Sincere question for gun advocates.

[AlpsStranger]

I have a completely sincere question for the pro-gun crowd. I'm not trying to play "Gotcha!" or anything else, I honestly want to know your response.

I'll admit that the second amendment pretty much says what it says. Read without the "national guard" interpretation it means that any kind of arms should be attainable by any citizen.

Generally, even ardent gun rights advocates don't think people should be allowed to own "absurd" weapons like Tanks, RPGs, heavy machine guns, strategic bombers for the wealthy, etc. How do you make a strong constitutional case that banning private ownership of, say, a TOW Missile is reasonable, but banning an AK-47 is unconstitutional?

I'm genuinely curious how the distinction is made. Why is a liberal's M16 ban unconstitutional, but a conservative's private land mine ban constitutional? Don't they both infringe on my right to keep and bear arms?

If we're going by a strict reading I don't really see how you make a distinction. It seems that most conservatives are already essentially buying the liberal pragmatic argument, but just differing in the specifics.

 

[Arwon]

The answer here is that since nobody believes chemical weapons and BB guns or pointy sticks should be treated the same way, the fundamental principle of "the right to own weapons" isn't really much of one. Instead, we're all actually quibbling about pragmatic regulatory issues.

 

[AlpsStranger]

The answer here is that since nobody believes chemical weapons and BB guns or pointy sticks should be treated the same way, the fundamental principle of "the right to own weapons" isn't really much of one. Instead, we're all actually quibbling about pragmatic regulatory issues.

Then how does just waving the constitution as a trump card resolve the left-right dispute?

Can't a lefty simply agree to all of that and draw the line at semi automatic weapons firing non armor piercing rounds?

Why couldn't I draw the line at weapons that existed when the right was first established?

 

[Arwon]

Well you can. Then you can have an argument with people who favour a more expansive interpretation of what weaponry should be available to private citizens and under what regulatory conditions.

It can be an enlightening discourse about the costs and benefits of different policy settings, all with the understanding that everyone is talking about a sliding scale rather than two absolute positions.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I have a completely sincere question for the pro-gun crowd. I'm not trying to play "Gotcha!" or anything else...

KurtSibling also said he wasn't playing "Gotcha"...

 

[AlpsStranger]

KurtSibling also said he wasn't playing "Gotcha"...

I'm wondering why automatic rifles are some kind of specific constitutional issue when a grenade launcher isn't. I feel this is a fair question.

 

[Berzerker]

i dont care if someone owns a tank or bomber, but the matter of guns was left up to the states - the feds have power to regulate militias and require certain standards for weapons and ammo, but they cant interfere beyond their role wrt national defense

 

[AlpsStranger]

i dont care if someone owns a tank or bomber

Um, what?

but the matter of guns was left up to the states - the feds have power to regulate militias and require certain standards for weapons and ammo, but they cant interfere beyond their role wrt national defense

This doesn't appear to be true. If we're reading the constitution strictly then my state doesn't have the power to prevent me from owning any weapon.

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.

How does that, read strictly, allow a state to prevent me from buying any "arm?"



I want this, I can afford it, and the constitution says you can't stop me. You can't outlaw free speech or implement slavery in a state, so why can you prevent me from owning this beautiful thing?

The 2nd amendment has you boxed in. Unless pragmatic limits are on the table I can't be stopped. If pragmatic limits are on the table then the NRA has no grounds for crying foul over other weapon bans except on pragmatic grounds. That means no using the 2nd amendment as an "I win" button.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I'm wondering why automatic rifles are some kind of specific constitutional issue when a grenade launcher isn't. I feel this is a fair question.

If pot should be. legalized, why not heroin?

 

[History_Buff]

If pot should be. legalized, why not heroin?

I think you'll find many people who would tell you neither should be illegal. I don't have much of a position on the matter, but it's definitely a fair question.

 

[AlpsStranger]

If pot should be. legalized, why not heroin?

This is also a fair question and has the same answer. We're either dealing with pragmatic or absolute reasoning. Free speech is also handled in a pragmatic answer. I can't make death threats or yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

I'm wanting to know how an NRA type doesn't either:

1) Agree that private citizens have the right to own automatic grenade launchers, bombs, HMGs, grenades, and land mines.

2) Agree that simply treating the second amendment as an absolute is impractical.

I'm fishing for a reasonable third response.

This hypothetical 'NRA type' can, of course, argue that liberals are setting the power bar too low and that citizens can be allowed more powerful arms in a non-absolute sense.

Similarly, they could argue that option #1 isn't as dangerous as it seems.

 

[ParkCungHee]

This doesn't appear to be true. If we're reading the constitution strictly then my state doesn't have the power to prevent me from owning any weapon.

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.

How does that, read strictly, allow a state to prevent me from buying any "arm?

Strictly speaking, none of the first 10 Amendments actually apply to state governments. It's only via the 14th Amendment that they're enforced.

I think the answer here is the usual one that ye olde Englishe had a distinction between arms and ordinance, and the right to bear ordinance is not distinguished.

What I'd ask is why there's so little concern for infringements of the second amendment of lesser weapons. The Switchblade Knife Act of 1958 has been around for 50 years, and if it stands as constitutional, it provides precedent for the government to ban the shipment, sale, or importation of guns across state lines, or the possession of one in a territory or possession of the U.S. Government.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I think the answer here is the usual one that ye olde Englishe had a distinction between arms and ordinance, and the right to bear ordinance is not distinguished.

This is a potentially good argument. Could it not be argued that fully automatic weapons are more like ordnance than arms?

Ordnance seems to mean, roughly, military grade weapons. This reasoning implies that the founders thought weapons of a certain power posed an undue danger to society. So why would this imply that they would've wanted automatic rifles to be legal?

 

[ParkCungHee]

This is a potentially good argument. Could it not be argued that fully automatic weapons are more like ordinance than arms?

No, because a fully automatic weapon can be lighter than a musket. Arms are what you carry,Ordinance is what requires multiple people to carry or operate, which would mean a grenade launcher IS protected under the 2nd, (Especially since many rifles are grenade launchers).

 

[AlpsStranger]

No, because a fully automatic weapon can be lighter than a musket. Arms are what you carry,Ordinance is what requires multiple people to carry or operate, which would mean a grenade launcher IS protected under the 2nd, (Especially since many rifles are grenade launchers).

So if we invent a skyscraper destroying antimatter pistol in 2105 it's protected by the 2nd amendment? Where is the ceiling?

The most powerful weapon that can be carried by a single person is protected then.

This man is armed constitutionally:



The argument simply has to boil down to killing power or some kind of absurdity is inevitable. The problem is that such a stance would be subjective and would render 2nd amendment challenges to gun control moot as legislation would be an undeniably legitimate means of making the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable. This kicks the entire argument into pure politics and makes the use of the 2nd by people who assert an absolute right to AK-47s dubious at bast.

 

[Arwon]

If pot should be. legalized, why not heroin?

Not a good analogy, but FWIW there are fairly persuasive harm-minimisation arguments for why opiates should be given to junkies by the government, not just "legalised".

 

[ParkCungHee]

This man is armed constitutionally:

Yes. That weapon is already legal in the United States.

 

[Arwon]

...seriously? I can just go and buy one?

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, but with enough paperwork you can own one. The RPG is relatively easy, it's the ammo that's a problem.

 

[Arwon]

Easily possessed weapons with difficult to get ammunition? I thought that was just a standup routine.