Support NeoGAF

[Dead Man]

While there may be specific US legal rules applied here, that line of thought is laughable from the point of view of language and common sense. Let's look at:

"In cases where his actions are directly threatening my life and no other recourse exists to me, it is legal to shoot Bodacious in the head."

My interpretation of this would be that in general it is not permitted to shoot you in the head. But "In cases where his actions are directly threatening my life and no other recourse exists to me" is a dependent clause, and does not stand alone on its own as a sentence. The operative clause - that is, "it is legal to shoot Bodacious in the head" is a standalone sentence in its own right.

So should I feel legally justified in shooting you in the head based on that statement? Common sense says "fuck no".



My understanding would be that the militias would have to be able - in case of governments turning evil - to operate independently of them. Of course, part of the problem in the US is that the sort of people who want guns and the sort of people who believe providing healthcare to poor people is evil have a large intersection. :|

That sentence is quite different though. An equivalent sentence would be 'It being necessary to defend life and no other recourse being available at all times, there shall be no punishment for shooting Bodacious in the head'. It is a badly worded clause that needs rewriting. Which will never happen.

 

[Raydeen]

According to ProPublica:
"The New York Times explains that as the CDC became "increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon," the National Rifle Association assailed its findings as politically skewed and lobbied to defund research."

http://www.propublica.org/article/five-federal-policies-on-guns-you-never-heard-of

So yeah they lobbied hard to stop research.

 

[Kite]

My understanding would be that the militias would have to be able - in case of governments turning evil - to operate independently of them. Of course, part of the problem in the US is that the sort of people who want guns and the sort of people who believe providing healthcare to poor people is evil have a large intersection. :|

While the Reserve is under the authority of the president, each state's National Guard is normally under the control of individual governors but can be activated by the president in certain situations. There are also true militias in the form of State Defense Forces which are regulated by the National Guard Bureau and fall under the governor but can not be federalized by the president and are unpaid volunteers who buy their own uniforms and weapons.

So in the NRA's wet dream where Obama turns into a brutal dictator and is putting gun owners into concentration camps, it would be up to the state's National Guard and defense forces to free them. So go sign up gun owners, and then and only then should you be considered "militia" and be allowed to buy and own an AR-15. Otherwise you are just posers, a little kid playing dress-up.

 

[BolognaSoup]

Why do you need clips that large? In what practical situation do you see yourself needing to unload that many bullets that quickly? Hunting? Home defense?

I believe there is not a speed limit in this country above 80mph correct? Yet almost every car sold today will go 100+ if you want it to. In what practical situation do you see yourself needing to drive that quickly? Running away from "gun-nuts?" Taking the pregnant wife to the hospital? Don't we have ambulances for that?

Shouldn't we limit all cars to 70mph or 80mph if that is the maximum speed limit in the country? After all, dangerous drivers kill more people than crazy people with guns every single year.

 

[I H8 Memes]

I believe there is not a speed limit in this country above 80mph correct? Yet almost every car sold today will go 100+ if you want it to. In what practical situation do you see yourself needing to drive that quickly? Running away from "gun-nuts?" Taking the pregnant wife to the hospital? Don't we have ambulances for that?

Shouldn't we limit all cars to 70mph or 80mph if that is the maximum speed limit in the country? After all, dangerous drivers kill more people than crazy people with guns every single year.

Yes, we should limit the speed on all cars. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Krauser Kat]

I believe there is not a speed limit in this country above 80mph correct? Yet almost every car sold today will go 100+ if you want it to. In what practical situation do you see yourself needing to drive that quickly? Running away from "gun-nuts?" Taking the pregnant wife to the hospital? Don't we have ambulances for that?

Shouldn't we limit all cars to 70mph or 80mph if that is the maximum speed limit in the country? After all, dangerous drivers kill more people than crazy people with guns every single year.

Thats a shitty straw man, friend. Cars are not built to kill things. Guns are. Just because guns and cars can kill things in happenstance is pointless. If you give a crazy person a car or truck or an assault rifle and tell them to kill the children of sandy hook. i bet you 99/100 times the guy with the gun will kill more people than the guy with the vehicle.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

The guy in the video is kind of a dipshit.

