What limitations to the Second Amendment are acceptable to you?

[IndyDave1776]

that's probably my only limit.

I approve of this image.

(Looks at avatar)... I can see why

Philosophically I agree, but am left with the problem that the same argument (albeit far more reasonably applied) for prohibiting nuclear weapons is the very one used to justify prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and/or 'high capacity' magazines.

 

[jamil]

Philosophically I agree, but am left with the problem that the same argument (albeit far more reasonably applied) for prohibiting nuclear weapons is the very one used to justify prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and/or 'high capacity' magazines.

The arguments may be the same, but the logical outcome is different. Both arguments, against scary black rifles and against nukes, rely on the notion that the societal threat posed by either is greater than the rights of individuals to own either, for legitimate purposes, e.i., not to harm people, intentionally or otherwise.

So the two best points I've encountered supporting the "societal threat" argument against evil black rifles are these:

1. Given their lethality and capacity, deranged people *could* use them to harm many people in a short time. david890 rather unsuccessfully argued this very point. These mass shootings that happen frequently, where lone gunmen use "assault rifles" to kill as many people as possible, would arguably have been less effective if the only available firearms had lower capacities and lower rates of fire.
2. The high availability of these types of firearms make them widely available to the "streets". Dry up the supply of guns by banning all but a few, and you dry up the supply of scary black guns on "the streets".

Of course being the best points they have doesn't mean they're actually good points. Both these points rely on the societal threat argument against the individual right to own. To make that argument stick, one would need to prove that the right exercised inherently does more harm than good. In other words, I would probably be less fussy about having semi-autos banned if I faced a constant, higher than not likelihood of being shot by one, even if I owned one myself. (And of course in that fictional world, I would also have to be convinced that if these were banned, criminals would no longer be able to get them)

And that's the problem with using that argument. The actual statistics betray their sophistry. Tens of millions of gun owners own these kinds of firearms, yet the murders committed with any kind of rifle, let alone the scary black ones, are less than 300 per year. That's literally less than one in a million and that doesn't even separate out just the rifles they want to ban!

The societal threat argument against semi-auto rifles falls flat on its face. Lethality and capacity and number of guns "on the streets" are all irrelevant points against the right to own them, when owning them clearly doesn't show any actual societal threat.

So, a more successful "societal threat" case can be made against allowing individuals to own nukes. What resources must one have to even own nukes without putting themselves in great danger, let alone, everyone else around them? And not that I think resources should be a universal determinant for a right. But there clearly exists a point where resources matter. Bubba in the trailer park just isn't going to have the resources not to be an eminent threat to his whole community. A weapon can be so deadly that a case can be made that they clearly go beyond the point of an individual right to own them.

Even though the arguments against both are pretty much the same, the logical outcome rests on whether individual ownership actually, necessarily infringes on other people's rights. I don't think that case can be made against any firearm. I don't think the case can be made against tanks or fighter jets or battleships. But for nuclear and biological weapons, I think is a clearer case against those than all the rest.

 

[Bill of Rights]

For me, the difference is that one is an "arm", the other is "ordnance". While the cannon and ships of the late 1700s were privately owned, the cost was prohibitive for most, and yes, the right depended on the resources, but only to the extent that if you could pay for it, you could own it, where if you could not, you had to depend on others for that level of defense. Conditionally, I don't disagree with the rationale that Trailer Park Bubba could wipe out his whole town, not just his whole trailer park, with NBC weapons, but the slope gets very slippery when you acknowledge that, because the next question is "how many lives does he have to be able to end to make a weapon "prohibited"?" If Bubba takes his suitcase nuke out to the middle of the desert, out of proximity of anyone else, thus removing the threat to others, why could he not detonate it? Suppose he has a Hellfire warhead? Could he keep that in his trailer? What about a flamethrower?

When we go down the road of prohibiting objects irrespective of their use, we fall into the antis' trap. Better to focus on use than on description, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

The arguments may be the same, but the logical outcome is different. Both arguments, against scary black rifles and against nukes, rely on the notion that the societal threat posed by either is greater than the rights of individuals to own either, for legitimate purposes, e.i., not to harm people, intentionally or otherwise.

So the two best points I've encountered supporting the "societal threat" argument against evil black rifles are these:

1. Given their lethality and capacity, deranged people *could* use them to harm many people in a short time. david890 rather unsuccessfully argued this very point. These mass shootings that happen frequently, where lone gunmen use "assault rifles" to kill as many people as possible, would arguably have been less effective if the only available firearms had lower capacities and lower rates of fire.
2. The high availability of these types of firearms make them widely available to the "streets". Dry up the supply of guns by banning all but a few, and you dry up the supply of scary black guns on "the streets".

