Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act

[Zenith]

It's all in the interpretation.

It really isn't. They didn't say "Right to bear arms unless those arms are a scary."

The people who wrote the amendment had witnessed weapon development too, you know. They'd seen weapons go from swords and arrows to firearms and cannons. They knew weapons were only going to become better at killing people and yet they decided to leave the Second Amendment the way it was.

I don't understand why some people seem to think that the Founding Fathers expected flintlocks to be the pinnacle of weapon design.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

No one said that they did.

Like I said before.... It says arms... So can civilians own nuclear arms?

Tell me how you can decide on that without interpreting what the Constitution implies.

 

[Danoff]

Tell me how you can decide on that without interpreting what the Constitution implies.

Nuclear arms are not for self defense. It's not an interpretation, it's a principle.

 

[Kent]

No one said that they did.

Like I said before.... It says arms... So can civilians own nuclear arms?

Tell me how you can decide on that without interpreting what the Constitution implies.

Can you afford to buy nuclear arms?

Semantics.

 

[ProjectVRD]

You guys have more stabbing problems though. I believe the common comparison is New York vs London, where last time I checked violent crime was much more common in London, but guns were not the weapon of choice.

In 2010 there were 400 more murders in New York than London (London had just 100). This would probably be because guns were used more often in violent crimes in New York than London. In 2010, there were 90,000 more violent crimes in London than New York (New York had 75,000). There were 2000 more rapes in London (New York had just 1000).

Murder happens so infrequently compared to other kinds of crimes that it's tough to call out percentages. If there were 2 murders in New York in a given year for 1 murder in London, you'd say you're twice as likely to be killed in New York. But the fact of the matter is you're not likely to be killed in either.

So which would you prefer? That your murder rate go from 0.00625% to 0.00125%? Or that your violent crime rate go from 2% to 1%. If you choose the latter, then you should feel safer in New York than London.

I can very well believe that, London is a very mean place and has yet to undergo it's major redevelopment programs that New York has worked very hard to achieve in the very recent past. When I speak of redevelopment programs, I also include increased police and justice action on offenders as well as the normal interpretation of shipping out the bad eggs into further away suburban projects. A lot of the crime in London is conducted by repeat offenders who often get a slap on the wrist for what should be jail time.

I can also see where you are coming from regarding the statistical data on your chances of being murdered being almost none given the population of both cities.

But... what's the total for all people negatively affected by gun crime in the USA? I would imagine it is pretty high, and I suppose if guns were banned then the gun crime would still exist (see London for example) and knife crime would also increase.

There just appears to be no simple answer to the problem.

 

[AndersonG22]

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/


And the pdf of the study.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[BobK]

America's gun problem is probably beyond repair.

I wasn't aware we had a problem, much less one that was beyond repair.

The problem, as usual, is people not guns.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Nuclear arms are not for self defense. It's not an interpretation, it's a principle.

Second amendment wasn't written for self defense.

Every time the Supreme Court makes a decision it is interpreting the Constitution and setting restrictions on what is and isn't a valid argument.

Can you afford to buy nuclear arms?

Semantics.

I also can't currently afford to purchase a $5,000 rifle....

2nd Amendment includes the armament of militias; can they own nuclear arms? Or is that still just semantics?

 

[Danoff]

Second amendment wasn't written for self defense. Read it?

Every time the Supreme Court makes a decision it is interpreting the Constitution.

Take a little pause and read their decision before you say that.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

I have. It's funny you ask me to read the Supreme Court 's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; and then tell me it's not an interpretation? 2nd Amendment mentions nothing of self defense; only the ability to form an armed militia and to bear arms; let me tell you... I have tons of friends who use militias as self defense... The Supreme Court had to interpret the context and scope of the 2nd Amendment in dc/heller.... So now here we are again, full circle, it's all in the interpretation which can and will change.

Only when the Supreme Court decided self defense was indeed covered by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," was self defense included in its scope. A broad statement of right interpreted by the Supreme Court to include but not limit the amendment to self defense. Hunting is not self defense.

 

[Danoff]

I have.

You read Stevens's entire 64-page majority opinion on DC vs Heller? I suppose you read both dissenting opinions?

It's funny you ask me to read the Supreme Court 's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; and then tell me it's not an interpretation?