.

 

[Cyan]

When you seperate out gun deaths like that it kind of skews the results if you are trying to make a statement about levels of unneeded death in a society.

Homicide rate per 100,000 people:

USA: 4.8

Switzerland: 0.7

Suicide rate per 100,000 people:

USA: 12.0

Switzerland: 11.1

Whoa! I never would've guessed suicide rates were so much higher than homicide rates.

I guess this is what availability bias feels like from the inside.

 

[Dead Man]

Whoa! I never would've guessed suicide rates were so much higher than homicide rates.

I guess this is what availability bias feels like from the inside.

When the media reports crime the way they do, I find I am almost always surprised by the actual numbers.

 

[Hitokage]

How do accidental deaths play into those figures?

 

[Yoritomo]

Thats a shitty straw man, friend. Cars are not built to kill things. Guns are. Just because guns and cars can kill things in happenstance is pointless. If you give a crazy person a car or truck or an assault rifle and tell them to kill the children of sandy hook. i bet you 99/100 times the guy with the gun will kill more people than the guy with the vehicle.

Every time someone ends a sentence with friend I have to read the rest of the comment in Mitt Romney's voice.

 

[Rebel Leader]

I just don't understand these people. Unlimited liberty is indistinguishable from chaos.

.....You've played Dues Ex human revolution... haven't you?

I only heard something similar in that game.

 

[Dead Man]

How do accidental deaths play into those figures?

I don't have any sources that list them, but intuition (lol) suggests they would be much higher in the US due to the easier access to ammo and the lower level of training. Quite prepared to be wrong if someone can find some numbers.

 

[Hitokage]

Thats a shitty straw man, friend. Cars are not built to kill things. Guns are. Just because guns and cars can kill things in happenstance is pointless. If you give a crazy person a car or truck or an assault rifle and tell them to kill the children of sandy hook. i bet you 99/100 times the guy with the gun will kill more people than the guy with the vehicle.

More to the point, we already have car control. There are limits on where you can drive them and how you can drive them. Drivers must be licensed and cars registered with the state. Certain cars are not street legal, and all must meet baseline operation, safety, and emission standards.

But we mustn't do anything similar for guns, or something.

 

[iapetus]

How do accidental deaths play into those figures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Sort the table by 'unintended'. Pretty low across the board, with the US at the top end of things (though below Canada...)

 

[okdakor]

wonder when 3d gun blueprints will end up on The Pirate Bay, etc.

I hope this happens, because it also means that people will upload fake blueprints of guns that will blow in your hand...

The same dumbass who downloads porn inadvertently on P2P trying to get the latest blockbuster movie will have the surprise of his life when trying to 3D print a gun.

 

[RJT]

I hope this happens, because it also means that people will upload fake blueprints of guns that will blow in your hand...

The same dumbass who downloads porn inadvertently on P2P trying to get the latest blockbuster movie will have the surprise of his life when trying to 3D print a gun.

This blew my mind. It will blow a lot of people's minds, I reckon...

 

[Bodacious]

More to the point, we already have car control. There are limits on where you can drive them and how you can drive them. Drivers must be licensed and cars registered with the state. Certain cars are not street legal, and all must meet baseline operation, safety, and emission standards.

But we mustn't do anything similar for guns, or something.

Silly argument. Here's the silly flipside:

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns

I keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to keep and bear arms.

I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:

To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old. Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.

To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos.

For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees who must provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information before purchase. They may approve or decline or delay the sale. If they decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board. If they delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.

Additionally, the purchase of more than two cars in a given year will require signing an understanding that buying cars in order to resell them without a license is a crime. There is an 11% federal excise tax on all new vehicles, plus any state or local tax.

Federal Automobile Licensees must agree to submit to 24/7/365, unannounced, unscheduled searches of their entire homes, businesses and any relates properties and personal effects to be named later.

