Question about guns

[GhostWriter16]

So you agree allowing people to own assault rifles is insane and that their banning has nothing to with the founders intent behind the 2nd amendment because they didn't exist or were even conceivable back then?

Or are you just saying people need big guns for reasons?

The Founding Fathers were talking about personal firearms and similar weapons. If you even look at the time period, as Bugfatty said, cannons and artilery weren't accepted at the time as "Arms".

In other words, the Founders were envisioning the firearms used during their day, so so should we.

I mean, we all know we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. I choose to draw the line in a more libertarian way than most of the other posters in this thread are. The "Small arms" line better fits the Founder's intents, placed in the present day, than your definition. THe Founding Fathers envisioned civilians having the same "Small arms" that people in the military do. So constitutionally, that's what should be allowed.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why did they leave out the word small? Why should we have to look beyond the text to figure out what they meant? Were there any Federal statutory prohibitions about keeping and bearing a cannon?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why did they leave out the word small? Why should we have to look beyond the text to figure out what they meant? Were there any Federal statutory prohibitions about keeping and bearing a cannon?

If you'd like to actuallyy argue that we should be allowed to own a cannon or nuke, feel free.

As it stands, I don't only hold my belief because of what the constituion says. Personally, I'd be totally peachy with an amendment that defines the second amendment as being not including nukes or the like, but who cares? Nobody is seriously arguing that. What you are doing is trying to get me to agree to MORE restrictions of liberty by abandoning textualism. I will say that I think people should be allowed to own military-grade weaponry regardless of what the constitution says, so even if my interpretation weren't accurate, I'd still agree with it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm under the impression that private cannons were owned during the early years of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bhsup]

I'm going to repost a post I made in the chamber thread "Sincere question for gun advocates" as it seems quite relevant to where this discussion has gone. All below is repost from this post in this thread. The quotes in the post are from old locked topics in the old off topic archives.

Took me a bit to find in the old archives, but here's a couple of posts of mine that address it.

I frequently joke about the Mk.19 grenade launcher being ideal for home defense (and really, it is), but I admit I don't think I'd be too keen to live in a neighborhood full of them. Personal, single ownership should probably be limited to .50 calibre and below.

However, I do believe citizens should be allowed to band together to form militias which should have, presuming they register their militia with the State (NOT Federal) government and swear oaths of loyalty to the State (again NOT Federal) government), access to any and all weaponry available to the U.S. armed forces. Er...short of nukes I guess.

Man, I really need to make it a habit of bookmarking my posts that are "policy-making". I'll never find it now.

Anyhoo, it boils down to this real quick. Individuals should be able to have pretty much whatever they can carry and/or use as an individual. Citizen militias should be allowed just about everything right up to, but not including, NBC weaponry as long as their militia takes oaths of allegience to the State (and I mean State, not Federal) governments. The States could reasonably be allowed to set up criteria for training and so forth for said citizens militias. Just because of the nature of the beast, it is indeed best that NBC weaponry be left at with the Federalies.

Btw, slightly off point, but I think the Missouri Constitution's guarantee is better on a personal level. 1) it cuts right through the whole militia thing and gets right to the point of it being a personal right, so the US 2nd is rather immaterial to me as far as my personal right to bear arms goes, since my State has me covered. 2) it addresses your concern about heavier weaponry because it clearly spells out the weapon is for personal protection.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Note that concealed weapons are allowed by statute.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The Founding Fathers were talking about personal firearms and similar weapons. If you even look at the time period, as Bugfatty said, cannons and artilery weren't accepted at the time as "Arms".

In other words, the Founders were envisioning the firearms used during their day, so so should we.

I mean, we all know we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. I choose to draw the line in a more libertarian way than most of the other posters in this thread are. The "Small arms" line better fits the Founder's intents, placed in the present day, than your definition. THe Founding Fathers envisioned civilians having the same "Small arms" that people in the military do. So constitutionally, that's what should be allowed.

You really don't see the difference in the lethality between an assault rifle and a musket and the implications that has for society?

I guess that doesn't matter to you because you need the ability to overthrow the horrible government, right?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You really don't see the difference in the lethality between an assault rifle and a musket and the implications that has for society?

'

Back then the government also only had access to muskets as well.

Your system leaves the people at the mercy of the military. That's not a good place to be. Just look at China, North Korea, heck, even Russia? That the US is in basically good shape right now (And even here they take away our fundamental rights all the time without apology) does not mean it will always be so. A good government would NOT set a framework under which a bad one could obtain a monopoly on force.

