What might be a rational metric for determining where the second ammendment ends?

[DefiantDad]

Or maybe the mass murder potential of basically anything, negates the special consideration of firearms, per se?

So a measure might apply not toward quantity of injury/death? E.g., how does a nuke qualitatively differ from, say, mass arson / poison killing a hundred or a thousand people?

(by the way, in terms of ease, a knife is way easier to procure and use, compared to tediously creating and maintaining a nuke)

 

[JustinJ]

It's not about pre-empting an individual's ability to commit death and mayhem. Some people might want it to be, but the long and short of that argument is that there's no way to achieve the goal.

It is largely about that as it should be. Just because one can not guarantee with absolute certainly that something can be prevented does not mean all efforts should be abandoned. Efforts to reduce likelihood and/or frequency are not invalid just because they may not be 100% effective. What is it with this zero sum argument? Its like saying that because all traffic accidents can not be prevented by traffic laws there should be none. Or exercise does not guarantee i won't have a heart attack so why bother? Now, that is not to say any effort to reduce death is acceptable. It must of course be weighted against the costs it incurs and infringement of liberties is a big one.

It's about their capacity/magnitude/potency for dealing death and destruction on their own prerogative.

That's a huge factor as well.

Problem: there are valid (but many would argue unlikely) circumstances where maximized individual death and destruction dealing is just and proper.

What do you mean by individualized? I can think of no scenario in which it is proper for a single individual to to maximize death and destruction to an end only he desires.

And if we define that potency as "less than X", who gets to be/have X or greater, and what makes him so special?

I think in a representative democracy there is not supposed to be a "him" who gets to have greater than X. Greater than X must only be at the disposal of elected officials to be used only in the manner granted to them by the people. I'm not saying it works that way in practice but i would hope some sort of check would prevent the president from nuking Canada just because one day he is bored.

 

[geekWithA.45]

the long and short of that argument is that there's no way to achieve the goal.

Efforts to reduce likelihood and/or frequency are not invalid just because they may not be 100% effective.

There is no way to achieve the goal at all. To any degree. Zero. Percent.

A person committed to an act of destruction will plan ahead, gathering such resources as will assist him, even if he's reduced all the way down to perpetrating a sharp stick massacre. In reality, improvising weapons from tools is a trivial task, as most tools are inherently and irreducibly dangerous.


A person acting spontaneously will similarly seek out expedient means, the outcome of which will be dictated by whatever's handy, whether it's a vase or a machine gun.


When it comes to mass public killings, on the whole, guns are a greater advantage to the defender than to the attacker.

I can think of no scenario in which it is proper for a single individual to to maximize death and destruction to an end only he desires.

The end he desires might be the continuation of his life. There's plenty of folks who fell to lynch mobs wishing they had some maximized death and destruction in their pocket.

Greater than X must only be at the disposal of elected officials to be used only in the manner granted to them by the people.

I posed a question to the crowd a while back, about what the quorum is that validates dubious propositions such as possession of nuclear weapons. That question stands. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that some critical mass of humanity magically makes certain things OK for a group, but not for an individual.

That's Rousseau talking, not Locke.

 

[JustinJ]

There is no way to achieve the goal at all. To any degree. Zero. Percent.

Sorry, but i think that is a completely false assumption. Those attempting mass murder have been caught and stopped in the planning process numerous times specifically because of the difficulty caused by controls and monitoring of the materials they were seeking. Lets also not forget there have been crazy people who have committed heinous acts, such as the Son of Sam shooter, who likely lacked the mental capacity to execute a plan of any complexity.

A person committed to an act of destruction will plan ahead, gathering such resources as will assist him, even if he's reduced all the way down to perpetrating a sharp stick massacre. In reality, improvising weapons from tools is a trivial task, as most tools are inherently and irreducibly dangerous.

Obviously limiting a person to just a stick vs a weapon of mass destruction will dramatically reduce the damage he can incur.

A person acting spontaneously will similarly seek out expedient means, the outcome of which will be dictated by whatever's handy, whether it's a vase or a machine gun.

And what is handy will dictate the degree to which he inflicts damage.

When it comes to mass public killings, on the whole, guns are a greater advantage to the defender than to the attacker.

That is completely dependent on if any defenders are armed and how many. Two recent shootings in two very gun friendly states with concealed carry laws were in no way mitigated by armed defenders. We can't force people to carry guns nor should we.

The end he desires might be the continuation of his life. There's plenty of folks who fell to lynch mobs wishing they had some maximized death and destruction in their pocket.