Then you will be eligible to take your drivers' license test to determine your eligibility to operate on the street. Rules will vary by state, with some states requiring proof of need to own a vehicle for business purposes, and up to 40 hours of professional education. Also, not all states will accept all licenses. You will need to keep track of this information. Additionally, speed limits will not be posted. It is your responsibility to research the driving laws in each area you wish to travel through. Some communities may not allow out of state vehicles, sports cars, or even any vehicles at all. Violation of these laws will result in confiscation and destruction of your vehicle by crushing.

To have a turbocharger, supercharger (External Engine Compression Devices) or a muffler will require an application to the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles. A $2000 tax stamp will be required for these High Performance Vehicles. Your request must also be signed by the local chief law enforcement officer, and you must provide fingerprints. If approved in 10-16 weeks, you will be responsible for keeping your High Performance Vehicle in secure storage, and request permission in writing to take it out of state. You will need to carry this documentation with you. There are 13 states that do not allow possession of High Performance Vehicles. Be sure you are aware of those laws before planning your trips. (But really, what do you need such a vehicle for anyway? Who really needs to drive that fast? You must willingly accept and adhere to the socially accepted idea that you are inherently evil for merely possessing such a fast, high powered automobile.)

Additionally, superchargers and turbochargers must be manufactured before June 1, 1986. They may be sold and refitted by a FAL who also has a Special Occupational Tax license authorizing him to work on these. New superchargers, however, are a violation of federal law, except for use by the police or military, or specific government contractors. Expect to pay $15-$30,000 each for these items. Mufflers will only cost from $250-$1000, plus the $2000 stamp. However, once the muffler is damaged, it must be disposed of by cutting it into three pieces. Failure to do this may result in your family going through the next decade only knowing you in a prison jumpsuit and all your bank accounts seized and never replenished.

Imported sports cars will be prohibited. You may purchase other items from foreign manufacturers, but your automobile is in a special class of prohibition due to its inherently evil and sinister nature. The frames may be imported, cut into three pieces, and reassembled with US made engines and suspensions, as long as 60% of the parts are American. Shortly, though, the Transmission Loophole will be closed. The purpose of allowing imports is for spare parts, not to build more destructive "race vehicles.” Transmissions will have to be US made.

Repairs may only be conducted by a licensed FAL, who will send a truck to retrieve your vehicle. It must be a flatbed type truck, winch/dolly trucks are not allowed, under 10/$10,000 penalty. You may work on your own vehicle, but any repair that exceeds emission or performance standards will be subject to federal criminal charges. And violation of this reasonable regulation could result in not only your imprisonment and the confiscation of your assets but imprisonment of any employee or family member who was insane enough to repair your “race car” for you.

Be aware that an existing HPV may have multiple HP Features. A new HPV will require a license for each feature you wish to add to it—one each for muffler or external engine compression device. And you must request and receive, in writing, permission from the federal, state and local governing authorities prior to making such modifications.

Converting a standard car to a sports car will require payment of a $2000 tax, even if no HP features are added. However, if an FAL/SOT does the conversion on a new frame before the vehicle leaves their premises, it will only be a $50 tax. You will need to carry this documentation in the glove box at all times, the mere failure of which alone can result in an arrest and possible conviction.

There is discussion of closing the Car Dealer Loophole, through which private individuals sell cars to friends without going through an FAL. It is important we have these background checks. Surveys show criminals prefer to buy unlicensed to get around their legal liabilities so they can commit crimes in stolen vehicles, which evidence has proven for many years to be true.

Some vehicle law convictions will result in loss of your driving privileges forever. This includes reckless operation, drunk driving, an incorrect bumper height or attachment, or the wrong type of exhaust. Collisions may also result in permanent loss of driving, if injury occurs and negligence is proven. In addition, any felony conviction of any kind--even tax evasion--will mean permanent loss of your driving privileges. In these cases, it will even be illegal to ride or sit in a friend's car.

There is also discussion of prohibiting brightly colored vehicles. Vehicles are transportation, not toys, and should not be marketed in a way that suggests they are intended for casual use. It is important that everyone be aware of the dangerous nature of cars.

