Whoa. Are there any limitations to the calibre of mortars in the states that allow them?ATG wrote:
As the Founding Fathers intended us to be able to stand against the government should the need arise it is practical that Americans be allowed shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons , automatic machine guns, mortars and precision large calibre sniper rifles.
Europeans may be horrified to know that of the above list only the item in bold is illegal in all fifty states.
People are going to kill no matter what. You may reduce numbers a percentage, but you can't make people good.
A class three permit is a class three permit.apollo_fi wrote:
Whoa. Are there any limitations to the calibre of mortars in the states that allow them?ATG wrote:
As the Founding Fathers intended us to be able to stand against the government should the need arise it is practical that Americans be allowed shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons , automatic machine guns, mortars and precision large calibre sniper rifles.
Europeans may be horrified to know that of the above list only the item in bold is illegal in all fifty states.
I believe you can buy 40mm Boffurs cannons for about 12k.
Here is a company in Boise that deals in heavy weapon sales to citizens; http://www.bigshotsofidaho.com/
Serge, you are setting a precondition on forum responses
"keep it civil" while wanting to hear 'honest' responses.
this is a hot button issue. the one fact in any debate about owning firearms:
when owning firearms is illegal, criminals will own firearms.
i own firearms, and i do not have a criminal record. i will be a criminal, though,
when they pass a law saying i cannot legally own a firearm.
"keep it civil" while wanting to hear 'honest' responses.
this is a hot button issue. the one fact in any debate about owning firearms:
when owning firearms is illegal, criminals will own firearms.
i own firearms, and i do not have a criminal record. i will be a criminal, though,
when they pass a law saying i cannot legally own a firearm.
serge, dont use a video game forum frequented by teenagers interested in guns to gauge American sentiment towards the 2nd amendment. the 1st amendment is the most important. But shit, the entire bill of rights should be looked at as one document, i feel.sergeriver wrote:
I know most of you think it's your most valued right, but I'd like to know what you guys think about this interpretation.
The 2nd amendment wasn't just meant to ensure we could keep a weapon. It also lets us take up arms against a foe in the event there is no government to protect us.
Agreed. I honestly think we as a country should all be able to handle a firearm. Meaning everyone should take a course . Shitstorm is coming.SenorToenails wrote:
And if enough of the people want to change the constitution, it will get done. Until then, the courts will continue to interpret it as written.Spark wrote:
I thought the country was a democracy, and those institutions are designer to serve and exact the will of the people?
I don't think that most of the country is ready to give up its right to arms. I know I'm not.
QFTCC-Marley wrote:
Shitstorm is coming.
Na. If the class three fact didn't freak everybody out this thread will remain passive.
Serge,
There's really no debate. And those anticipating the SCOTUS discussion/ruling on "the rights" of the 2A are pretty much viewing it as a slam dunk case. Even the Brady people (those most opposing gun rights) are preparing for that loss by fashioning new ways to curb gun ownership.
If you read the preamble to the bill of rights..the part that actually explains what it is, you'll see that it lays out protections against the government...not "rights" for people. It "assumes" the rights are already understood and given to all who live here. The protection of those rights from the government is what the bill of rights lays out....the protection of the right of free speech and expression shall "not be infringed upon" by the government...the right to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state, should not be infringed upon. The right to be secure in your papers, property, etc is also protected against search and seizure by the government.
So as you can see, the right's are already established (and careful review of our constitution and the writings and publications of our founding fathers) showing weapon ownership and use as an integral part of the colony's rights as they rebelled against the crown. Hopefully the SCOTUS ruling will be clear and forthcoming in portraying this basic right we have.
There's really no debate. And those anticipating the SCOTUS discussion/ruling on "the rights" of the 2A are pretty much viewing it as a slam dunk case. Even the Brady people (those most opposing gun rights) are preparing for that loss by fashioning new ways to curb gun ownership.