You did get me with that one. Didn't consider that. That potential use would of course weigh in favor of allowing a certain weapon if it could reasonably be used in such a scenario.

I posed a question to the crowd a while back, about what the quorum is that validates dubious propositions such as possession of nuclear weapons. That question stands. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that some critical mass of humanity magically makes certain things OK for a group, but not for an individual.

Thats fair. However the term OK is purely subjective. From my perspective of weighing value of ownership of more destructive weapons by individuals or groups i can identify ways in which possession by a group has fewer checks in the negatives column than does by individuals.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

The Founders of our Nation were armed with state of the art weapon systems of the day therefore there is no reason we should not be able to possess todays state of the art weapons.


Natures first law is the Law of Self Preservation.

 

[JustinJ]

Natures first law is the Law of Self Preservation.

I can think of few things more counter to self preservation than allowing private individuals to own weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I can think of few things more counter to self preservation than allowing private individuals to own weapons of mass destruction.

Precisely how do you prevent that?

I am a graduate of the CBR Officer's Course and have worked under contract to the Army Chemical Center. I can make nerve gas (a weapon of mass destruction) with chemicals I can obtain in the town of Mountain View, Arkansas (pop. 2750) and virtually any other town. I can also manufacture the deadliest known biological agent in my own home.

Your argument is based on the idea that somehow a law can stop someone who wants weapons of mass destruction -- it can't.

 

[zxcvbob]

I can make nerve gas (a weapon of mass destruction) with chemicals I can obtain in the town of Mountain View, Arkansas (pop. 2750) and virtually any other town.

Which one? (H2S, HCN, and Cl2 are not nerve agents.) I don't want details for obvious reasons.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Which one? (H2S, HCN, and Cl2 are not nerve agents.) I don't want details for obvious reasons.

I don't care -- for obvious reasons -- to go into details. Nerve gasses (which are not gasses, but oily liquids) work by affecting the body's production of cholinesterase. Working with the Chemical Center on a project related to terrorism, I was involved in the development of a method of making and deploying such a chemical agent.

 

[kludge]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been covered, but if you want to have a philosophical discussion you have to remove the practical limits on an individual acquiring the latter half of the list.

So, someone invents a 100 megaton nuke the size of a baseball, that costs $10. Should it be rotating for sale to anyone in the gun rack at Walmart?

Until and unless the Constitution is amended, yes.

Do you really think that it could not be done IN A MONTH if the powers that be wanted to do it?

Here's why is won't happen: They don't dare admit that the Constitution means exactly what it says. They want to keep the argument way down low on what "guns" are legal rather than what "arms" are legal.

We on the other hand should reframe the issue and MAKE it about ARMS and NOT about guns. We'd have a lot more progress and a lot more freedom as a result, because I can't imagine that you would ever get 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment that banned machine guns manufactured after 1986.

 

[1911Tuner]

Your argument is based on the idea that somehow a law can stop someone who wants weapons of mass destruction -- it can't.

Roger that. One need only look at how ineffective the laws forbidding substances like cocaine and heroin have been. Historically, such "laws forbidding" have not only failed, they've often given rise to much violence and created a whole class of criminals overnight. Look no further than Prohibition/Volstead Act for proof of that.

A man can have pretty much anything he wants. All it takes is money and the determination to have it. If there's a buck to be made, somebody will step up to the plate and deliver it.

 

[DefiantDad]

alcohol

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So, someone invents a 100 megaton nuke the size of a baseball, that costs $10. Should it be rotating for sale to anyone in the gun rack at Walmart?

So, alien Luncheaters from the planet Zolgarsh land and say the secret name of Rome aloud, causing the destruction of the earth. Is that impossibility an excuse for trashing the First Amendment?

 

[qwert65]

I think people here are getting bogged down and arguing petty details, rather than Looking at the founders intent.
The constitution was written in a completely different time, by a lot of men with different views. Both sides of the gun-control argument use whatever snippet from whomever that meets their argument. Further, the founders own opinions changed over time. With some notable exceptions the founders were idealistic, young men who were wise enough to know what they didn't know. For example James Madison at the time of writing the constitution wanted a smaller federal government and disliked congress having authority to tax states in time of need- however when he became president and needed funds to deal with the war if 1812 he realized that changes needed to be made and he made them.
The same thing happened to the confederacy where certain governors wouldn't send troops to various armies perferring to keep them home to protect the state.
My point as it relates to guns is this there is what was written and ratified in the 1780s an amendment that I cherish very much, and there is the reality that the average member on this board has more firepower than most villages when the constitution was ratified.
I think it is important for everyone to understand that the founders wanted Freedom, freedom of choice, freedom to pursue a better life, freedom from tyranny. However they also WANTED an infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals,etc. They understood that having both required tradeoffs-(at the time mostly as taxes) when people didn't want to pay the government the founders personally saw to it that they did(whiskey rebellion)

Certain weapons have been developed that were unimaginable in those times, doctors at the time did not even wash their hands due to ignorance of germs. The thought that the founders could Conceive weapons like these is a stretch at best.

