 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
Boris,
quote:
DF: See my post wherein I point out the FFs are all dead as dodos, so their desires mean diddly/squat to modern society. |
Then, if that's the case, why not just tear up the entire Constitution?
Sava,
quote:
Yeah, huge problem with that position... unless you believe the founding fathers had a crystal ball and saw the future developments in firearms and weapons. |
Obviously they didn't - the 2nd can be changed through an amendment.
quote:
But I'm not going to discuss this topic with you any more David. You think it's okay for people to own nuclear weapons, missiles, and machine guns. And I've known you long enough to know better than to waste my time. |
Erm, I thought you opened this thread for the initial purpose of carrying on a discussion with me?
In any case, nuclear weapons and missiles are not relevant to the 2nd Amendment, as they fall under the category of ordnance, and not arms. Heavy machine guns probably do as well. So why even bring those up?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Because it serves a purpose to modern society, and we still want it around. |
No, you want PART of it around 
quote:
We just make it flexible to accomodate a modern point of view. |
But that isn't the intent of the Constitution, nor is that allowed anywhere in the document. There is only one mechanism for expanding or contracting the Constitution/Bill of Rights, and that is an amendment.
quote:
It would be silly and time-wasting to ammend the constitution for everything the society wishes to see but may not be strictly constitutional. |
How would it be a waste of time to adapt our Supreme Law to what society wants? That is, unless there is not enough societal support for that adaptation, and what you really mean is what the liberals want.
quote:
Ergo interpretation, while still maintaining the core frame, is the most sensible path. |
Interpretation is fine, but some things are so clear that interpretation is not necessary.
quote:
A document that is inflexible will cease to represent the will of the people and then will become irrelevant. I'd rather the Constitution flow more freely into the modern era. |
The Constitution is in no way inflexible, provided you have enough support to change it. What could be wrong with that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
nuclear weapons are considered arms... or haven't you heard of the "Nuclear Arms Race"... |
That is a misnomer, then. Or rather, a simplification. No one would call it the "Nuclear Ordnance Race", that sounds stupid. But ordnance is indeed what nuclear weapons are.
For a 1783 example, a musket is an arm, while a cannon is ordnance.
quote:
I just wanted you to clarify your thoughts on this issue with me. You've presented your ideas, and there's nothing further to discuss. |
Then why not just PM me? Public threads imply a willingness to discuss an issue.
quote:
I don't see how any human being can say that one should be allowed to own any sort of WMD |
Again, not relevant to the 2nd Amendment.
quote:
or any sort of gun that is designed to kill people by the second. |
Emotional appeal argument - not a rational one. You aren't giving me any reasons why I can own a handgun but not an assault rifle, in the context of the 2nd Amendment, which, again, is the topic at hand.
quote:
I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and sooner or later one of us will probably end up insulting the other as the discussion regresses. |
Who's insulting anyone? I'm not gonna start the insults, if that's what you're worried about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
That is a misnomer, then. Or rather, a simplification. No one would call it the "Nuclear Ordnance Race", that sounds stupid. But ordnance is indeed what nuclear weapons are.
|
It's a symmantical issue. But the broadest definition of arms includes all sorts of weapons. You are refering to the different classifications of military weaponry (which BTW, is your own interpretation of the constitutional use of the word arms).
quote:
For a 1783 example, a musket is an arm, while a cannon is ordnance.
|
Yes, but its not incorrect to refer to cannons as "arms".
quote:
Then why not just PM me? Public threads imply a willingness to discuss an issue.
|
I still want to discuss the issue with others, not just you.
quote:
Again, not relevant to the 2nd Amendment.
|
The cyclic rate of modern machine guns is by no means an emotional argument. It's a simple fact that machine guns are designed to kill people faster than bolt action rifles.
quote:
Emotional appeal argument - not a rational one. You aren't giving me any reasons why I can own a handgun but not an assault rifle, in the context of the 2nd Amendment, which, again, is the topic at hand.
|
My fault for not being more specific. Assault rifles kill more people faster than a handgun. For home defense, a handgun or a rifle is perfectly capable of stopping an intruder. An assault rifle is only needed in the even of your house getting invaded by North Korea... please don't tell me you think that will happen.
quote:
Who's insulting anyone? I'm not gonna start the insults, if that's what you're worried about. |
Nah, I'm worried I might start the insults  ... and I've been so good lately, Ming 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
OK, fine - let's drop the arms vs. ordnance debate. I'm trying to make it easier for Sava. Personally, I think there is a difference, but I don't really care what you call them, because either way, weapons are protected.
