The features of a military-style rifle are "designed and intended to be
particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications,"
Young wrote.
Ah yes, when the founding fathers said firearms were necessary to the security of a free state, they meant security from delicious animals :downs:
I don't think I've ever seen something so right, yet so wrong in my life.
FYI he took the quote from Scalia out of context.
He said "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause."
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. -(Heller vs DC)
In other words, Scalia is saying the militia part of the Second Amendment supports the idea that M-16s and the like cannot be be banned. Heller said "dangerous and unusual weapons" that are not in common use could be banned under the Second Amendment, whatever the hell that means. We can safely bet that part of the Heller opinion that came from bargaining with Kennedy.
In other words, Heller said D.C.'s hand gun ban was unconstitutional because the Second Amendment protected more than military arms. This Massachusetts-based federal judge has now turned that idea on its head by saying Heller means military arms aren't protected. He's being dishonest about what Scalia said in Heller, and that's sad.
Automatic firearms didn't exist until 75 years after the constitution was written.
Back then, 1 man with a gun going against a crowd of unarmed people wasn't even a concept, because the lone gunman would be overpowered quickly.
The only way to win against a bunch of people, armed or otherwise, was a group of people with bolt action firearms working together. There's probably a good word for that.
I'd rather not go into deliberating the wording of the US constitution since that's an endless fruitless discussion and the correct interpretation is up to the supreme court anyways.
Just my 2 cents.
Way to rehash an argument that has been ripped to pieces a dozen times already.
Well I don't want to open a can of worms, but it's just a thought that I had when reading this. I don't jump on every gun debate there is so I'm not up to speed on everything either.
If there's going to be any changes, it'll take an entire generation or two to pass anyways.
I don't think Murk is making an argument for or against banning automatic firearms; he is however pointing out valid changes in tactics and historical context that we should consider when adapting gun regulations for the 21st century.
In my view the Second Amendment is as timeless in principle as the First Amendment. I don't own a gun, but just because I don't talk all the time doesn't mean I don't appreciate the importance of freedom of speech. The spirit of the Second Amendment has always been, and will always be, a means of resistance against a tyrannical government. Any law that seeks to obscure or reframe this core principle is unconstitutional. What needs to change is how we process and share information such as background checks, anonymous tips, and other indicators of high-risk behavior in accordance with the public interest.
they also didn't believe congress would establish a permanent standing army and believed that our future defense would rest upon individual citizens establishing local and state militias that could be called upon for mutual defense.
the much praised heller decision also affirmed that states have the right to regulate arms, even though people have the right to own arms.
I imagine they're going to attempt to appeal this to the Supreme Court, yes?
The Supreme Court has declined cases about AWBs in the past, but with more and more of them popping up and being challenged, they're not going to be able to ignore them for much longer.
So the National Firearms Act of 1934 was made for weapons that could not suit "militia" or "military" needs. Now we are banning them because they are used by the military.
And people wonder why I pull hair out regarding US gun laws.
Whilst the tyrannical government argument once made sense, the fact that the US army has tonnes of tanks means an AR-15 is going to be pretty useless.
Yeah just like how the Syrian revolution was put down immediately.
The Syrian and US military are not comparable at all. The US' military is fucking huge and I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the public overthrow a tyrannical US government using guns when America has the most well-funded military in the world.
As if almost 20 years in Afghanistan hasn't proved anything, let alone the shit show that was Vietnam. The largest most powerful country in the world that also got beat by a bunch of farmers with guns.
We all but won in Vietnam, we just didn't have the public support to follow through. The Tet-Offensive destroyed the NVA as a fighting force, they put their all into it and were thrown back. But the news of the attack was the final nail for support for the war in the US and in Congress. In a way, the Vietnam War was a propaganda victory, sheer willpower was enough to force the strongest military in the world to back off.
You do know that you can legally own anti-tank weapons in the United States right?
You just never see them because they cost roughly $200 and 6 months of time too shoot.
Wouldn't that fact strongly support the idea that a well-organized militia could win in a conflict against the American military? They obviously wouldn't be able to beat the US's sheer power projection, but if a bunch of foreigners setting boobytraps halfway across the world could torpedo the public's interest in the war effort against Vietnam, then drone-striking some good ol' boys in backwoods New York would torpedo it even harder.
Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying.
counterpoint we do pretty damn well projecting force against cartels up and down south and central america without resorting to mobilizing the entire US military, and thats in places where they have access to foreign support as well
Good luck taking out an M1 Abrams with its composite armour, along with its reactive armour plating.
I'm not really gonna try to argue about whether or not an M1 Abrams is well protected, because it wouldn't really matter. Such machines require people too drive and maintain them. Armed insurrections tend to never be cut and dry with who is what. When we look at most recent civil wars/revolutions in the late 20th and 21st century, we continuously find cases where entire military units will join the rebel forces, and bring their equipment with them. This would be expected in a 2nd American Civil War, or any case of armed insurrection. We are also not accounting for things like supply raids, hit n' run tactics, and unconventional warfare through the means of things like IEDs and otherwise.
