The second amendment

Yellow cake? mmm... I think it's lunchtime!

0 Replies

Chaplin wrote:

"Owning" something is not illegal if not restricted by existing laws. A vehicle can be used to kill many. It's how one uses it that is the issue; not the owning of it.

True; buying a gun is the same as buying a hammer.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

I know someone once that was almost killed by chicken wings.

Are you sure the second amendment isn't about food?

There r very few things that cannot
be used as weapons, when combined with imagination;
e.g., a sharp chicken bone into an artery in the neck.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

I think the issue is safety.
Even those rights that are specified in the Constitution can be limited
when public safety is jeopardized. You recognize this, yourself, I'm sure.

No. U r rong. I don 't.

The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land".
Government is created by, authorized by, and constituted of the Constitution,
the way that snow is constituted of water.

If any holder of public office, from the President down to a police officer,
steps beyond the limits of the Constitution, then to the extent that he has done so,
he has only the authority of a schoolyard bully.

If it were otherwise,
then government wud be UNDEFINED, and thus unlimited,
like the Faros of Egypt, or like Saddam was.

If your theory were correct,
then ambitious politicians wud eagerly await
the first excuse to find an unsafe condition,
like an earthquake, or nasty weather ( e.g. Katrina )
and have government take over the country,
as Hitler did with the Reichstag fire.

The American Revolution was about defining and LIMITING government,
with NO excuses.

Quote:

The Second Amendment is vague in its use of the word "arms".
Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Should automatic weapons be permitted? What about RPGs?

I 'll take my cue from the USSC, as to what arms
the people have rights to keep and bear.
The US Supreme Court said in US v. MILLER (1939) 3O7 US 174
that they should be "ordinary military equipment...AYMETTE v. STATE 2 Hump.
[21 Tenn] 154, 158." [emphasis added]

The AYMETTE case, which the Supreme Court approvingly adopted
declares: "the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as
are usually employed in civilized warfare,
and that constitute ordinary military equipment.
If the citizens have these arms in their hands,
they are prepared in the best possible manner
to repel any encroachments on their rights." [emphasis added]

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:
I know someone once that was almost killed by chicken wings.

Are you sure the second amendment isn't about food?

There r very few things that cannot
be used as weapons, when combined with imagination;
e.g., a sharp chicken bone into an artery in the neck.

This, although in the back of my mind I have this dreaded fear that you are actually being serious, is about the funniest reply that I've ever received!

0 Replies

David--

Constitutional rights can, indeed, be limited. It's true! Look it up.

I don't know what is considered "ordinary military equipment" by the USSC, but if it includes machine guns, RPGs, and cluster bombs then I reject the Court's opinion (although I doubt that's what they had in mind).

I don't think the United States is a very democratic country. But what I fear more than a military strike on my neighborhood are the common thugs carrying around weapons that make cops crap their pants. Do you think a return to the Old-West is the solution to the violence in this country? Would more guns equal less violence?

0 Replies

There are many cities and counties in this country where the criminal has a weapons advantage. Unless a criminal has restrictions placed on him/her, there is no law that says they can't own it.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

I think the issue is safety. Even those rights that are specified in the Constitution can be limited when public safety is jeopardized. You recognize this, yourself, I'm sure.
The Second Amendment is vague in its use of the word "arms". Where do you think the line should be drawn? Should automatic weapons be permitted? What about RPGs?

I see your point, but I don't see how a society where only the criminals have guns could be considered safe. And please don't pretend that we could ever stop criminals from getting guns. As far as things like RPG's, I don't think many people really want things like that available to the public. I certainly don't. There has to be a balance between public safety and individual rights.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

But what I fear more than a military strike on my neighborhood are the common thugs carrying around weapons that make cops crap their pants. Do you think a return to the Old-West is the solution to the violence in this country? Would more guns equal less violence?

Please tell me how gun laws would affect this. 90% of these thugs did not get these guns from your friendly neighborhhod gun shop. They got them from the trunk of someone's car.