quote:
The cyclic rate of modern machine guns is by no means an emotional argument. It's a simple fact that machine guns are designed to kill people faster than bolt action rifles. |
Duh. So what?
quote:
My fault for not being more specific. Assault rifles kill more people faster than a handgun. |
Duh. So what?
quote:
For home defense, a handgun or a rifle is perfectly capable of stopping an intruder. |
In many cases this is correct. But what does home defense have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I don't see home defense mentioned in the 2nd Amendment - I don't see "...as long as arms are used in home defense" at the end of it.
monkspider,
quote:
I find it both strange and amusing that some treat the constitution up as some sort of divinely inspired document and the founding fathers a polytheistic group of deities. That to question any part of the constitution is a blasphemy of the highest order and grounds for immediate persecution. I just find that quite odd. |
Seems as if you would support a set of documents that, in many ways, were inspired from Christianity. At least according to the Founders - that was their clear intent.
In any case, treating the Constitution as a "divinly inspired document" is not really the issue. Treating it as the Supreme Law of the United States IS the issue. If you wanna change that, fine, but you would have to repeal the Constitution, through Constitutional means. Good luck finding a Constitutional way to abolish the Constitution 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
Fine. Go ahead and organize one. Personally, I think you might have trouble, and I'm not quite sure who would have the authority to do it - the federal government couldn't do it without the consent of the states and, politically, without a popular mandate, and the states on their own wouldn't have enough clout to do it, either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rasbelin
|
 |
Tampere (Tammerfors), Finland
Nov 1999
time: 07:24
|
|
A quick response to the original message by Sava...
quote:
Automatic sub-machine-guns (mp5, uzi, mac10, etc)
Automatic rifles (M16, Colt M4a1, ak47, etc)
Automatic machine guns (M60, M249 Para)
Explosives (grenades, rockets, etc)
Man Portable Nuclear Weapons
|
Forbidding those is logical and understandable, if it also includes the exception of light use by the police and armed forces.
quote:
I think everything except Hunting Rifles/Shotguns and Handguns should be illegal to the general public.
|
I completely agree with you and I also add that this system is in use in e.g. Finland and it works perfectly well.
quote:
Handguns should only be legal in rural areas.
|
At this point I wouldn't have any limit because someone would have to define what is a rural area for gun control and it would also require some extra control. However you could of course add it to the law, but it would be enforced as a part of any other gun control done by the police and sheriffs, so it wouldn't warrant any extra actions. But it still sounds abit stubborn IMO, so not having any limit would work better.
quote:
Carrying a concealed weapon should require a different type of permit which requires the completion of a weapons training/safety course... if at all.
|
That would sound understandable too.
quote:
I think all guns should have fingerprint technology so that only the registered owner(s) should be able to use them.
|
I think that would be a good and working system. I don't know if it's in use anywhere now, but at least it would be a good way to put effort on limiting the number of illegal guns among minors. Of course there's the black market and criminals, but at least you couldn't walk around as a 12 years-old and carry a pistol (which is insane IMO).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rasbelin
|
|
Tampere (Tammerfors), Finland
Nov 1999
time: 07:24
|
|
Mr. Floyd, are you aware of the fact that you make yourself absolutely dumb in the public here, by saying that you accept bazookas, grenades, SMGs, etc. in the public. Well, the society where you would then live would look something like this.
Rasbey: - Help, help! Someone is out for a rampage with a SMG as someone tried to attack him.
Police: - Duh, just let him carry on.
Is this what you want? Loonies "defending themselves" with military weapons? Right, then you'd better get someone medical care soon. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
Worth remembering: the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that the Founders felt the need to provide a rationale for. All the rest are simply declaratory: "Congress shall make no law..." "The rights of the people...shall not be infringed..." etc. Only the 2nd begins with that dependent clause, designed to explain why the amendment exists: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Now, what does you make of this exceptional phrasing, this unique language and sentence structure? I think it suggests that, for the founders, the emphasis was on the well-regulated militia, not on gun ownership; otherwise, why not just say "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to bear arms"? That phrasing would be clearer and more consistant with the language in the other 9 amendments. No, they made this one different, and for a reason: the imagined that guns would be readily available, but that gun ownership would be "well-regulated." In general, this has also been what SCOTUS has held. And I say, bully for them all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
Interstate commerce clause. Licensing is also not an infringement, unless there are arbitrary restrictions on who can obtain a license.