The founders feared one man wielding power over others, that no one should have the power to control people with fear. WMD gives one that power. As far as the argument that people can obtain them anyway- that's a danger of living in a free society, however not being able to attempt to stop one bent on destruction is a tyranny of it's own.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I think people here are getting bogged down and arguing petty details, rather than Looking at the founders intent.
The constitution was written in a completely different time, by a lot of men with different views. Both sides of the gun-control argument use whatever snippet from whomever that meets their argument. Further, the founders own opinions changed over time. With some notable exceptions the founders were idealistic, young men who were wise enough to know what they didn't know.

Quite the contrary, the founders were mature, experienced men. After all, they had fought an 8-year war against the most powerful empire in the world and won and had years of experience in government both before and after the Revolution.

For example James Madison at the time of writing the constitution wanted a smaller federal government and disliked congress having authority to tax states in time of need- however when he became president and needed funds to deal with the war if 1812 he realized that changes needed to be made and he made them.

Quite the contrary, Madison offered no amendments to the Constitution during his presidency. The first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) were ratified in 1791, after being sent to the states by the First Congress. In 1798, the XI Amendment, prohibiting suits in Federal Court against one state by citizens of another state or foreign citizens was ratified. And In 1804, the method of electing the President and Vice President was changed by the XII Amendment. There was not another amendment until 1865, after Madison was dead.

The same thing happened to the confederacy where certain governors wouldn't send troops to various armies perferring to keep them home to protect the state.
My point as it relates to guns is this there is what was written and ratified in the 1780s an amendment that I cherish very much, and there is the reality that the average member on this board has more firepower than most villages when the constitution was ratified.

Clearly the Founders saw private arms (which Washington referred to as "Liberty's Teeth") as a guard against governmental tyranny. The firepower available to the government has increased even more since the Founders' time.

I think it is important for everyone to understand that the founders wanted Freedom, freedom of choice, freedom to pursue a better life, freedom from tyranny.

And the last item is why they wanted the citizenry to be able to have "all the terrible implements of the soldier," as Tenche Coxe said.

However they also WANTED an infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals,etc.

Where are those things in the Constitution?

Those are things left to the states under the 10th Amendment -- the states can choose to have them or not. Let me point out that the act authorizing the Interstate Highway System dating from the 1950s was presented as a Defense issue -- because the Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the power to build roads.

They understood that having both required tradeoffs-(at the time mostly as taxes) when people didn't want to pay the government the founders personally saw to it that they did(whiskey rebellion)

They also intended that the people have the ultimate right and power to overthrow the government -- after all, that's what they themselves did to create the United States.

Certain weapons have been developed that were unimaginable in those times, doctors at the time did not even wash their hands due to ignorance of germs. The thought that the founders could Conceive weapons like these is a stretch at best.

The Founders could not conceive radio, television, the internet and so on. Does this mean the Government has the right to imprison people for expressing their ideas using those media?

The founders feared one man wielding power over others, that no one should have the power to control people with fear. WMD gives one that power. As far as the argument that people can obtain them anyway- that's a danger of living in a free society, however not being able to attempt to stop one bent on destruction is a tyranny of it's own.

And there you have spoken the truth -- not being able to stop someone bent on destruction, because the government has denied us the right to keep and bear arms is a tyranny of its own.

 

[JustinJ]

So, alien Luncheaters from the planet Zolgarsh land and say the secret name of Rome aloud, causing the destruction of the earth. Is that impossibility an excuse for trashing the First Amendment?

The purpose of the first amendment is ensure the expression of information and ideas are are not restricted. This is why the "yell fire in a theater" argument actually has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It is not there to ensure all sounds from an oral cavity can be made at any level at any time.

And there you have spoken the truth -- not being able to stop someone bent on destruction, because the government has denied us the right to keep and bear arms is a tyranny of its own.

What weapon is available that a person could use to defend against the use of a WMD? Especially if to be used by a fanatic or lunatic who is eager to die? So long as voting rights are not restricted the people at least have a degree of control over the government. There is no such control available over an individual in possession of a WMD.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What weapon is available that a person could use to defend against the use of a WMD? Especially if to be used by a fanatic or lunatic who is eager to die?