In the future, we may have to consider large displacement engines (anything over 2.5 liters) and transmissions with more than three speeds as being High Performance Items to be added to the federal registry. There will be a window during which you can register your items for $2000 each, provided you meet the background check. Otherwise, you will have to immediately surrender them to an FAL/SOT to dispose of on your behalf. Operating an unlicensed HPV after this date will result in confiscation and destruction of the vehicle, and the 10/$10,000 punishment.

These laws and regulations are due to drunk drivers, reckless drivers and other criminals. The automobile community should be glad it is allowed to exist at all, given all the deaths and environmental damage caused by these vehicles.

The president said today that he strongly supports your right to own and drive basic, standard vehicles for farm use and carpooling. But he and many other people have made it clear that eventually – maybe this month – we need to cease all manufacturing of such high powered automobiles for the civilian market.

Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need. There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people. This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Silly is right since driving is considered a privilege by the states not a constitutional right.

 

[crazygambit]

Silly argument. Here's the silly flipside:

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns

A lot of that is how cars are already regulated around the world. For example this bit:

To have a turbocharger, supercharger (External Engine Compression Devices) or a muffler will require an application to the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles. A $2000 tax stamp will be required for these High Performance Vehicles. Your request must also be signed by the local chief law enforcement officer, and you must provide fingerprints. If approved in 10-16 weeks, you will be responsible for keeping your High Performance Vehicle in secure storage, and request permission in writing to take it out of state. You will need to carry this documentation with you. There are 13 states that do not allow possession of High Performance Vehicles. Be sure you are aware of those laws before planning your trips. (But really, what do you need such a vehicle for anyway? Who really needs to drive that fast? You must willingly accept and adhere to the socially accepted idea that you are inherently evil for merely possessing such a fast, high powered automobile.)

In many countries it's illegal to make any modifications to a car, so a turbo or supercharger are completely out of the question. Indeed no one needs a car that fast for the road.

 

[Dead Man]

A lot of that is how cars are already regulated around the world. For example this bit:



In many countries it's illegal to make any modifications to a car, so a turbo or supercharger are completely out of the question. Indeed no one needs a car that fast for the road.

Those horrible modified turbo cars are just too fast. Wait...

Turbo from the factory. You have fallen prey to the same shit that people who want to ban flash hiders have fallen for. All a turbo does is make the engine more efficient.

 

[crazygambit]

Those horrible modified turbo cars are just too fast. Wait...

Turbo from the factory. You have fallen prey to the same shit that people who want to ban flash hiders have fallen for. All a turbo does is make the engine more efficient.

Turbo from the factory is allowed. The reason turbos and the like are not allowed, at least in my country, is that the manufacturer makes every component of the car work with each other. So the suspension and brakes are designed to handle are certain amount of power, if you go and double it with a turbo, then they might no longer be adequate (which is very sensible).

Manufacturers pay for thorough testing of their cars before they enter the market so it's pretty sensible to ban modifications done by just anyone without proper testing on the implications it would have on the car as a whole. Which is especially valid for a 3 ton truck.

 

[Dead Man]

Turbo from the factory is allowed. The reason turbos and the like are not allowed, at least in my country, is that the manufacturer makes every component of the car work with each other. So the suspension and brakes are designed to handle are certain amount of power, if you go and double it with a turbo, then they might no longer be adequate (which is very sensible).

Manufacturers pay for thorough testing of their cars before they enter the market so it's pretty sensible to ban modifications done by just anyone without proper testing on the implications it would have on the car as a whole. Which is especially valid for a 3 ton truck.

In my country if you upgrade the engine power, you have to upgrade the brakes too. But this is way off topic, I was responding to your point that no one needs a car that fast anyway.

 

[Tapiozona]

There was a home invasion in Stockton recently that made the news. 4 criminals pulled up to the individual's house, each armed with a rifle (some were full auto, some where semi).

The homeowner was lucky enough to see them approaching his house via his security cameras, and managed to properly defend himself using his AR15 before they managed to get to his door.

