Vern Humphrey
Member
In that case, there is no such thing as a WMD, since all such weapons clearly have a strategic defensive use.
What might be a rational metric for determining where the second ammendment ends?
- Thread starter Habeed
- Start date
- Status
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Principles
The "old dusty outdated document" canard.
You know, I have been in any number of arguments with people who, in one breath, cited the age (and obsolescence) of the Constitution, and in the next breath cited Socrates, Plato, or Nietzsche.
I entirely reject the "old, outdated" argument.
The Constitution was written by seasoned scholars, soldiers, and businessmen who had a deep appreciation of the forgoing 5,000 years of human history and the principles that support freedom, and the principles that foster tyranny.
They grasped that there is "nothing new under the sun."
The same forces are at work today that were at work 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and as far back as recorded history.
Technology doesn't change that.
Aspiring tyrants seek to obtain through subterfuge what they cannot take by force, and one of the first objectives is the removal of any impediments to their ability to effectively employ force.
Attacking a document citing its age when the real objection is its principles is a fallacy and a false attack vector.
The "old dusty outdated document" canard.
You know, I have been in any number of arguments with people who, in one breath, cited the age (and obsolescence) of the Constitution, and in the next breath cited Socrates, Plato, or Nietzsche.
I entirely reject the "old, outdated" argument.
The Constitution was written by seasoned scholars, soldiers, and businessmen who had a deep appreciation of the forgoing 5,000 years of human history and the principles that support freedom, and the principles that foster tyranny.
They grasped that there is "nothing new under the sun."
The same forces are at work today that were at work 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and as far back as recorded history.
Technology doesn't change that.
Aspiring tyrants seek to obtain through subterfuge what they cannot take by force, and one of the first objectives is the removal of any impediments to their ability to effectively employ force.
Attacking a document citing its age when the real objection is its principles is a fallacy and a false attack vector.
DefiantDad
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 499
Agree.
Tyranny, kingship, slaves, abuse of power, all these things are eons and eons old, and so the Constitution is not THAT old. Indeed, it is because of ample historical precedent that the Founders crafted the protections with the Constitution, along with the inherent checks and balances because they were so keenly aware of historical precedent.
Tyranny, kingship, slaves, abuse of power, all these things are eons and eons old, and so the Constitution is not THAT old. Indeed, it is because of ample historical precedent that the Founders crafted the protections with the Constitution, along with the inherent checks and balances because they were so keenly aware of historical precedent.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Followed by the fallacious claim that the way to deal with problems is to simply ignore the Constitution.
Note that not a single one of those arguing for "gun control" is willing to follow the obvious route of amending the Constitution.
Im not trying to be rude but if a case is stated in 3 paragraphs, commenting on one while ignoring the others is intklevtually dishonest. Do you judge a book the same way?
Arfin- my point was the supreme court is allowed to interpet the constitution, they have therefore it means what they say(for right or wrong) My point was you cannot take one branch of the goverment and ignore the others.
Vern- where did I insult you? I brought up NJ because it's part of America feel fee to use any part of it you like. I'm still waiting on the answers to those questions
Arfin- my point was the supreme court is allowed to interpet the constitution, they have therefore it means what they say(for right or wrong) My point was you cannot take one branch of the goverment and ignore the others.
Vern- where did I insult you? I brought up NJ because it's part of America feel fee to use any part of it you like. I'm still waiting on the answers to those questions
TLDR
Having said that, the 2A is very clear. At the time of writing the citizens had all the military weapons they could afford. If the 1A extends to computers, radio, etc...which some say "the framers couldn't have imagined in their time", than the 2A extends to firerms in the same manner.
Having said that, the 2A is very clear. At the time of writing the citizens had all the military weapons they could afford. If the 1A extends to computers, radio, etc...which some say "the framers couldn't have imagined in their time", than the 2A extends to firerms in the same manner.
TLDR
Having said that, the 2A is very clear. At the time of writing the citizens had all the military weapons they could afford. If the 1A extends to computers, radio, etc...which some say "the framers couldn't have imagined in their time", than the 2A extends to firerms in the same manner.
Absolutely.
I doubt the framers could have imagined the internet or the world wide web. I'll wager they would have a lot easier time imagining our modern firearms/arms than our modern 1A protected means of 'speech'
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
The Supreme Court is not supposed to "interpret the Constitution" as much as they are supposed to verify compliance of laws to the intent of the constitution.
The SC is not supposed to function as "root access" to the Constitution, with freedom to arbitrarily redefine what it means.
That's the purpose of the amendment process.
This latter day "accrued jurisprudence" concept is a broken principle. When determining whether some newly proposed incursion into individual liberty passes Constitutional muster, it is an error to simply bolt new decisions onto existing decisions, without actual review of the source material.
If we did that, we'd still be denying guns to black people.
The SC is there to protect the integrity of the Constitution and the laws derived from it, not figure out how to "interpret" it to satisfy new cultural fads.
I agree, but determining how far any amendment goes is squarely in the courts purview, to the point that congress can pass law that they may determine is legal or illegal. The court has ruled on the the amendments before. Since the question is what should be (if any) limits on the second. That would be the SC territory. If anyone thinks they could sue to possess WMD and win they are sorely mistaken. Isn't there another thread regarding Scalias comments regarding regulation
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Habeed said:
How could there be? We gave the government power to arm up for our defense. That power is derived from our right to defend ourselves. How could we give power to our government to have bigger, more powerful arms than we have the right to ourselves? If we decided not to have a central government we'd have to provide those arms ourselves for our defense.
qwert65(in response to something other than what I wrote above) said:
Neither the Court may adjudicate nor the Congress legislate to infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. There is no grant of power to either branch of government to do that, and to infringe upon that right through any other grant of power is prohibited by the Second Amendment. The fact that they do does not make it right or prudent.
