|
On June 27 2008 08:01 rpf wrote:
Sigh.
Handguns are just as useful for self-defense. Removing the ability for a law-abiding citizen to effectively defend himself isn't "reasonable." That's tyrannical.
Handguns are only self-defense from other people with handguns. Using a handgun as defense against somebody armed with a knife is unreasonable.
The point is though that there is no real legal backing for the decision, not while machine guns are illegal anyway
|
21 ft. rule.
Edit:
Right from the horses' mouth:
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Ahem.
|
I have no doubt that the 2nd Amendment grants individual citizens the right to bear arms, I'm just not quite so sure that that right includes the right to bear whatever arms they please.
Can we both agree that Flamethrowers should not be legal?
|
The wording of the the Second Amendment refers to the militia having military-grade armaments (according to 18th century linguistics). So no.
|
On June 27 2008 07:24 Hippopotamus wrote:
Well what do you mean the correct reading of the 9th amendment to be and how do you think I am reading it?
I think that the 9th amendment means what it says.
To quote Randy Barnett:
The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure that all [enumerated and unenumerated] individual natural rights had the same stature and force after some of them were enumerated as they had before; and its existence argued against a latitudinarian interpretation of federal powers.
You adhere to the Borkian inkblot interpretation of the Ninth or something functionally similar.
|
By the way, machine guns aren't illegal; you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get one, but I'm sure the federal government loves the income.
|
On June 27 2008 08:24 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 08:01 rpf wrote:
Sigh.
Handguns are just as useful for self-defense. Removing the ability for a law-abiding citizen to effectively defend himself isn't "reasonable." That's tyrannical. Handguns are only self-defense from other people with handguns. Using a handgun as defense against somebody armed with a knife is unreasonable. The point is though that there is no real legal backing for the decision, not while machine guns are illegal anyway
Using a handgun against somebody armed with a knife is unreasonable?? How so?? If someone is trying to kill me with a knife i'm sure as hell not going to wield a knife back just to keep the fight fair... i'm sorry but that statement is retarded. It's not like a victim willingly agrees to get into a knife fight dude.
|
On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.
Yeah, just like how it works with drugs and alcohol. If it's illegal, nobody will have them. It's very simple.
|
It's about time people with intelligence (other than myself) started posting.
There is a such thing as overkill, but responding to a knife (ability to inflict great harm, up to and including death) with a firearm (capable of the same as a knife).
|
It's funny how everyone nowadays tries to interpret the amendments based solely on the wording of the snippet they look up on the internet rather than the history of the amendment and its writers.
|
On June 27 2008 09:10 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 07:24 Hippopotamus wrote:
Well what do you mean the correct reading of the 9th amendment to be and how do you think I am reading it? I think that the 9th amendment means what it says. To quote Randy Barnett: The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure that all [enumerated and unenumerated] individual natural rights had the same stature and force after some of them were enumerated as they had before; and its existence argued against a latitudinarian interpretation of federal powers.You adhere to the Borkian inkblot interpretation of the Ninth or something functionally similar.
No I read it just the same. But what does that prove? Abortion, in the U.S. is kept in law based on a right to privacy. The right to abortion is not protected in the United States because of the 9th amendment, it is protected because apparently the right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion. I don't think it's very obvious that privacy includes the right to discharge a fetus from one's body. My point isn't against abortion (I'm pro-choice)... it's that if "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." is to be read in a simplistic way then the supreme court justices may as well read privacy in a simplistic way and claim that abortion has nothing to do with privacy (I think you'd agree that the commonsensical notion of privacy doesn't really go with abortions).
|
You know, they might be right; the amendment was clearly written so that we wouldn't lose our personal freedoms or ability to protect ourselves independent of a military, like the one we fought to free ourselves from in the American Revolution, but we have one to do that for us! And they keep our personal freedoms safe by controlling them all so we don't lose them!