Your talk of "Society" is pointless to me. You want to limit liberty to gain security, the very thing that Ben Franklin warned us against. But I guess we don't need the Founders wisdom anymore, because we don't need liberty, because its bad for society

I don't give a crap. Guns DO NOT FREAKING KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't give a crap. Guns DO NOT FREAKING KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL.

And nukes?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

ANGRY CAPS definitely convinced me that we are so much like north korea. Thank god for you, your guns and militias for keeping the nefarious lincoln types in check.

 

[El_Machinae]

VRWCAgent: thanks for your post.

Two questions: what if they wanted to swear an oath to the Federal government?

2) (and I mean this seriously) should Missouri be allowed to own an ICBM nuke themselves? If not, how could they possibly defend themselves against Washington?

 

[GhostWriter16]

And nukes?

Its still true. The reality is, there's no possible way to use a nuke in any kind of self-defense. Ownership of nukes by the private populace just makes no sense at all. Automatic weapons do.

2) (and I mean this seriously) should Missouri be allowed to own an ICBM nuke themselves? If not, how could they possibly defend themselves against Washington?

I actually contradicted VRWC here when he said no to this and I stated my disagreement. The state governments should have ICBM weaponry. They'd be a lot less likely to use them than Iran would. We also have plenty to ensure that all fifty states had nuclear arsenals while still maintaining the ability to destroy the world in an emergency

 

[bhsup]

VRWCAgent: thanks for your post.

Two questions: what if they wanted to swear an oath to the Federal government?

2) (and I mean this seriously) should Missouri be allowed to own an ICBM nuke themselves? If not, how could they possibly defend themselves against Washington?

1) Just join the army, navy, air force, or marines. I didn't mean to suggest that people shouldn't serve the federal government in any way. In fact, I encourage it. I just don't like the idea of States not having their own forces that are not free from federal control.

2) No, I really don't think Missouri should. God forbid it gets to the point where there might be a nuclear strike on Missouri, I'd just as soon we chuck it all in anyway because that's just too damned depressing to think about.

 

[GhostWriter16]

2) No, I really don't think Missouri should. God forbid it gets to the point where there might be a nuclear strike on Missouri, I'd just as soon we chuck it all in anyway because that's just too damned depressing to think about.

If it ever theoretically got to that point, Missouri having a nuke they could retaliate against DC with might be the very thing that would stop such a strike. I mean, would we have nuked Japan if we knew we'd get it back on the Californian coast? I doubt it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Why do the states need separate militias exacty?

 

[JollyRoger]

Its still true. The reality is, there's no possible way to use a nuke in any kind of self-defense. Ownership of nukes by the private populace just makes no sense at all. Automatic weapons do.

Why does it have to be for self defense? It's the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to self defense.

 

[bhsup]

Why do the states need separate militias exacty?

HOnestly right NOW we don't need them. There is no conflict between Federal government and states that I personally think warrant secession at all, not even remotely close.

That said, if you need one and don't have one, it would kinda suck.

 

[JohnRM]

Their purpose is to kill enemy soldiers, which strikes me as one of the intents of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment was written with the intent of preserving the right of citizens to possess firearms to be kept in the home. If the state (or country) was ever threatened, they would grab their rifle and assemble. The constitution was never intended so that citizens could keep these kinds of destructive weapons. If grenade launchers had existed at the time, I have no doubt that they would NOT have been within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. If you want to argue otherwise, feel free, but the current federal laws prohibit ownership of grenade launchers and their corresponding parts that make it a deadly weapon of war.

 

[JohnRM]

Why did they leave out the word small? Why should we have to look beyond the text to figure out what they meant? Were there any Federal statutory prohibitions about keeping and bearing a cannon?

Small arms weren't known as 'small arms' back then. In those days, firearms were 'arms'. Warships were warships, or the navy. Cannon were cannon.

I'm under the impression that private cannons were owned during the early years of the 2nd Amendment.

Legal to own =/= protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Phrossack]

If grenade launchers had existed at the time, I have no doubt that they would NOT have been within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. .

 

[otago]

Interesting argument for fully auto weapons, we need them when we take on the US Marines, Army etc etc etc.
So because the Marines will only be fighting a bunch of amateurs they would not use Mortars, 155 guns etc etc etc.