0 Replies

Chaplin wrote:

There are many cities and counties in this country where the criminal has a weapons advantage. Unless a criminal has restrictions placed on him/her, there is no law that says they can't own it.

Again, the majority of "criminals" don't get their guns legally, so how would these restrictions affect them?

0 Replies

Chaplin wrote:

There are many cities and counties in this country where the criminal has a weapons advantage. Unless a criminal has restrictions placed on him/her, there is no law that says they can't own it.

But, of course, criminals don't respect the law, right?
I understand. That's exactly why it is necessary to restrict the manufacture, importation, and sale of such weapons and ammo that render the beat cop defenseless.
I was enlightened earlier in this thread, and I'm open to changing my mind, again. But I can't see any problem, constitutional or otherwise, with this approach.

0 Replies

They respect the law in so far as they wish to remain alive and out of prison.

0 Replies

Chaplin wrote:

They respect the law in so far as they wish to remain alive and out of prison.

If that were true,
then BY DEFINITION, thay wud not be criminals.
David

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Chaplin wrote:
There are many cities and counties in this country where the criminal has a weapons advantage. Unless a criminal has restrictions placed on him/her, there is no law that says they can't own it.

But, of course, criminals don't respect the law, right?
I understand. That's exactly why it is necessary to restrict the manufacture, importation, and sale of such weapons and ammo that render the beat cop defenseless.
I was enlightened earlier in this thread, and I'm open to changing my mind, again. But I can't see any problem, constitutional or otherwise, with this approach.

Guns were among the world's first machines with moving parts,
(tho more easily made now with modern "know-how").
Guns were not new to Columbus nor to his grandfather.
They are simple machines, easily made.
(The M-1 Carbine was invented by a prisoner, David Williams, in prison for moonshining;
convicts have secretly made pistols [including fully functional submachineguns] in prison workshops.)

The accumulated knowledge of the gunsmith is not secret;
it is among the world's freely available engineering data.

If criminals had no guns, they'd arm themselves
using that information and access to the hardware stores of America;
thus the FUTILITY of "gun control" philosophy:
the disarmament of criminals is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

REMOVAL from America of violently felonious recidivists can reduce misconduct.
Crime comes from bad people, not tools.

Should umbrellas be blamed for rain? pens for forgery? spoons for obesity?

The repressionists want to remove guns,
saying they are sometimes used to facilitate crime.
They fail to understand that the actual weapon is the HUMAN MIND,
whose cleverness has not been controlled nor restrained
(even in prison). This mind expresses itself perseveringly, into the manifestation
of its felt needs or desires, and it has FOREVER to do the job that it selects
(e.g., the art of the gunsmith/merchant). Prohibition is futile.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

David--

Constitutional rights can, indeed, be limited. It's true! Look it up.

Those rights can be VIOLATED;
thay cannot be limited,
in that no legislature
and no court, has the authority
to change the Constitution.

For instance, if Jerry Falwell were elected President
and his followers in Congress enacted a statute
that all citizens had to get to church on time each Sunday,
or if he started selling titles of nobility,
or if he sent the Army to slay all male babies below the age of one year,
the rights of the citizens to the contrary
wud not be limited,
but thay might be VIOLATED, by force,
as a robber in the street violates the rights of his victim.
If courts fail to defend the rights of the citizens,
those rights still exist, tho the courts violate them by neglect.

Quote:

I don't know what is considered "ordinary military equipment" by the USSC, but if it includes machine guns, RPGs, and cluster bombs then I reject the Court's opinion (although I doubt that's what they had in mind).

I believe that the court made it clear
that the purpose of this right was not only
to defend the citizens from criminals and predatory animals,
but also to defend them from GOVERNMENT,
as had recently happened,
with the overthrow of the Hanover Dynasty in America.

In other words,
the Founders favored victory for the citizens
in a future revolution that might become necessary against
any future despotic government,
and thay said that EXPLICITLY in the Federalist Papers
which were written to support ratification of the US Constitution.
Thay knew that government was not to be trusted.

Quote:

I don't think the United States is a very democratic country.

Yes; we r NOT a democracy.