Having the high tech gizmos and toys means nothing if they cannot be fully maintained and supplied, and it also wouldn't help if the units operating said machines deserted for the other factions.
Bolt action firearms didn't exist until well over a hundred years after the Constitution was signed.
But individuals did plan to go up against groups with firearms. Blackbeard was famous for it and he died before any of the founding fathers were even born. Do you know what a 'brace of pistols' is?
You appeal to Orpheus citing an example of laws being invalidated by texhnology but even that is a swing and a miss. In lieu of rehashing the long justification and explanation for the 2nd, why don't you explain, in your own words, why amendments like the 1st and 4th continue to protect technological innovations that the founders couldn't possibly have foreseen?
Playing war games with the Second Amendment is a bit of a rabbit hole. Like nuclear weapons, its existence alone is a strong political deterrent. Or rather it would be, if we lived in a society where elected representatives were actually held accountable for their actions and not insulated from their constituencies by corrupt campaign finance laws and dark money—not to mention armed guards.
i wish they would more clearly define what a "well regulated militia" is.
yes because carrying multiple 40 caliber flintlock/percussion cap single shot pistols wasn't totally obvious and out of the ordinary in the 18th century as it would be today.
the 2nd amendment is unusually perscriptive even as the courts have been ruling more and more liberal about it as compared to the other ones.
Also the 1st and 4th don't really protect you today given how the courts have ruled you don't have an expectation of privacy basically anywhere, and all 3rd parties can be compelled to give up information on you without even needing a search warrant, and that's even before we get into the direct surveillance that the NSA has been conducting on everybody. The courts really have not been good at applying the 1st amendment or the 4th amendment protections to modern technology, there's a lot of examples but just to name a few, you have no expectation of privacy basically anywhere outside your house, and there's tons of loopholes that exist because of the growing war on terror.
why amendments like the 1st and 4th continue to protect technological innovations that the founders couldn't possibly have foreseen?
It could be argued that they don't, hence why they've been extended through legislation like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The idea that having slightly better guns will somehow make the difference in a revolution seems really silly. If you're throwing a revolution, you better hope the military is on your side.
if it's a right wing revolution a lot of the military will be on the side of the revolutionaries. Better guns might help a little but look at Iraq/Afganistan, they managed to fight against the US/NATO with very simple weapons, some dating back as far as a hundred years ago
I'll be honest, I didn't look up when bolt action was invented - I assumed it was soon after the signing. Though it turns out even revolvers took a while.
I didn't say individuals going against groups never happened, it's more that the odds were so stacked against you that most people didn't exactly consider it an option, let alone a legitimate tactic.
As far as 1st and 4th amendment go, they're fine as they're written, more or less, and I probably wouldn't change them even if I could. Implementation is a different issue.
2nd amendment is different.
Let's assume the 2nd amendment is this: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That way we don't get bogged down having the word "militia" muddle the waters.
Tell me, should any individual have the right to own any "Arms"? Forget just guns, what about cannons, modern artillery, tanks, explosives, nuclear weapons?
Should people be banned from owning a weapon just because simply owning it (for example nuclear weapons giving off radiation) poses a danger to the public? For the 1st, Schenck v. United States says that free speech is not protected when it is dangerous and false, but it is when true, regardless of how dangerous it is.
In your mind, does "the right to keep and bear arms" mean:
a) the government must allow you to keep any weapon without restriction; meaning as long as it is a weapon, you are free to own it regardless of regulation
b) there is always a legal way to own any weapons; meaning you are able to own them, but you must fulfil some realistic requirements
c) any person is able to legally own any weapon for personal defence with no scrutiny, while all other weapons should be subject to regulation; same as above, but you can freely own "basic" weapons (handguns, semi automatic rifles, etc)
d) there is always a legal way to own weapons with a compelling reason, while larger weapons are subject to strict requirements (think industrial explosives) or are outright banned
If your answer is C, tell me, how do you quantify a weapon for personal defence, or rather, where do we draw the line? The constitution doesn't say "anything that you can carry yourself" though that can still mean RPG launchers and things like that.
Personally, for most countries, I would say D, while for the US I would say B. Realistic requirements meaning at least some basic safety training for everyone, and more scrutiny for automatic firearms owners (they must prove ownership of a securely lockable compartment for those firearms for example).
I think the best way to regulate weapons would be to measure energy output per second for firearms and explosives. That way, if you can own a small caliber that shoots for example 20 rounds per second, but not a larger caliber unless it shoots at max 5 rounds per second. I'm well aware there's different types of rounds, but this would be a start to work with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