First of all, the WMD argment is a fallacy -- as I have pointed out, a person with a little knowledge can easily make either nerve gas or the deadliest of all biological agents right in his own home.

What "gun control" law can prevent that?

So long as voting rights are not restricted the people at least have a degree of control over the government.

And when the government over-rides voting? Or sponsors so much corruption that the will of the people is completely thwarted?

There is no such control available over an individual in possession of a WMD.

There you speak the truth -- anyone can manufacture nerve gas or deadly biological agents. So why all the argument -- laws won't work to prevent things like this.

Which shows the intellectual dishonesty of the "What about WMDs?" argument for gun control.

 

[qwert65]

Madison made changes, not in the constitution, but in the way he viewed the federal government needed to act, and what and when the government should tax(this power was in the constitution already) Madison was in his 30s when he wrote the constitution, in his twenties during the revoloution(where he never served in the military)
You seem to have some view that the founders all read the final copy of the constitution and all thought it was awesome. It was a compromise document. This is important because when we think about the founders intent, the question is if these weapons were available does the amendment pass?
I have no idea why you brought up the interstate, the government clearly wanted roads for the post-office;afederal office at the time)
Your argument is equivalent to a parent telling a child to pick anything they want in the store, with the child choosing the store. The parent then mortgaging all belongings to be the store because "they said they could choose what they wanted"
Uf you want a serious discussion let's have one. I need you to state your position.
Question to you- what is the point of the second amendment?
How to WMD fit into the role of overthrowing tyranny?
If say bill gates, Warren buffet, and the us goverment have nuclear weapons how does that protect the common people from tyranny?
Would it be morally ok for the people in the process of overthrowing a tyrannical goverment to release a nerve agent in say New Jeresy?
If these weapons pose no practical use in protecting the people why have them?
Thx

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Madison made changes, not in the constitution, but in the way he viewed the federal government needed to act, and what and when the government should tax(this power was in the constitution already) Madison was in his 30s when he wrote the constitution, in his twenties during the revoloution(where he never served in the military)

Madison changing his mind does not equate to the founders changing the Constitution or their opinion of it.

You seem to have some view that the founders all read the final copy of the constitution and all thought it was awesome. It was a compromise document.

Of course it was.

This is important because when we think about the founders intent, the question is if these weapons were available does the amendment pass?

You misunderstand. The Founders clearly understood that new deverlopments could affect society -- so they provided Article V of the Constitution:

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

If you will note, nowhere do they say, "Hey, guys, if you feel the Constitution is wrong, just ignore it."

I have no idea why you brought up the interstate, the government clearly wanted roads for the post-office;afederal office at the time)

Find that in the Constitution and tell us where it is, would you?

Congress in the 1950s could not find that authority, so they claimed the Interstate Highway System was for National Defense -- which is in the Constitution.

First you make this silly argument:

Your argument is equivalent to a parent telling a child to pick anything they want in the store, with the child choosing the store. The parent then mortgaging all belongings to be the store because "they said they could choose what they wanted"

And then you say this:

Uf you want a serious discussion let's have one. I need you to state your position.

Rather ironic, no?

But my position is simple -- the Constitution means what it says, and the Founders made that clear. If you think the right to keep and bear arms should be restricted, you are free to seek an amendment to the Constitution.

Question to you- what is the point of the second amendment?

To give the people the power to resist and overthrow a tyrannical government, as well as to provide a ready force for defense of the nation.

How to WMD fit into the role of overthrowing tyranny?

Back on the WMD fallacy, are we?

You can't prevent people who want WMDs from getting them -- not when they can make them right in their own kitchens.

If say bill gates, Warren buffet, and the us goverment have nuclear weapons how does that protect the common people from tyranny?

If say, alien Luncheaters from the Planet Zolgarsh come down to earth and pronounce the secret name of Rome backwards, how does that affect your position?

Would it be morally ok for the people in the process of overthrowing a tyrannical goverment to release a nerve agent in say New Jeresy?

No need to -- New Jersey is already so polluted nothing you do can make it worse.

If these weapons pose no practical use in protecting the people why have them?
Thx

If these weapons can be produced by anyone in their kitchens, what's the point of arguing they should be outlawed?

Other than as a stalking horse to cover up the fallacious arguments for gun control, that is?

 

[gc70]

What weapon is available that a person could use to defend against the use of a WMD?