Nor is identification or background checks as a condition of purchase - again, as long as there is no "arbitrary" purpose.
quote:
The other thing I want to clarify is your stance on the legality of different types of firearms. Of the following types of weapons, what should be legal and what shouldn't be?
Automatic sub-machine-guns (mp5, uzi, mac10, etc)
Automatic rifles (M16, Colt M4a1, ak47, etc)
Automatic machine guns (M60, M249 Para)
Hunting rifles/Shotguns
Handguns
Explosives (grenades, rockets, etc)
Man Portable Nuclear Weapons
|
No full auto, but single/3 round burst OK
Same as above
Nope
Yep
Yep
Depends on size/yield
Nope
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Worth remembering: the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that the Founders felt the need to provide a rationale for. All the rest are simply declaratory: "Congress shall make no law..." "The rights of the people...shall not be infringed..." etc. Only the 2nd begins with that dependent clause, designed to explain why the amendment exists: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Now, what does you make of this exceptional phrasing, this unique language and sentence structure? I think it suggests that, for the founders, the emphasis was on the well-regulated militia, not on gun ownership; otherwise, why not just say "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to bear arms"? That phrasing would be clearer and more consistant with the language in the other 9 amendments. No, they made this one different, and for a reason: the imagined that guns would be readily available, but that gun ownership would be "well-regulated." In general, this has also been what SCOTUS has held. And I say, bully for them all. |
The explanatory clause does not mean what you say it does, ie "well regulated" meant disciplined, rather than heavily laden with regulations. Why would a heavily laden with regulations Militia be necessary for the defense of a free state? The war with Britain was just over, and the Militia seemed to do ok without being heavily regulated by law, though many of their difficulties stemmed from their lack of discipline (ie their not being "well regulated"). The idea IMO was that the Militia should be well trained and reliable, rather than a pack of drunken rabble rousers who rob passers by etc.
As for the founding fathers assuming that we would still be using muzzle loading muskets 200 plus years later, I doubt that they were that stupid. Consider the difference in weaponry between 1589 and 1789. Fire power was much more effective in 1789. Now consider that guns available for civilian purchase in the U.S. are frozen technologically somewhere between about 1860-1900, eg machineguns existed in the middle of the 19th century, while detachable magazines and semi-automatic weapons were available at the end of the 19th century. So in reality, we are allowed to purchase only the types pf guns that were available within about 100 years of the writing of the constitution. I don't think that they would be blown away with the firepower capability of readily available weaponry for citizens, especially in comparison to the many orders of magnitude greater increase in the firepower of military weapons in the last 220 years.
Imran,
The Columbine killers did not have automatic weapons, though the impression that they did was put forward by the media and repeated ad nauseum. They were in fact pretty badly armed. They had a crappy 9mm pistol with an oversized magazine that looked like a SMG, a 9mm carbine (their best weapon, but no one focused on it because it didn't look bad) and two cut down shotguns with birdshot! Had more people simply ran from them they wouldn't have killed nearly so many people. But people froze and allowed them to shoot them at point blank range, where even birdshot is deadly.
The funny thing is that these punks weren't as well armed as a police officer when one considers that the police officer has an automatic shotgun that fires buckshot and slugs, as well as a quality high capacity 9mm that he actually knows how to shoot. I couldn't believe it when I watched the police stand around outside the building. Even us REMFs in the Army knew enough to counterattack quickly in order to save as many of our wounded as possible from bleeding to death. And this was before I knew that there were only 2 guys who were not very well armed, and had killed themselves early on.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
The explanatory clause does not mean what you say it does, ie "well regulated" meant disciplined, rather than heavily laden with regulations. Why would a heavily laden with regulations Militia be necessary for the defense of a free state? The war with Britain was just over, and the Militia seemed to do ok without being heavily regulated by law, though many of their difficulties stemmed from their lack of discipline (ie their not being "well regulated"). The idea IMO was that the Militia should be well trained and reliable, rather than a pack of drunken rabble rousers who rob passers by etc. |
Discipline makes people behave; regulations govern behavior. I'm not sure there's as strong a distinction here as you're implying. Nevertheless, by this logic, madatory training and licensing of gun owners -- just like car owners -- would have been within the scope of the founder's intent -- regulating by disciplining. That's where this thread started.
As for the Revolution, though, the militias did NOT do okay without heavy regulation. Washington complained endlessly about their indolence, insubordination, and extremely high rate of desertion. The regular army did okay, but the militias needed greater regulation, in BOTH senses of the word, and Washington fairly pleaded for it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2002 11:08
between single-shot semi-auto fire and three-round burst mode (a la the M4A1 / M16A2)?
|