They break the sentence down bit by bit, explain exactly why logically it must mean an individual right to bear arms, and then use contextual writings from the time to demonstrate empirically that the only logical conclusion one can draw from properly reading the phrase is the one that was intended at the time. That contextual evidence is then used to determine the principle behind the 2nd ammendment (self defense), which is a natural and fully logical consequence of the freedom from force that prompted the creation of the constitution and which the bill of rights carefully codify.

There is no interpretation. It's a systematic, thorough, and very final explanation of the 2nd amendment, why it exists, and why it must be so.

2nd Amendment mentions nothing of self defense; only the ability to form an armed militia and to bear arms;

You definitely did not read the majority ruling.

A broad statement of right interpreted by the Supreme Court to include but not limit the amendment to self defense. Hunting is not self defense.

The ability to hunt is not protected by the 2nd amendment, is not a right, and is often not even legal.

 

[Grayfox]

The people who wrote the amendment had witnessed weapon development too, you know. They'd seen weapons go from swords and arrows to firearms and cannons. They knew weapons were only going to become better at killing people and yet they decided to leave the Second Amendment the way it was.

Do you think they would have made said amendment if they knew it would lead to people being fully clad in body armour, have tear gas, a handgun, a automatic rifle and enough ammo to help a small army?

 

[Zenith]

Yes. That's the point. Do you see something wrong with that?

Where do you think the writers would have "drawn the line"? Remember in the Old West how repeaters were a big thing? Those must have seemed pretty scary to somebody who was used to flintlocks. Today a lever action repeater is almost quaint.

This is how technology works. Be aware that time will only bring more effective weaponry. The writers of the Second Amendment most certainly were. The government should not have more effective weaponry than its citizens, that's why it was written the way it was.

 

[Exorcet]

Do you think they would have made said amendment if they knew it would lead to people being fully clad in body armour, have tear gas, a handgun, a automatic rifle and enough ammo to help a small army?

Yes, in this era, that's probably what they'd want. Muskets would not be an effective deterrent against oppressive government.

The amendment would only lead to people obtaining these things legally, by the way. If all of that was prohibited, what would stop an body armor clad, tear gas equipped, bullet laden guy from standing the middle of the street shooting whatever drove by?

At least with guns legal, there would be some kind of defense.

 

[Danoff]

Do you think they would have made said amendment if they knew it would lead to people being fully clad in body armour, have tear gas, a handgun, a automatic rifle and enough ammo to help a small army?

Several of those things are illegal, so the blaming the second amendment for them seems... wrong?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

You read Stevens's entire 64-page majority opinion on DC vs Heller? I suppose you read both dissenting opinions?

They break the sentence down bit by bit, explain exactly why logically it must mean an individual right to bear arms, and then use contextual writings from the time to demonstrate empirically that the only logical conclusion one can draw from properly reading the phrase is the one that was intended at the time. That contextual evidence is then used to determine the principle behind the 2nd ammendment (self defense), which is a natural and fully logical consequence of the freedom from force that prompted the creation of the constitution and which the bill of rights carefully codify.

There is no interpretation. It's a systematic, thorough, and very final explanation of the 2nd amendment, why it exists, and why it must be so.

You definitely did not read the majority ruling.

The ability to hunt is not protected by the 2nd amendment, is not a right, and is often not even legal.

I have read summaries and studied it in Poli Sci.

It seems you may have read it but not comprehended it.

"On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense."

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Library of Congress..... notice the italics.

Majority ruling is not the second Amendment. It is a majority ruling which interprets the second Amendment.

You are missing the scope of the ruling.... It protects the right to bear arms "for traditionally lawful purposes" such as self defense and my example of hunting. Which clearly you missed and just decided to argue a completely other point.

In closing, it's all in the interpretation.

 

[Danoff]

I have read summaries and studied it in Poli Sci.

It seems you may have read it but not comprehended it.

"On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense."

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Library of Congress..... notice the italics.

Ooooooh. They use the word interpret. Well then I guess that's all that needs to be said. Case closed. Job jobbed. They said interpret, time to shut my brain down.

I was aware that they used the word interpret before I posted above (note the italics).

You are missing the scope of the ruling.... It protects the right to bear arms "for traditionally lawful purposes" such as self defense and my example of hunting. Which clearly you missed and just decided to argue a completely other point.