If you read the preamble to the bill of rights..the part that actually explains what it is, you'll see that it lays out protections against the government...not "rights" for people. It "assumes" the rights are already understood and given to all who live here. The protection of those rights from the government is what the bill of rights lays out....the protection of the right of free speech and expression shall "not be infringed upon" by the government...the right to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state, should not be infringed upon. The right to be secure in your papers, property, etc is also protected against search and seizure by the government.
So as you can see, the right's are already established (and careful review of our constitution and the writings and publications of our founding fathers) showing weapon ownership and use as an integral part of the colony's rights as they rebelled against the crown. Hopefully the SCOTUS ruling will be clear and forthcoming in portraying this basic right we have.
I never said they give you the right, I know they protect you against the infringement of it. The question is What if they meant that the 2nd Amendment protects people against the infringement of their collective right to have an armed militia, instead of protecting them against the infringement of their individual right of having personal firearms?IRONCHEF wrote:
Serge,
There's really no debate. And those anticipating the SCOTUS discussion/ruling on "the rights" of the 2A are pretty much viewing it as a slam dunk case. Even the Brady people (those most opposing gun rights) are preparing for that loss by fashioning new ways to curb gun ownership.
If you read the preamble to the bill of rights..the part that actually explains what it is, you'll see that it lays out protections against the government...not "rights" for people. It "assumes" the rights are already understood and given to all who live here. The protection of those rights from the government is what the bill of rights lays out....the protection of the right of free speech and expression shall "not be infringed upon" by the government...the right to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state, should not be infringed upon. The right to be secure in your papers, property, etc is also protected against search and seizure by the government.
So as you can see, the right's are already established (and careful review of our constitution and the writings and publications of our founding fathers) showing weapon ownership and use as an integral part of the colony's rights as they rebelled against the crown. Hopefully the SCOTUS ruling will be clear and forthcoming in portraying this basic right we have.
I know what you mean, however I wanted to know your opinion as Americans, given the importance you guys give to the Right to Bear Arms. Since the 2nd Amendment supposedly portects that right from being infringed I asked. It's all a matter of pure interpretation.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
serge, dont use a video game forum frequented by teenagers interested in guns to gauge American sentiment towards the 2nd amendment. the 1st amendment is the most important. But shit, the entire bill of rights should be looked at as one document, i feel.sergeriver wrote:
I know most of you think it's your most valued right, but I'd like to know what you guys think about this interpretation.
Sarge, no offense, but I think it's you're interpretation of our Constitution you are wanting to debate. We have the right, pure and simple. Many oppose, no matter what good motive they have, however it will be a bloody- horrific day for Americans if the "futureUS Govt." ever tries to repeal this Right.
I did say the SCOTUS is ruling on that as an individual right and not collective. But without the SCOTUS, it is easily understood that it is already an individual right. All the Bill of Rights protections are telling the individual they are protected against government interference. The preamble also states this as do countless other era documents and common understanding. If you don't have access to those things (google), then just realize the context in the English rule over the colonists who did not have those individual rights and the bill of rights guaranteeing them. There's no reason to believe it was collective, neither is there wording to suggest it was collective.sergeriver wrote:
I never said they give you the right, I know they protect you against the infringement of it. The question is What if they meant that the 2nd Amendment protects people against the infringement of their collective right to have an armed militia, instead of protecting them against the infringement of their individual right of having personal firearms?
Do this. Read one of the other big amendments like the 1st, or 4th. Read it carefully, both understanding the context of english oppression vs. colonial independence, and then ask if it sounds like the individual's rights are protected or if it sounds collective. Take the 1st. Is it protected for one person to freely air their grievances, or is it only protected when it's a group of people? In the 5th, is the individual protected against self incrimination, or is it only protected if it's a group..collectively remaining silent that is protected? You see? Using this logic, it is clear that when they say "the right of the people" is an individual thing. Our forefathers were hardly socialist and fervently sought for individual rights being protected against their government..they saw how their old government destroyed people, infringed upon their right to security, safety, and possessions.