A handgun's inaccuracy at those distances would have posed a much greater risk to bystanders, and a shotgun would have been just as difficult to aim (00 buckshot would have an undesirable spread pattern, and a slug at that distance would be very difficult to aim even with ghost rings).

This whole ordeal was actually caught on tape. I can try to find it, although it happened a year or two go.

These sort of situations aren't that rare. We were given lots of local data during my CCW course.

Remington .223 ammo from an AR15 is NOT ideal for home defense. I find it impossible to believe any CCW course would teach and especially recommend the use of military grade weaponry for home defense. Because of the range, volume of fire and most importantly penetrating power of that ammo, you'd be putting the lives of your entire neighborhood on the line as your ammo is guaranteed to penetrate interior and exterior walls like a hot knife through butter.

Unless you think the average home owner is so great a marksman, especially in live fire situations, that he can control where ever bullet he fires from an AR will go.

 

[Jackpot]

I believe there is not a speed limit in this country above 80mph correct? Yet almost every car sold today will go 100+ if you want it to. In what practical situation do you see yourself needing to drive that quickly? Running away from "gun-nuts?" Taking the pregnant wife to the hospital? Don't we have ambulances for that?

Shouldn't we limit all cars to 70mph or 80mph if that is the maximum speed limit in the country? After all, dangerous drivers kill more people than crazy people with guns every single year.

Yes, they should.

 

[Beaulieu]

Also, mass shootings are not on the rise, despite what the media wants you to believe. Their coverage, however, is.

sure buddy.

 

[entremet]

Would you 3D print a car?

 

[POWERSPHERE]

Gangsters are gonna start gold plating their printers

 

[okdakor]

Custom guns too

 

[Dead Man]

Remington .223 ammo from an AR15 is NOT ideal for home defense. I find it impossible to believe any CCW course would teach and especially recommend the use of military grade weaponry for home defense. Because of the range, volume of fire and most importantly penetrating power of that ammo, you'd be putting the lives of your entire neighborhood on the line as your ammo is guaranteed to penetrate interior and exterior walls like a hot knife through butter.

Unless you think the average home owner is so great a marksman, especially in live fire situations, that he can control where ever bullet he fires from an AR will go.

Good lord. The it is much easier to control a rifle than a hand gun, .223 is not that powerful, many in the military consider it underpowered with poor range as well. Current defence loads for ..23 do not overpenetrate either.

 

[Jackpot]

many in the military consider it underpowered with poor range as well.

That's because most military engagements are out in open country in the hundreds of meters, and then it has to contend with proper body armour as well, not weak-ass kevlar. Very different from shooting from your porch to the end of your driveway.

 

[Dead Man]

That's because most military engagements are out in open country in the hundreds of meters, and then it has to contend with proper body armour as well, not weak-ass kevlar. Very different from shooting from your porch to the end of your driveway.

Weak arse kevlar? What do you think the current US military body armour is made from? It is kevlar, same as everyone else on the planet.

And the point was that it is not some super powered round, it is actually pretty weak as far as rifle rounds go. It is enough, of course, but it is hardly some overpowered monster .50bmg or something.

Edit: For reference look at this page: http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm

.223 Rem has about 1200-1500 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle. .308 Win, a popular hunting round has about 2600 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

That's because most military engagements are out in open country in the hundreds of meters, and then it has to contend with proper body armour as well, not weak-ass kevlar. Very different from shooting from your porch to the end of your driveway.

No actually it's because it has trouble retaining lethality after penetrating thin cover, and the increasingly common short-barreled weapons firing it result in the rounds failing to fragment at shorter ranges than normal (and thus causing less damage). By rifle standards it's quite weak, and is designed to be controllable with rapid followup shots instead of simply being powerful.

 

[Jackpot]

Weak arse kevlar? What do you think the current US military body armour is made from? It is kevlar, same as everyone else on the planet.

Flexible parts like the collar are made from kevlar and are designed only to stop 9mm rounds. The main protection comes in the form of ceramic or metal plates. They stop rifle rounds. One MP7 bullet can go through 50 layers of kevlar.

