Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice American Style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    Home defense isn't listed because it was already a part of common law dating back to English common law centuries before. The idea that you couldn't use force to defend your person, family and home would have been considered absurd. The fact that the Constitution allows you to own firearms means that they are included in the available means to exercise your natural right to self defense.


    Agreed, but the question of limits of the 2nd Amendments and whether it is an anachronism as a constitutional right shouldn't then be conflated with the existing and continuing common law right to personal self-defense.

    Again, you can own these weapons. All it takes is a $200 tax stamp. Using them for self defense is no different than using any other firearm.

    The mines are slightly different. Owning them and burying them in your yard are two different things. At that point it is illegal not because its a mine but mine its a man trap. Its the equivilant of rigging a shotgun to your front door Tom & Jerry style and shooting the mailman. Needless to say that is not self defense.
    Hidden or unexpected traps yes, but in principal a clearly marked minefield shouldn't qualify as a trap and certainly not a manually fired claymore.

    BTW, it is my understanding that the sale of new M2 .50 cal s is currently, but I would be curious if it were permissible particularly in fully auto mode.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
      That isn't my intention at all. I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was using that old argument that it only applies to 18th century weaponry. What I mean is that the language has to be read using 18th century syntax and definition in order to understand what is actually being said. Interpretaion is trying to glean meaning from it using logic and syntax different from that it was written with. I was trying to do the opposite.
      Gotcha.

      And just for the record, I'm a proud gun owner myself. However, there is an inherent hypocrisy within the 2nd amendment that I feel needs to be addressed - the idea that some arms are okay and others aren't is used by the pro- and anti-gun lobby equally.

      It's not that guns should be banned (who trusts the government that much?) but that we have to recognize that both sides are arguing for their own interpretation of just how far the constitution goes.

      I don't have an easy answer about nuclear weapons which is why I went into the thought exercise of trying to determine what the closest equivalent would have been at the time and how they would have approached it.
      The problem there is that you still end up trying to interpret the intent of the writers, which is something often used as an attack against liberals. If we are to use a strict approach to the actual wording of the constitution, there is no more ground for banning civilian owned shotguns than there are civilian owned nuclear weapons.

      Likewise, if one can decide that it is possible to ban nuclear arms, it's possible to ban firearms as well. The constitution doesn't differentiate between different forms of arms, so it wouldn't be constitutional for us to do so as well.

      I may have thought of a better comparison though still far from a perfect one. If we look at it through the lense of the most powerful single weapon system in existence then our best bet is to compare nuclear weapons to a ship of the line. I admit I don't know what the actual US naval laws concerning such a thing would have been in the 1780s but I don't see why it wouldn't have been legal, assuming someone had the obscene amount of money needed to buy and operate one. All of its individual parts, cannon, guns, ship, sails, crew, etc were legal for a private citizen to own so it should be legal to own as a complete unit. You could cause severe devastation with a weapon like that and some enterprising "private citizens" did just that a century before. So you can own all that but as soon as you start attacking ships and ports with it you get hanged for piracy. The same logic could be applied to nuclear weapons.

      Again this is mostly a thought exercise as the courts have taken the entire Constitution and run with it off in their own direction. There's a LOT of things they've banned or regulated into near extinction *cough* automatic weapons *cough* that we'd need to get back before anybody came close to this extreme stuff.
      Sure, but that's also part of the thought experiment: how can one claim that the constitution protects the owning of automatic weapons but not nuclear weapons? The constitution doesn't differentiate between different arms, and just because the authors didn't know how arms would develop doesn't negate the protection spreading to semi-automatic rifles and revolvers, for instance.

      This is more about the flaw in the strict constitutional approach, though not in a "they're obviously wrong" way either. Like free speech, we have decided as a nation that there are constitutional limits to free speech that aren't expressed in the constitution. The 2nd amendment is like the 1st: we don't take it as absolute in all cases.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        Gotcha.

        And just for the record, I'm a proud gun owner myself. However, there is an inherent hypocrisy within the 2nd amendment that I feel needs to be addressed - the idea that some arms are okay and others aren't is used by the pro- and anti-gun lobby equally.

        It's not that guns should be banned (who trusts the government that much?) but that we have to recognize that both sides are arguing for their own interpretation of just how far the constitution goes.



        The problem there is that you still end up trying to interpret the intent of the writers, which is something often used as an attack against liberals. If we are to use a strict approach to the actual wording of the constitution, there is no more ground for banning civilian owned shotguns than there are civilian owned nuclear weapons.

        Likewise, if one can decide that it is possible to ban nuclear arms, it's possible to ban firearms as well. The constitution doesn't differentiate between different forms of arms, so it wouldn't be constitutional for us to do so as well.