Since you are arguing that the Second Amendment effectively ends where Weapons of Mass Destruction begin, what is the definition of a WMD? Please do not provide examples, but provide a definition that includes specific characteristics that are clear and unambiguous.

If you want to persuade others to agree to voluntarily surrender some of the scope of the Second Amendment, you should be able to very specifically describe the line between what is given up and what is retained.

 

[DefiantDad]

This is a very interesting topic for discussion but I feel we are meandering all over the place (not that it is unnecessary, since it covers many aspects) but maybe this can help refocus what is the CORE INTENT of the 2A.

Nothing like a big jolt of reality and real historical fact. If we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KG74s4DnRw&feature=BFa&list=PLCB61D74FA24BBB07

(The rise of the Third Reich; one of the much better produced and edited documentaries; more to the point, take note of how everything affects the citizens, and think about what it means with respect to the original intent of the 2A as created by the Founders of America).

 

[qwert65]

Just answer the questions please, if the question is posed by the OP what is a rational restriction(paraphrasing) and your point is that they should not be restricted then you are opening them up to be examined.
What you call irony is me trying to illustrate the argument of because I said it can when those things were never really on the table.
The constitution also says ghat a slave is worth 3/5 of a free person. Do you agree with that? Wait I'm ahead of you you bring up the 13th amendment and how the founders gave us the ability to change. -point given. Now keeping that in mind, we all have whatever we want you don't think we'd wind up with an amended constitution? I can see an argument for that but it has to be balanced by the governments job to protect it's citizens( the whole defense thing)
Using a document written in the 1780s and ignoring all the other laws passed and supreme court rulings(which they have the authority to do) is an artificial argument at best- Esp when discussing things which the authors could not have comprehended.

I am trying to have a serious discussion, making fun of NJ and bringing up aliens is not helpful, and implies that you either have no argument or are trying to insult me.

 

[JustinJ]

First of all, the WMD argment is a fallacy -- as I have pointed out, a person with a little knowledge can easily make either nerve gas or the deadliest of all biological agents right in his own home.

And yet large scale successful deployment has yet to be accomplished. Obviously you don't believe this is due to a lack of trying? The trick is not simply making such substances but dispersion which is far more more difficult to do effectively than most realize. Necessary materials are very tightly regulated.

Quote:
So long as voting rights are not restricted the people at least have a degree of control over the government.

And when the government over-rides voting? Or sponsors so much corruption that the will of the people is completely thwarted?

Our system of checks and balances by three separate branches is designed to make such a thing very difficult to accomplish. There is no way one can seriously argue that allowing individuals to own weapons like nukes is more of a defense from tyranny than a means to it.

Quote:
There is no such control available over an individual in possession of a WMD.

There you speak the truth -- anyone can manufacture nerve gas or deadly biological agents. So why all the argument -- laws won't work to prevent things like this.

Which shows the intellectual dishonesty of the "What about WMDs?" argument for gun control.

Just anybody can not manufacture such things without killing himself and definitely not in sufficient amount or necessary form to commit enough mayhem to destroy or control the government. Regulation is exactly what makes this so difficult.

There is no lack of desire to implement such a weapon against the US by citizens and foreigners. If such weapons were readily available there is no reason to believe mass murders like the Movie Theater shooter would not implement them. Intellectual dishonesty is pretending that individual ownership of such a thing would not destroy a civilized society. Ignoring practicality for ideology is always a road to ruin.

Also, even if they were easy to make at home how does that mean they should be allowed? Thats like saying you can't permit all murders so why outlaw it?

Since you are arguing that the Second Amendment effectively ends where Weapons of Mass Destruction begin, what is the definition of a WMD? Please do not provide examples, but provide a definition that includes specific characteristics that are clear and unambiguous.

Thats an attempt to divert away from my points. What i'm arguing is that the government should have the ability to restrict certain weapons when it is warranted. It is warranted when such a weapon can allow for the system to be completely undermined by a single individual regardless of the wants of the people. And truthfully the second amendment does not say there will be no restrictions to arms. Only that the people have a right to bear them without a definition of what "them" is.

 

[qwert65]

I would define a WMD as any device that has no defensive use, anything that will significantly destroy the environment for say greater then 10yrs, and can inflict indiscriminate casualties over more then say an acre- I'm willing to change it this is just off the top of my head

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I am trying to have a serious discussion, making fun of NJ and bringing up aliens is not helpful, and implies that you either have no argument or are trying to insult me.

Making fun of people who disagree with you and bringing up NJ is not helpful, and implies that you either have no argument or are trying to insult me.