Ergo, there is no rational metric.
Woody
If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood
Last edited:
Wisdom of our forefathers...
There is no defined limit. The framers of the constitution intentionally left it to 'the people' to decide on limits - if any. The intent of the second amendment was to prevent or dissuade tyrants and the overreaching power of government.
There is no defined limit. The framers of the constitution intentionally left it to 'the people' to decide on limits - if any. The intent of the second amendment was to prevent or dissuade tyrants and the overreaching power of government.
The 2nd amendment ends at the same place that the 1st amendment ends.
The government states that a lot of nuclear information is 'top secret' and if you talk about it to people who aren't of that clearance, you can be charged with a crime and 'freedom of speech' isn't an effective defense.
Of course because speech (and just speech...we aren't talking about causing something THROUGH speech, like causing panic in a theater by yelling fire or by having a voice-activated trigger on your glock) is limited at this extreme end it doesn't mean it is okay to limit it anywhere else.
Same thing with RKBA. You want a tank, complete with functional 150mm cannon? go for it. You want a nuke? nope, sorry.
The government states that a lot of nuclear information is 'top secret' and if you talk about it to people who aren't of that clearance, you can be charged with a crime and 'freedom of speech' isn't an effective defense.
Of course because speech (and just speech...we aren't talking about causing something THROUGH speech, like causing panic in a theater by yelling fire or by having a voice-activated trigger on your glock) is limited at this extreme end it doesn't mean it is okay to limit it anywhere else.
Same thing with RKBA. You want a tank, complete with functional 150mm cannon? go for it. You want a nuke? nope, sorry.
gc70
Member
JustinJ said:
If you can not, or will not, define the terms you use, you have no points other than an appeal for others to blindly agree with you.
Why not scrap the Second Amendment if you trust government to restrict weapons only "when it is warranted?"
And some would say that "completely undermined by a single individual regardless of the wants of the people" could describe mass shootings.
The whole concept of trying to volunteer a new end point for the Second Amendment seems like a waste of effort.
Vern Humphrey
Member
if you take a sip from a bottle, and it tastes foul, do you have to drink the whole bottle to judge it?
And I have given you the answers -- since what other people commonly call WMD can be made by anyone in their kitchens, to argue prohibiting them will somehow change that fact is nonsense.
To be fair, the contents of the bottle are probably homogeneous and it is likely that a single sip can be considered representative.
The same cannot be said for a point made via written word.
Basically...I don't think your analogy is very good.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Indeed it can -- if three points are necessary to make an argument, and one of them is bogus, how can the other two make up for that?
GambJoe
Member
Taking logic to far.
The fact that someone tells me that he is a good and rational person doesn't make it so. Even if he has the documents to prove it. The idea that any person could own any automatic weapon without any regulation is a bit over the top for me but the idea that an individual can own a nuke is beyond reason.
The fact that someone tells me that he is a good and rational person doesn't make it so. Even if he has the documents to prove it. The idea that any person could own any automatic weapon without any regulation is a bit over the top for me but the idea that an individual can own a nuke is beyond reason.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Are we back on the old "I don't want people to own nukes" kick again?
As I have pointed out, anyone can make nerve gas or extremely deadly biological agents in their kitchen. In 1995 in Japan, which has extremely tight controls, an organization known as Aum Shinrikyo or Aleph launched multiple attacks with home-made nerve gas.
It is intellectually dishonest, therefore, to pretend that laws can prevent the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and even more dishonest to tie this to the gun control argument.
As I have pointed out, anyone can make nerve gas or extremely deadly biological agents in their kitchen. In 1995 in Japan, which has extremely tight controls, an organization known as Aum Shinrikyo or Aleph launched multiple attacks with home-made nerve gas.
It is intellectually dishonest, therefore, to pretend that laws can prevent the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and even more dishonest to tie this to the gun control argument.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
The "over the top" nature of full auto is a consequence of scarcity.
That scarcity started with the GCA of 1968. Someone cleverly waved a magic legislative wand and made civilian ownership of full auto rifles an uncommon thing.
Once you make something so scarce that no one is accustomed or familiar any more, it's easier to make the case that they "should be exempted" from common ownership. It's a circular logic thing.
Make sure very few people have them or can get them, then assert that they must not be necessary, and after all, who really uses those things anyway.
Full auto is an expensive toy: it's been called "one of the fastest ways to convert money to noise."
Burst auto, on the other hand, can be a life saver. Ask the guy who successfully defended himself from invasion by an armed gang.
He's an unusual case, but that's chiefly because of the enforced scarcity.
zxcvbob
Member
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists as one of Congress's enumerated powers the granting of Letters of Marque and Reprisals. This is an acknowledgement of the private ownership of warships and how the government could make use of them. So the Constitution has no problem with private ownership of WMD.
Whether or not they are protected by the 2nd Amendment is not answered. But they are certainly not prohibited.
Whether or not they are protected by the 2nd Amendment is not answered. But they are certainly not prohibited.
DefiantDad
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 499
That is very true!
It's easily "over the top" for any civilian to have an actual working FIREARM in countries that ban them. "Is that a REAL gun?!"
7 pages is enough for the latest round of "draw the line at x, y, or z..." We have entered the more heat than light area so let's shut it down.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