And regardless, Tapiozona's point of a .223 round having way too much penetrative vs stopping power in your typical neighbourhood engagement (and my point about the distance of military engagements) stands.

 

[Dead Man]

Flexible parts like the collar are made from kevlar and are designed only to stop 9mm rounds. The main protection comes in the form of ceramic or metal plates. They stop rifle rounds. One MP7 bullet can go through 50 layers of kevlar.

And regardless, Tapiozona's point of a .223 round having way too much penetrative vs stopping power in your typical neighbourhood engagement (and my point about the distance of military engagements) stands.

No, it really doesn't.

http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=26

Yes, they are a rifle manufacturer, but unless they have just made shit up it is a pretty decent test.

 

[u mad]

Remington .223 ammo from an AR15 is NOT ideal for home defense. I find it impossible to believe any CCW course would teach and especially recommend the use of military grade weaponry for home defense. Because of the range, volume of fire and most importantly penetrating power of that ammo, you'd be putting the lives of your entire neighborhood on the line as your ammo is guaranteed to penetrate interior and exterior walls like a hot knife through butter.

Unless you think the average home owner is so great a marksman, especially in live fire situations, that he can control where ever bullet he fires from an AR will go.

They make 223 rounds ideal for HD. This is pretty common knowledge.

You should read this: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

No idea where you got the information you are spewing. 223 is an excellent HD round. High velocity + lightweight = less wall penetration.

FMJ and even HP handgun ammunition has been shown to over penetrate more than ideal 223 rounds.

EDIT: Looks like someone already illustrated my point right above me.

 

[Myz]

I just don't understand these people. Unlimited liberty is indistinguishable from chaos.

They dont want unlimited liberty, they just want the liberty promised to them during the establishment of the country.

 

[Soi-Fong]

They dont want unlimited liberty, they just want the liberty promised to them during the establishment of the country.

You mean a liberty that wasn't well defined in the first place and is so horribly written.

 

[Myz]

You mean a liberty that wasn't well defined in the first place and is so horribly written.

Have you read the Constitution? it is eloquent. I dont see how you could say that wasn't well defined.

 

[Dead Man]

Have you read the Constitution? it is eloquent. I dont see how you could say that wasn't well defined.

Nah, it is a pretty poorly written article. At least the second amendment is. 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' is a horribly vague statement.

 

[Myz]

Nah, it is a pretty poorly written article. At least the second amendment is. 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' is a horribly vague statement.

Please tell me your joking, how is that vague? "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

ie. we have the right to own and use weapons, and no one has the right to take that away from us. how can you possibly make that less direct. I am really hoping that you are being sarcastic, otherwise I have lost a little faith in humanity.

 

[Dead Man]

Please tell me your joking, how is that vague? "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

ie. we have the right to own and use weapons, and no one has the right to take that away from us. how can you possibly make that less direct. I am really hoping that you are being sarcastic, otherwise I have lost a little faith in humanity.

What is an arm? What qualifies as bearing arms? It obviously isn't all weapons, or we would have personal nukes. Is it weapons that can be carried and used by a single person? Why no rocket launchers? It is pretty vague. I think it is pretty clearly in favour of personal weapons, but what does that cover as technology advances?

 

[Yaboosh]

Please tell me your joking, how is that vague? "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

ie. we have the right to own and use weapons, and no one has the right to take that away from us. how can you possibly make that less direct. I am really hoping that you are being sarcastic, otherwise I have lost a little faith in humanity.

I really hope you are joking. It has to be willful ignorance that you are unaware of the debate over the meaning and intention of the second amendment.

 

[Myz]

What is an arm? What qualifies as bearing arms? It obviously isn't all weapons, or we would have personal nukes. Is it weapons that can be carried and used by a single person? Why no rocket launchers? It is pretty vague. I think it is pretty clearly in favour of personal weapons, but what does that cover as technology advances?

The definition of Arms: A weapon, especially a firearm.

Brought to you by the Webster dictionary. I think we should have the right to own any firearm barring you have the correct license. If you can go through the qualifications you should be able to own the weapon.