No offense at all m8. I'm just curious because you guys seem to defend your Right to Bear Arms more than any of other rights you have. Therefore, my interest in the 2nd Amendment and its possible interpretation. Just think about this, this document was written about 2 centuries ago, so the meaning the writters gave to it, maybe it's not the interpretation given today. Just a thought.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Sarge, no offense, but I think it's you're interpretation of our Constitution you are wanting to debate. We have the right, pure and simple. Many oppose, no matter what good motive they have, however it will be a bloody- horrific day for Americans if the "futureUS Govt." ever tries to repeal this Right.
You still didn't address the punctuation issue.IRONCHEF wrote:
I did say the SCOTUS is ruling on that as an individual right and not collective. But without the SCOTUS, it is easily understood that it is already an individual right. All the Bill of Rights protections are telling the individual they are protected against government interference. The preamble also states this as do countless other era documents and common understanding. If you don't have access to those things (google), then just realize the context in the English rule over the colonists who did not have those individual rights and the bill of rights guaranteeing them. There's no reason to believe it was collective, neither is there wording to suggest it was collective.sergeriver wrote:
I never said they give you the right, I know they protect you against the infringement of it. The question is What if they meant that the 2nd Amendment protects people against the infringement of their collective right to have an armed militia, instead of protecting them against the infringement of their individual right of having personal firearms?
Do this. Read one of the other big amendments like the 1st, or 4th. Read it carefully, both understanding the context of english oppression vs. colonial independence, and then ask if it sounds like the individual's rights are protected or if it sounds collective. Take the 1st. Is it protected for one person to freely air their grievances, or is it only protected when it's a group of people? In the 5th, is the individual protected against self incrimination, or is it only protected if it's a group..collectively remaining silent that is protected? You see? Using this logic, it is clear that when they say "the right of the people" is an individual thing. Our forefathers were hardly socialist and fervently sought for individual rights being protected against their government..they saw how their old government destroyed people, infringed upon their right to security, safety, and possessions.
Serge, I'm not going to "make you believe" what I'm saying. You obviously are unable to see what we all mean. I don't think a debate is what you're looking for but rather argument? When I decide on things and then seek debate on them, I too sound like you are on this topic. It's cool, but just be aware that it looks like you've made your decision before seeking fruitless debate.sergeriver wrote:
You still didn't address the punctuation issue.
As for punctuation, I see no difference. The common use one submitted by the Senate and the one originally penned are not different in meaning as portrayed in this wiki entry:
The Senate version:
"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."
The original:
"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.:"
If anything, the official one the senate voted on is more clear and properly punctuated. Let's look at this statement and see what is understood. I see it as saying:
[prefaced as being a protection against the government that] to have a well regulated militia; which is needed to have security and freedom, the people should not have their right to own and use weapons infringed upon.
A challenge to collective or individual infringement is not worded until you see that "the people" which is referred to in the other amendments, is referring to individuals. The mention of the militia for the "security of a free state" does not limit the scope of said keeping and bearing of arms, it is an example. what is not implied in this amendment is what else such arms can be used for like hunting, self protection, game, target practice, etc. It doesn't have to be implied because it's talking about the simple and assumed right to already own and use such weapons. I think the mentioning of the protection of the right to keep and bear arms using the militia example is wise since it tells the government what the people will and can do to suppress it when it gets all uppity and oppressive.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2007-12-18 12:01:12)
Let's take a look at the Senate version, the original thing:IRONCHEF wrote:
Serge, I'm not going to "make you believe" what I'm saying. You obviously are unable to see what we all mean. I don't think a debate is what you're looking for but rather argument? When I decide on things and then seek debate on them, I too sound like you are on this topic. It's cool, but just be aware that it looks like you've made your decision before seeking fruitless debate.sergeriver wrote:
You still didn't address the punctuation issue.