Yaaaaaaay!
|
On June 27 2008 09:55 5HITCOMBO wrote:
It's funny how everyone nowadays tries to interpret the amendments based solely on the wording of the snippet they look up on the internet rather than the history of the amendment and its writers.
Is that directed at me?
On June 27 2008 10:06 5HITCOMBO wrote:
You know, they might be right; the amendment was clearly written so that we wouldn't lose our personal freedoms or ability to protect ourselves independent of a military, like the one we fought to free ourselves from in the American Revolution, but we have one to do that for us! And they keep our personal freedoms safe by controlling them all so we don't lose them!
Yaaaaaaay!
roooooooooooofl
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
one more vestigial shit to worry about. yay
|
On June 27 2008 09:59 Hippopotamus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 09:10 Mindcrime wrote:On June 27 2008 07:24 Hippopotamus wrote:
Well what do you mean the correct reading of the 9th amendment to be and how do you think I am reading it? I think that the 9th amendment means what it says. To quote Randy Barnett: The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure that all [enumerated and unenumerated] individual natural rights had the same stature and force after some of them were enumerated as they had before; and its existence argued against a latitudinarian interpretation of federal powers.You adhere to the Borkian inkblot interpretation of the Ninth or something functionally similar. No I read it just the same. But what does that prove? Abortion, in the U.S. is kept in law based on a right to privacy. The right to abortion is not protected in the United States because of the 9th amendment, it is protected because apparently the right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion. I don't think it's very obvious that privacy includes the right to discharge a fetus from one's body. My point isn't against abortion (I'm pro-choice)... it's that if "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." is to be read in a simplistic way then the supreme court justices may as well read privacy in a simplistic way and claim that abortion has nothing to do with privacy (I think you'd agree that the commonsensical notion of privacy doesn't really go with abortions).
Privacy isn't at all mentioned in the Constitution. It is unenumerated right and various judges and justices who favor the right to privacy do point to the ninth as well as the fourteenth amendments to support their views.
I, however, don't believe that talking about a "right to privacy" is the correct way to go about things. I believe in a fundamental right to liberty, and liberty is specifically mentioned in the bill of rights.
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm too tired to get into this. I'll just say that Funchucks is the only person that puts forth a comprehensive and respectable argument. rpf is a nut.
I was also surprised that it was 5-4 and not 9-0, but I do think Congress needs to step up restrictions and enforcement of handgun and rifle laws. Defending yourself from an attack is such an overused example based purely on rationalization. Academic research is not on the NRA's side.
|
On June 27 2008 08:24 GeneralStan wrote:
Handguns are only self-defense from other people with handguns. Using a handgun as defense against somebody armed with a knife is unreasonable.
I suspect you don't really believe this.
This is one of those double-standards people hold out for others but don't apply to themselves.
In my humble opinion, it's a bit of a cop-out, since there's really only one way to test the veracity of your convictions. But that would be an unreasonable situation to put you through. 
|
Man the second amendment has got to be the most poorly written amendment in the constitution. "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." Honestly the first part of it contradicts the second part. If you just look at the last clause, like the OP, then yes it's clear cut- people can own whatever weapons they want. Including nukes I guess.
But there's that first part, mentioning a milita. A militia isn't just some random guy worried about thieves- they're a group of people, at least somewhat organized, trying to protect the state. One could argue that the national guard/national reserve is the militia. In that case, only they could own guns, and regular people wouldn't even be able to own a hunting rifle.
I really think we need to amend this amendment, first because it makes no sense, and second because even if it did make sense, weapons have changed so much in the last 250 years that it's rediculously out of date. For those guys "military grade weapons" meant like, a musket. There's a bit of a dfference between owning a musket and an Uzi. I'm not saying ban all weapons, but clearly we have to ban SOME weapons, right?
|
We should obfuscate this discussion with more abortion talk.
|
On June 27 2008 10:47 HeadBangaa wrote:
We should obfuscate this discussion with more abortion talk.
agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