Secondly a rocket launcher and/or nukes are considered explosive warheads, not a firearm, so I don't believe you can even compare the two.

 

[Dead Man]

The definition of Arms: A weapon, especially a firearm.

Brought to you by the Webster dictionary. I think we should have the right to own any firearm barring you have the correct license. If you can go through the qualifications you should be able to own the weapon.

Secondly a rocket launcher and/or nukes are considered explosive warheads, not a firearm, so I don't believe you can even compare the two.

What about explosive shells for large bore firearms? Do you not consider requiring a state sanctioned license as an infringement? Would someone being declined for a concealed carry license have their ability to bear arms infringed?

A weapon. Think about that for a moment. Your definition is that an arm is a weapon, especially but not only firearms. So... back to nukes.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I really hope you are joking. It has to be willful ignorance that you are unaware of the debate over the meaning and intention of the second amendment.

And that argument is based on a very modern interpretation of the document.

The Constitution is very poorly written, much of that was intentional but I do wish they were a bit clearer.

 

[Myz]

I really hope you are joking. It has to be willful ignorance that you are unaware of the debate over the meaning and intention of the second amendment.

No I completely understand the meaning and intention of the second amendment. It is meant to keep the people safe from rampant regulation from the federal government. Im not saying we should ever have to use those weapons but the Constitution was written in historical context because the people were tired of being over regulated by the British government. They wanted to make sure that they had the right and the responsibility to control their own lives.

Our founding fathers were very clear on this.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
"We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named and removable for unfaithful conduct by themselves immediately." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:487

you cant argue that point when it is defined so direct and deliberate.

 

[Dead Man]

No I completely understand the meaning and intention of the second amendment. It is meant to keep the people safe from rampant regulation from the federal government. Im not saying we should ever have to use those weapons but the Constitution was written in historical context because the people were tired of being over regulated by the British government. They wanted to make sure that they had the right and the responsibility to control their own lives.

Our founding fathers were very clear on this.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
"We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named and removable for unfaithful conduct by themselves immediately." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:487

you cant argue that point when it is defined so direct and deliberate.

Nobody disputes the reason for the clause at the time, but the clause itself is what we are talking about.

 

[Bodacious]

You mean a liberty that wasn't well defined in the first place and is so horribly written.

In what way do you feel it is badly written? It makes perfect grammatical sense to me. From these kind of debates, it seems the people who have trouble understanding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are the ones who want to make the right to keep and bear arms dependent on being in a militia. It's the other way around ... the possibility of raising the militia, when needed, is dependent on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The whole idea was that the general population could be relied upon in times of crisis for the common defense - and they would bring their own guns. And those guns would be suitable for battle. Another misreading is when people try to impose the term 'well-regulated' to the other end of the sentence, to imply that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to be 'well-regulated.' But the term 'well-regulated' is a modifier of the noun 'militia', it doesn't affect the second part of the sentence at all. And that's besides the argument that 'well-regulated' in the late 1700's was a term meaning well equipped and/or in good working order.

The prefatory clause, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,' is a dependent clause. It does not stand alone as a sentence and so does not carry the core intent of the amendment.

The operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a complete sentence all by itself. It is not dependent on there being a militia or being in a militia. It is a right that belongs to 'the people.'

The Supreme Court broke it all down in excruciating detail in the 2008 Heller decision. Check it out: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf



Which other parts of the Bill of Rights do you feel are horribly written?


.

 

[Myz]

What about explosive shells for large bore firearms? Do you not consider requiring a state sanctioned license as an infringement? Would someone being declined for a concealed carry license have their ability to bear arms infringed?

A weapon. Think about that for a moment. Your definition is that an arm is a weapon, especially but not only firearms. So... back to nukes.

A state sanctioned license isnt an infringement because it still allows you to own said items as long as you are mental compotent. You literally just have to apply and as long as you are an able bodied, sound minded individual it is given to you.

A nuclear weapon is a completely different topic. I hate that people have to go to unreasonable extremes. A personal defense weapon is completely different than a warhead capable of leveling an entire city.