2nd Amendment (101)

[BDKJMU]

+1

You're always calling me radical... but, even the most conservative judges believe the Second Amendment is limited - that weapons that are "most useful in military service" may be banned (Scalia in Heller).

Weapons 'most useful in military service' generally are weapon systems too big/complex for 1 person to operate.

[Skjellyfetti]

You're always calling me radical... but, even the most conservative judges believe the Second Amendment is limited - that weapons that are "most useful in military service" may be banned (Scalia in Heller).

Weapons 'most useful in military service' generally are weapon systems too big/complex for 1 person to operate.

He specifically mentioned "M-16 rifles and the like" as his example. Try again.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[Chizzang]

No. It's not novel at all. That's my point.

89 thinks that citizens should be able to have "whatever the government has." That's a pretty radical position for someone that thinks he's just a bit right of center.

I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

Bingo..!!!
At its core:
The 2nd amendment is designed to protect us from our Government
and a non-gun owning Conservative like Hen and a gun owning Liberal like myself can agree on that

The only thing that makes this a Conservative vs. Liberal issue IS OUR GOVERNMENT
Think about that for a second...

[CID1990]

It is pretty easy to think that the founders' reference to "arms" referred to shoulder fired muskets, but not things like a ship of the line or a siege gun

I have no problem with drawing similar distinctions with modern day arms

If the shit hits the fan the first thing I'll want is a carbine. I'll let a friendly guardsman get me a howitzer if I really need one later


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

Bingo..!!!
At its core:
The 2nd amendment is designed to protect us from our Government
and a non-gun owning Conservative like Hen and a gun owning Liberal like myself can agree on that

The only thing that makes this a Conservative vs. Liberal issue IS OUR GOVERNMENT
Think about that for a second...

[BDKJMU]

Weapons 'most useful in military service' generally are weapon systems too big/complex for 1 person to operate.

He specifically mentioned "M-16 rifles and the like" as his example. Try again.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

And liberals have tried to use this as a context to ban weapons like the AR-15. But Scalia also wrote the 2nd Amendment protects “those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"
An AR-15:
-is very typically possessed by law abiding citizens (including variants over 1 million, one of most popular long guns in the country)
-commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
-Has never been used in military service (substantially differs from the M-16 in function).

[BDKJMU]

It is pretty easy to think that the founders' reference to "arms" referred to shoulder fired muskets, but not things like a ship of the line or a siege gun

I have no problem with drawing similar distinctions with modern day arms

If the **** hits the fan the first thing I'll want is a carbine. I'll let a friendly guardsman get me a howitzer if I really need one later


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. I don't have a problem with banning crew served weapons without a license. But the typical hand carried, shoulder fired infantry weapon of the day should be allowed.

I disagree with Scalia on the ".....if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned...." and referring to 2nd amendment limitations ".....that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'...."
gives way too much leeway for libs- after all they could try to label most weapons "dangerous"

I wouldn't want full auto or burst if the shit hits the fan because it just consumes too much ammo.

Agreed on the carbine..

[Skjellyfetti]

Did I say anything about the AR-15?

I'm not talking about banning anything that is currently legal. The debate is whether to allow citizens to have any and all weapons in possession of the US military. I'm saying you have a block almost immediately... just going from AR-15 to M-16 or M-4... much less when you get to shoulder-launched SAMs and the like.

[BDKJMU]

Did I say anything about the AR-15?

I'm not talking about banning anything that is currently legal. The debate is whether to allow citizens to have any and all weapons in possession of the US military. I'm saying you have a block almost immediately... just going from AR-15 to M-16 or M-4... much less when you get to shoulder-launched SAMs and the like.

No, but other liberals have and are.

[CAA Flagship]

I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

Bingo..!!!
At its core:
The 2nd amendment is designed to protect us from our Government
and a non-gun owning Conservative like Hen and a gun owning Liberal like myself can agree on that

The only thing that makes this a Conservative vs. Liberal issue IS OUR GOVERNMENT
Think about that for a second...

I lean right but my only weapon is a Louisville Slugger and an Italian temper.
That combo is lethal.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Technology is technology......our founding fathers wanted us to have whatever the government has to retain our liberty.

It's so easy even Cleets got dis.....

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I admit that's a good argument.

So it would be written exactly the same?

No, now days people can barely put a sentence together and they sure as fuck dont think before they comment..........look at every post houndog makes

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

So ricin and mustard gas should be legal?

Make the government get rid of them so we are on a level playing field or I will compromise and say we all should have it. Makes no difference to me. Im cool with whatever happens

[Chizzang]

I admit that's a good argument.

So it would be written exactly the same?

No, now days people can barely put a sentence together and they sure as fuck dont think before they comment..........look at every post houndog makes

Oh now don't be sour Alpha, just cuz he picks on you, ya big snowflake

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

It was an observation I am far from upset, crying and ironing my way to happiness

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I think I basically agree. I've said for years that the reference to a Militia, in terms of the literal meaning of the language, is simply presented as a REASON for saying the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. Linguistically, there is absolutely no indication that being in a Militia is a condition on that right.

[JohnStOnge]

It is pretty easy to think that the founders' reference to "arms" referred to shoulder fired muskets, but not things like a ship of the line or a siege gun

Why?

[CID1990]

It is pretty easy to think that the founders' reference to "arms" referred to shoulder fired muskets, but not things like a ship of the line or a siege gun

Why?

Because the individual person cannot singlehandedly service a ship of the line or a siege gun. They were referring to personal weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

It is pretty easy to think that the founders' reference to "arms" referred to shoulder fired muskets, but not things like a ship of the line or a siege gun

Why?

Well, the word "bear" is a hint.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

So is "arms"

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

Bingo..!!!
At its core:
The 2nd amendment is designed to protect us from our Government
and a non-gun owning Conservative like Hen and a gun owning Liberal like myself can agree on that

The only thing that makes this a Conservative vs. Liberal issue IS OUR GOVERNMENT
Think about that for a second...

I lean right but my only weapon is a Louisville Slugger and an Italian temper.
That combo is lethal.

I had to stop at security at work to enter the building with a baseball bat that I sold to a co-worker.

[houndawg]

I admit that's a good argument.

So it would be written exactly the same?

No, now days people can barely put a sentence together and they sure as **** dont think before they comment..........look at every post houndog makes

Somebody wrote that for you

We don't have a militia anymore so the second amendment is irrelevant.

[houndawg]

Technology is technology......our founding fathers wanted us to have whatever the government has to retain our liberty.

+1

Our founding fathers didn't want the government to have a standing Army or foreign entanglements.

[Ivytalk]

+1

Our founding fathers didn't want the government to have a standing Army or foreign entanglements.

Are you saying that Melania Trump is unconstitutional?

[GannonFan]

+1

Our founding fathers didn't want the government to have a standing Army or foreign entanglements.

That's not factually accurate. The Federalist Papers (at least in #29 and #46, the former by Hamilton and the latter by Madison) clearly had no issue with standing armies, per se, and were more concerned with the size of them. Heck, the #29 one actually called them necessary. How does that square with your statement that they didn't want to have them? As for the foreign entanglements, that's a pretty vague statement. Of course Washington warned about foreign alliances, especially during the nascent period of the government, but international trade was clearly always going to be something we did. Even in the 1790's the Founders realized that the ocean wasn't infinite.

[ASUG8]