Quote:

But what I fear more than a military strike on my neighborhood are the common thugs
carrying around weapons that make cops crap their pants.

Police r more likely to be hit by lightning
than by the weapons that u describe.

In the 1990s, 2 suicidal criminals robbed a California bank
using fully automatic weapons and body armor.
Thay hung around the place for almost an hour,
shooting up the area, with little manifested desire to leave,
until the police eventually killed them.
This is almost unheard of.
Not 1% of 1% of 1% of crime is executed by use of
shoulder weapons, as thay r too bulky n unweildy.

Quote:

Do you think a return to the Old-West is the solution to the violence in this country?

Yes.
The old West was a peaceful, quiet place
except for Indian raids. Myths to the contrary were generated
by authors of "dime novels" who thought that sales of their work
wud be better if something INTERESTING happened,
instead of recounting the truth of a mostly uneventful
agricultural existence going on.

This was supplemented by film makers
who thought thay 'd attract bigger audiences
and more ticket revenue if something HAPPENED in western movies,
regardless of fidelity to historical accuracy. There were a few exceptions to this peace,
but we know from the newspapers of the time and place,
that in the lawless ( no police ) cowtown of Dodge City, Kansas,
in its worst year of homicides, 6 men died from gunfire.
This is without gun control laws, or any law enforcement.

Quote:

Would more guns equal less violence?

YES. That has already happened.

Since 1986, beginning with Florida,
40 of the 50 states have enacted statutes
by whose terms police MUST issue licenses to carry concealed guns
to any applicant therefor,
unless there is something DRASTICLY rong with him or her,
e.g., criminality or confinement to a mental hospital.
When such statutes were enacted, crime dropped
( understandably, since it was more dangerous to rob someone
if more n more people were arming themselves in self defense ).

In Florida, thay were having an increase of robberies of tourists
in rented red cars, who were leaving the airports.
Police eventually caught some of those robbers,
who said that thay chose red cars because thay were easier to follow,
and thay waited at airports,
because thay knew that tourists were less likely
to be armed than were the citizens of Florida,
so the robberies were safer for the robbers.

In other words,
by REPEALING " gun control " laws in favor of citizens legally carrying concealed guns,
the legislature of Florida had repealed de facto
O.S.H.A. on-the-job protection laws for violent criminals.

David

0 Replies

Hamilton and Madison both wrote about the second amendment in the Federalist Papers...#29 and in #46...and perhaps more. This is their own words, I don't see how anyone could debate their intentions when they spelled it out as they did.

0 Replies

Dave, do you have any stats showing the number of guns made in prisons. I have a feeling that the guns made there are essentially nonexistent.

2Packs, there is no legislative history existing that serves to interpret the constitution. This was a decision of the founding fathers.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, do you have any stats showing the number of guns made in prisons.
I have a feeling that the guns made there are essentially nonexistent.

No stats,
just my acquaintance with some retired prison guards
telling of finding homemade ( or prison made ) guns during shakedowns,
along with shivs,
or discovering them when they heard a loud noise
and found blood around, near a yelping convict,
and what I've read over the years concerning accounts
of these incidents.

I remember reading ( in the last century ) of a team of convicts
who made a fully operational submachinegun
in the prison workshop, one part at a time,
with the guards around, assembled it in private,
shot their way out,
but were caught when the pilot of their getaway car
hit a tree, with the guards in hot pursuit.
David

0 Replies

The guns produced in prisons are negligible or nonexistent, certainly not an argument properly used against gun control.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The guns produced in prisons are negligible or nonexistent,
certainly not an argument properly used against gun control.

The argument IS that if criminals are able to make guns IN PRISON,
including a fully functional submachinegun,
then the limits are those of the imagination
as to what they can make in freedom on the outside,
with unsupervised access to the hardware stores of America
and to the engineering data of evolved firearms technology.

If they r too lazy or too clumsy to make their own,
they can resort to underground gunsmiths,
the same way that they get their marijuana now
or how everyone got their drinks in the 1920s during Prohibition.
David

0 Replies

The second amendment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know