        Sure, but that's also part of the thought experiment: how can one claim that the constitution protects the owning of automatic weapons but not nuclear weapons? The constitution doesn't differentiate between different arms, and just because the authors didn't know how arms would develop doesn't negate the protection spreading to semi-automatic rifles and revolvers, for instance.

        This is more about the flaw in the strict constitutional approach, though not in a "they're obviously wrong" way either. Like free speech, we have decided as a nation that there are constitutional limits to free speech that aren't expressed in the constitution. The 2nd amendment is like the 1st: we don't take it as absolute in all cases.


        Some types of guns can be banned or regulated so long as there is a "reasonable relationship to a valid safety interest".

        I am paraphrasing the standard, but some regulation is ok.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post



          how can one claim that the constitution protects the owning of automatic weapons but not nuclear weapons?
          This is reductio ad absurdum and nothing else. Weapons of mass destruction did not evenexist at the time the Constitution was framed, but regardless, they would never be in the hands of a "militia" nor the ordinary citizens who make up the "militia".

          No one in their right minds would place nuclear weapons, or chemical or biological weapons, in the hands of ordinary citizens. These are entrusted only to militaries under the control and overwatch of their governments, and even that has proven to be a false safety in the case of rogue nations and the former Soviet Union. You'll be suggesting tanks and AFV's next. Maybe a strike fighter or two in the garage.

          The fact is that possessing handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles should be the practical limit for citizens. No one needs automatic weapons and high capacity magazines to hunt deer, or to target shoot.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
            Some types of guns can be banned or regulated so long as there is a "reasonable relationship to a valid safety interest".

            I am paraphrasing the standard, but some regulation is ok.
            I agree. We have plenty of common sense restrictions in place, after all. And some less than common sense restrictions too. But we as a nation have decided that the constitution and it's "clear and unambiguous" language isn't absolute.

            Everyone interprets the constitution somewhat.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              This is reductio ad absurdum and nothing else. Weapons of mass destruction did not evenexist at the time the Constitution was framed, but regardless, they would never be in the hands of a "militia" nor the ordinary citizens who make up the "militia".

              No one in their right minds would place nuclear weapons, or chemical or biological weapons, in the hands of ordinary citizens. These are entrusted only to militaries under the control and overwatch of their governments, and even that has proven to be a false safety in the case of rogue nations and the former Soviet Union. You'll be suggesting tanks and AFV's next. Maybe a strike fighter or two in the garage.

              The fact is that possessing handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles should be the practical limit for citizens. No one needs automatic weapons and high capacity magazines to hunt deer, or to target shoot.
              How is the average citizen to resist a threat, foreign or domestic, who is armed with nuclear weapons if they're not allowed the same? Wasn't that part of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                How is the average citizen to resist a threat, foreign or domestic, who is armed with nuclear weapons if they're not allowed the same? Wasn't that part of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment?
                That's why nations maintain standing military forces. The "militia was never intended to substitute for the regular military forces. That's why there is no constitutional right to own a cannon, either.

                The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment was to prevent oppression of the citizens by a government intent on doing so, like the British did originally. Therefore, the check and balance on an out of control government is an armed citizenry.

                What good would nukes do in the hands of private citizens? Are you going to hold a conference call and try to get them all to agree to launch at the same target at the same time? Fat chance that would work. Half of them would nuke their politicians, their neighbors or their bosses, and the other half would launch at whatever they felt like, when they felt like it. After the typical evening news, most of America and the world would glow in the dark.

                Imagine some redneck, racist militia guy in the deep woods of Idaho drooling over his target list, which would be evrybody else but his own group.

                No thanks.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  That's why nations maintain standing military forces. The "militia was never intended to substitute for the regular military forces. That's why there is no constitutional right to own a cannon, either.

                  The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment was to prevent oppression of the citizens by a government intent on doing so, like the British did originally. Therefore, the check and balance on an out of control government is an armed citizenry.
                  And the "armed citizenry" are kept deliberately under-armed compared to the government, subverting that line of reasoning.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                    Using the .50 on the loudmouth ringleader has multiple benefits mostly psychological,
                    The bystanders would get the same effect from a 175gr SMK or 12ga slug.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                      Not here. As long as the gun only fires solid shot its legal.

                      Come to think of it as long aa you have rubber road tracks you can drive them on the road as well. Not like they can't handle the weight considering there's 80 ton trucks on the road.



                      Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean its constitutional. The government has a long history of ignoring the constitution when it sees fit. But yes even in the 18th century private ownership of weapons up to and including military grade cannon was perfectly legal and within the bounds of what the Constitution intended. Privately owned cannon were even bought into service in 1812, and if I remember correctly 1848, to make up for shortages in the government's arsenal.

                      One extremely common misconception that you seem to also hold relates to the term "well regulated." In the 18th century that phrase meant something more akin to "well trained" or "well prepared" more than the modern meaning of "well controlled." The actual full text:

                      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

                      When translated into plain modern English to retain its original meaning.

