Amendment was penned, that machineguns were regulated in any way at all. The idea that any sort of weapon needs to be regulated is a late idea in American history and one that flies in the face of the original intent of the 2A.