The ability to hunt is not protected by the 2nd amendment, is not a right, and is often not even legal.

In closing, it's all in the interpretation.

Your ironclad proof here is just inescapable.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Well now you have resorted to acting like a child; typically happens when someone is unable to accept they're wrong.

So, continue your debate with others because I do not like children.

Good day.

 

[Danoff]

Well now you have resorted to acting like a child; typically happens when someone is unable to accept they're wrong.

So, continue your debate with others because I do not like children.

Good day.

I said good day!

This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.

 

[ShobThaBob]

While I believe in the results of the second ammedment, I don't believe in what the second ammendment says, and neither does the government. I think it's the most idealist ammendments and not indicative that the founders or their successors believe we have a right to revolt if we want. You have the right to gather arsenal to overthrow the government, but when you try to overthrow the government, you've committed treason and declared war. States do not have the right to secede free and clear of any backlash.

 

[Keef]

You have the right to gather arsenal to overthrow the government, but when you try to overthrow the government, you've committed treason and declared war. States do not have the right to secede free and clear of any backlash.

Sorry, but not quite.

"Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Only those who have taken an oath to protect the United States and its Constitution are able to commit treason. Any person not under oath to protect the US cannot commit treason if they tried. Why the difference? Because people under that oath are representations of the government itself. It would effectively be the government attacking itself, and that just won't do.

Furthermore, according to the Tenth Amendment, the Federal government is not given the power to ban revolts against the government, nor are the States disallowed the power to ban revolts, which means that the power to revolt is vested in the people and governments of the States.

And that leads directly to the point of secession. By the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to block secession, nor does it ban the States from trying to secede, which means that the power of secession is vested among the people and their State governments to decide. These two ideas effectively go hand-in-hand, and are both implicated and protected by the Tenth Amendment.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Ah, didn't know that about treason. Interesting. The spirit of what I meant is still reality however. If half the county isn't allowed to leave barely a generation from when we as a country were born, they sure as hell wouldn't be allowed to do so now. Hence, allowing people to have weapons for the sake of revolt when revolt is not actually going to be welcomed is silly.

 

[Keef]

It may only be marginally practicable but in order to be fair the option must exist. It's a matter of principle. Thankfully it does exist whether anybody is willing to accept that fact or not. It could be done, and that's what matters.

 

[Nicksfix]

Only those who have taken an oath to protect the United States and its Constitution are able to commit treason. Any person not under oath to protect the US cannot commit treason if they tried. Why the difference? Because people under that oath are representations of the government itself. It would effectively be the government attacking itself, and that just won't do.

Somewhere, somebody out there is thinking of the name Benjamin Franklin.

Let's not forget, his acts of treason with the British were committed before the Constitution was written.

If I am not mistaken, I think that if you enter this country and take up dual citizenship, then this may get tossed out the door. You could get tried for treason.

 

[ShobThaBob]

It may only be marginally practicable but in order to be fair the option must exist. It's a matter of principle. Thankfully it does exist whether anybody is willing to accept that fact or not. It could be done, and that's what matters.

Again, not hating on the right it affords us, but just the amendment itself. Guns for gun's sake IMO!

 

[Zenith]

Guns for gun's sake IMO!

Have you read the Amendment?

 

[BobK]

Furthermore, according to the Tenth Amendment, the Federal government is not given the power to ban revolts against the government, nor are the States disallowed the power to ban revolts, which means that the power to revolt is vested in the people and governments of the States.

And that leads directly to the point of secession. By the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to block secession, nor does it ban the States from trying to secede, which means that the power of secession is vested among the people and their State governments to decide. These two ideas effectively go hand-in-hand, and are both implicated and protected by the Tenth Amendment.

You may recall, however, that we fought a rather bloody war over exactly that issue, about 150 years ago. And that the secesionists lost.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Have you read the Amendment?

Yes, and it outlines why we're allowed to have weapons. I disagree with why.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, and it outlines why we're allowed to have weapons. I disagree with why.

It definitely does not outline why we're allowed to have weapons. It gives an example of the need for weapons.

 

[ShobThaBob]

It definitely does not outline why we're allowed to have weapons. It gives an example of the need for weapons.

No, the need is not for the weapons, the need is for a well regulated militia which ensures the freedom of the states, so for that purpose the right to bear arms will not be infringed upon. What text gave you the impression that it was just an example?