                      "Since a well trained citizen militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state, the right to own and use arms shall not be infringed."

                      A bit of paraphrasing on my part but I tired or make it as plain as possible in contemporary English to cut through the flowery 18th century language the misleads people who try to read it without historical context.
                      Yes I understand.

                      But the requirement of permit, which I assume is what you meant by "paperwork" is apparently not automatically considered an infringement ?

                      I you accept that concept, the question the becomes which weapons require a permit and which don't.

                      Over here you can buy most anything, but permits are required for all of it.

                      You seem to accept the need for a permit for some weapons but not for others - where's the line and why ?
                      Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                      Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                        Yes I understand.

                        But the requirement of permit, which I assume is what you meant by "paperwork" is apparently not automatically considered an infringement ?

                        I you accept that concept, the question the becomes which weapons require a permit and which don't.

                        Over here you can buy most anything, but permits are required for all of it.

                        You seem to accept the need for a permit for some weapons but not for others - where's the line and why ?
                        It varies from state to state. For instance there's quite a few banned guns in CA that are legal in others. (Never saw the need of most of those other than bragging rights...) Fully automatic guns are regulated by the Feds and require a FFL license.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...tates_by_state
                        Credo quia absurdum.


                        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          That's quite a more nuanced story than we usually hear here,

                          which basically amounts to guns are "freely available" in the US and "banned" in Europe.

                          One big difference seems to be right to *carry* arms around, which is very much restricted here, much less over there apparently.

                          Again - the constitution to my knowledge says little about the difference between having the right to own a gun vs. the right to carry it around in public.
                          Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                          Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            How is the average citizen to resist a threat, foreign or domestic, who is armed with nuclear weapons if they're not allowed the same? Wasn't that part of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment?
                            What I always find funny is how the logic of "more guns equals more safety" ends sharply at the border. Why wouldn't the same logic apply when it comes to WMDs but instead nuclear non-proliferation is vigorously pursued? If every state had the nuclear options then of course we would all be safer because surely all states would behave as a rational actors and stupidity and confusion would't result disaster.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              The fact is that possessing handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles should be the practical limit for citizens. No one needs automatic weapons and high capacity magazines to hunt deer, or to target shoot. [/FONT]
                              You're forgetting two things Elmer.

                              One the Constitution says nothing about hunting or target shooting, that isn't what the 2nd Amendment is about. It does however explicitly state that arms, in the hands of its citizens, are necessary for the security of a free state. So if anything it covers self defense and keeping the state honest more than hunting or anything else.

                              Two it to really doesn't matter what you think people need, that's not how the Constitution works. What people want or need is irrelevant. In this country the natural state is assuming everything is legal unless specifically stated otherwise. You aren't granted privileges by the state, you are born with rights and the state has to prove it has the Constitutional authority to limit them. So it doesn't matter what we need. If I want something nobody has the right to tell me if I need it or not. That's my decision.

                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              [FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode]That's why nations maintain standing military forces. The "militia was never intended to substitute for the regular military forces. That's why there is no constitutional right to own a cannon, either.
                              It actually did and still does. Privately owned cannon weren't all that rare and in some cases were even purchased by the military to make up shortages in wartime. I talked about this earlier in the thread actually. I once met a group of guys at an airshow with a fully functional StuG III. The only real limitations they had were only fire solid shot from the gun and only drive on the road with special rubber track pads.

                              Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                              What I always find funny is how the logic of "more guns equals more safety" ends sharply at the border. Why wouldn't the same logic apply when it comes to WMDs but instead nuclear non-proliferation is vigorously pursued? If every state had the nuclear options then of course we would all be safer because surely all states would behave as a rational actors and stupidity and confusion would't result disaster.
                              Its quite a bit different. Imagine there were only 200 odd people in the world and only 8 or 9 of them had a gun. It would definitely not be in their interest to allow everyone to have them because it gives them so much more power that they are much safer because they could easily crush anyone who tried to threaten them with no response. That's what nuclear weapons are like today. Now imagine 100 of those people had guns but you had no idea who they were. That's too many to keep track of and account for realistically and too many to really control. Thus your only recourse is to arm yourself too just in case.

                              You're intentionally confusing to wildly different ideas and situations to make a fallacious point that doesn't make logical sense.
                              Last edited by frisco17; 26 Feb 16, 07:06.
                              "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                                (...) Imagine there were only 200 odd people in the world and only 8 or 9 of them had a gun. It would definitely not be in their interest to allow everyone to have them because it gives them so much more power that they are much safer because they could easily crush anyone who tried to threaten them with no response.
                                That IS in fact my argument.

                                I never understood why "I want to own a gun" turns into "I want everyone else to own a gun also"

                                Surely the fewer people have guns the better for me, no ?
                                Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                                Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X