As for punctuation, I see no difference. The common use one submitted by the Senate and the one originally penned are not different in meaning as portrayed in this wiki entry:
The Senate version:
"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."
The original:
"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.:"
If anything, the official one the senate voted on is more clear and properly punctuated. Let's look at this statement and see what is understood. I see it as saying:
[prefaced as being a protection against the government that] to have a well regulated militia; which is needed to have security and freedom, the people should not have their right to own and use weapons infringed upon.
A challenge to collective or individual infringement is not worded until you see that "the people" which is referred to in the other amendments, is referring to individuals. The mention of the militia for the "security of a free state" does not limit the scope of said keeping and bearing of arms, it is an example. what is not implied in this amendment is what else such arms can be used for like hunting, self protection, game, target practice, etc. It doesn't have to be implied because it's talking about the simple and assumed right to already own and use such weapons. I think the mentioning of the protection of the right to keep and bear arms using the militia example is wise since it tells the government what the people will and can do to suppress it when it gets all uppity and oppressive.
"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."
A well regulated militia: what did they mean by regulated, and what did they mean by militia?
","
being necessary to the security of a free state: the security of a free state against who? Maybe the English?
","
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: could it be that they were making reference to that militia and not the individuals having firearms?
","
shall not be infringed: what thing shall not be infringed? What if they meant having a militia, to protect the new free state from the English?
SourceKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
There are two intertwined trains of thought in Constitutional Law Theory that relate and occur prominently in arguments about the 2nd Amendment - Original Intent, and Judicial Review.
Followers of the Original Intent school of thought maintain that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the founding fathers and authors of the Bill Of Rights intended; that is, what were they trying to establish?
Using the Original Intent philosophy, one can come across many different interpretations of the Second Amendment. A few prominent ones are:
A) It was necessary at the time to maintain a militia (effectively local farmers and such in the 1700's) to fight off any corrupt or authoritarian power, making the second amendment a rather expedient rule.
B) It was a rule put forth by the authors/founding fathers to make sure that in the United States there is a civil right to own and carry firearms, and there shall not be any law made against it without heavy consideration.
C) It was the intent of the authors/founding fathers to establish the right of individual states (under the Federal Government's umbrella) to regulate their own militias (akin to a state's National Guard).
Interestingly, this was not an argument in the Militia Act of 1903, establishing the National Guard.
Judicial Review is the power of a court (or courts, collectively) to review the constitutionality of a law. That is, a state or federal law that they perceive may be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The theory of judicial review is significant in the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because of the vague wording used. In virtually (if not all) cases of judicial review in regards to the 2nd Amendment, the courts (collectively) have ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment being interpreted as a single person's right to own firearms.
That being said, there is a distinct difference between the right to bear arms as established by our founding fathers and the authors of the U.S. Constitution and the ability of the Government to regulate the manufacture and availability of said firearms. That is why there is legal weight behind the idea that a person cannot own a nuclear device, as someone tried to rationalize above.
The question is, what is the full scope of the government's legal right to regulate the availability of some weapons as opposed to others? That is, how does the government decide which weapons are legal for us to own and which weapons aren't?
Personally, I believe the authors of the Constitution were intending to create a civil right guaranteeing that the citizens of the United States would not be without weapons to fight off a corrupt and/or expansionist regime threatening the citizens' life and livelihood. However, I do believe that this right needs to be heavily regulated. I see no need for the average American to own an AR-15. There are special circumstances where it could be needed, but that should be an exception to the rule as far as I am concerned.
Our main man USM asking a similar question.
Another semantics debate. Hooray
Well, semantics is the key here.Pug wrote:
Another semantics debate. Hooray
Sure, if you ignore context.sergeriver wrote:
Well, semantics is the key here.Pug wrote:
Another semantics debate. Hooray
I saw that, but I present a punctuation issue too. And regarding your last statement, about the civil right guaranteeing the freedom to fight with guns a corrupted regime, I think you have the separation of powers for that. What are the Congress and the Supreme Court for? If a president exceeds his power and violates the citizens rights, you can impeach him and remove him. You don't need to shoot him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
SourceKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
There are two intertwined trains of thought in Constitutional Law Theory that relate and occur prominently in arguments about the 2nd Amendment - Original Intent, and Judicial Review.
Followers of the Original Intent school of thought maintain that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the founding fathers and authors of the Bill Of Rights intended; that is, what were they trying to establish?
Using the Original Intent philosophy, one can come across many different interpretations of the Second Amendment. A few prominent ones are:
A) It was necessary at the time to maintain a militia (effectively local farmers and such in the 1700's) to fight off any corrupt or authoritarian power, making the second amendment a rather expedient rule.
B) It was a rule put forth by the authors/founding fathers to make sure that in the United States there is a civil right to own and carry firearms, and there shall not be any law made against it without heavy consideration.
C) It was the intent of the authors/founding fathers to establish the right of individual states (under the Federal Government's umbrella) to regulate their own militias (akin to a state's National Guard).
Interestingly, this was not an argument in the Militia Act of 1903, establishing the National Guard.
Judicial Review is the power of a court (or courts, collectively) to review the constitutionality of a law. That is, a state or federal law that they perceive may be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The theory of judicial review is significant in the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because of the vague wording used. In virtually (if not all) cases of judicial review in regards to the 2nd Amendment, the courts (collectively) have ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment being interpreted as a single person's right to own firearms.
That being said, there is a distinct difference between the right to bear arms as established by our founding fathers and the authors of the U.S. Constitution and the ability of the Government to regulate the manufacture and availability of said firearms. That is why there is legal weight behind the idea that a person cannot own a nuclear device, as someone tried to rationalize above.
The question is, what is the full scope of the government's legal right to regulate the availability of some weapons as opposed to others? That is, how does the government decide which weapons are legal for us to own and which weapons aren't?
Personally, I believe the authors of the Constitution were intending to create a civil right guaranteeing that the citizens of the United States would not be without weapons to fight off a corrupt and/or expansionist regime threatening the citizens' life and livelihood. However, I do believe that this right needs to be heavily regulated. I see no need for the average American to own an AR-15. There are special circumstances where it could be needed, but that should be an exception to the rule as far as I am concerned.
Our main man USM asking a similar question.
I don't ignore the context. But you seem to forget this was written more than 200 years ago, and at the time the US was a new state, and maybe, just maybe, the writters wanted to protect the new state from the English rule. Maybe they didn't want every single citizen having a firearm for that. Just a militia or Armed Forces.Pug wrote:
Sure, if you ignore context.sergeriver wrote:
Well, semantics is the key here.Pug wrote:
Another semantics debate. Hooray
There's no question that the Second Amendment was extraordinarily poorly worded. However, it's easy to look at other remarks made by the framers of the Constitution to see what their intentions were:
Thomas Jefferson:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
James Madison:
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Thomas Paine:
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
--
There are countless others. There is no question that the Constitution lacks clarity in many places, and taken quite literally even denies basic rights to women ("all MEN are created equal"), but taken in the context of the works of those men who wrote the Constitution, there's no real doubt that what they intended was an armed populace.
This debate is why I'm a member of the NRA, and always will be.
Ders
Thomas Jefferson:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
James Madison:
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Thomas Paine:
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
--
There are countless others. There is no question that the Constitution lacks clarity in many places, and taken quite literally even denies basic rights to women ("all MEN are created equal"), but taken in the context of the works of those men who wrote the Constitution, there's no real doubt that what they intended was an armed populace.
This debate is why I'm a member of the NRA, and always will be.
Ders
Last edited by Dersmikner (2007-12-18 12:43:34)