Of course being the best points they have doesn't mean they're actually good points. Both these points rely on the societal threat argument against the individual right to own. To make that argument stick, one would need to prove that the right exercised inherently does more harm than good. In other words, I would probably be less fussy about having semi-autos banned if I faced a constant, higher than not likelihood of being shot by one, even if I owned one myself. (And of course in that fictional world, I would also have to be convinced that if these were banned, criminals would no longer be able to get them)

And that's the problem with using that argument. The actual statistics betray their sophistry. Tens of millions of gun owners own these kinds of firearms, yet the murders committed with any kind of rifle, let alone the scary black ones, are less than 300 per year. That's literally less than one in a million and that doesn't even separate out just the rifles they want to ban!

The societal threat argument against semi-auto rifles falls flat on its face. Lethality and capacity and number of guns "on the streets" are all irrelevant points against the right to own them, when owning them clearly doesn't show any actual societal threat.

So, a more successful "societal threat" case can be made against allowing individuals to own nukes. What resources must one have to even own nukes without putting themselves in great danger, let alone, everyone else around them? And not that I think resources should be a universal determinant for a right. But there clearly exists a point where resources matter. Bubba in the trailer park just isn't going to have the resources not to be an eminent threat to his whole community. A weapon can be so deadly that a case can be made that they clearly go beyond the point of an individual right to own them.

Even though the arguments against both are pretty much the same, the logical outcome rests on whether individual ownership actually, necessarily infringes on other people's rights. I don't think that case can be made against any firearm. I don't think the case can be made against tanks or fighter jets or battleships. But for nuclear and biological weapons, I think is a clearer case against those than all the rest.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For me, the difference is that one is an "arm", the other is "ordnance". While the cannon and ships of the late 1700s were privately owned, the cost was prohibitive for most, and yes, the right depended on the resources, but only to the extent that if you could pay for it, you could own it, where if you could not, you had to depend on others for that level of defense. Conditionally, I don't disagree with the rationale that Trailer Park Bubba could wipe out his whole town, not just his whole trailer park, with NBC weapons, but the slope gets very slippery when you acknowledge that, because the next question is "how many lives does he have to be able to end to make a weapon "prohibited"?" If Bubba takes his suitcase nuke out to the middle of the desert, out of proximity of anyone else, thus removing the threat to others, why could he not detonate it? Suppose he has a Hellfire warhead? Could he keep that in his trailer? What about a flamethrower?

When we go down the road of prohibiting objects irrespective of their use, we fall into the antis' trap. Better to focus on use than on description, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

Isn't that what he's saying? In that summation, in that last paragraph?

I believe the argument at hand here is: if I can buy it or build it, possess it, store it, transport it, use it for its designed purpose, without the likelihood of harming myself or others and not leaving behind residue or materials that cannot be readily and completely cleaned up, then whose business is it?

The one plausible weakness here is that there are those that will complain about lead contamination.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Isn't that what he's saying? In that summation, in that last paragraph?

I believe the argument at hand here is: if I can buy it or build it, possess it, store it, transport it, use it for its designed purpose, without the likelihood of harming myself or others and not leaving behind residue or materials that cannot be readily and completely cleaned up, then whose business is it?

The one plausible weakness here is that there are those that will complain about lead contamination.

That and they'll say that the inherent intended use of a firearm includes or even is defined by the likelihood of harming others; that that is its defined purpose. They say this, intentionally obfuscating the fact that those WE use them against are the ones initiating force. To some, it matters not a whit that Trayvon Martin was first to use force, and that Zimmerman answered that force successfully. i don't know if FL law addresses provocation or if, like Texas was when I was growing up there, the law did not recognize the concept of "fighting words". (Action being included in provocation, not in words)

Maybe not the best example, but the first that comes to mind.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

For me, the difference is that one is an "arm", the other is "ordnance". While the cannon and ships of the late 1700s were privately owned, the cost was prohibitive for most, and yes, the right depended on the resources, but only to the extent that if you could pay for it, you could own it, where if you could not, you had to depend on others for that level of defense. Conditionally, I don't disagree with the rationale that Trailer Park Bubba could wipe out his whole town, not just his whole trailer park, with NBC weapons, but the slope gets very slippery when you acknowledge that, because the next question is "how many lives does he have to be able to end to make a weapon "prohibited"?" If Bubba takes his suitcase nuke out to the middle of the desert, out of proximity of anyone else, thus removing the threat to others, why could he not detonate it? Suppose he has a Hellfire warhead? Could he keep that in his trailer? What about a flamethrower?

When we go down the road of prohibiting objects irrespective of their use, we fall into the antis' trap. Better to focus on use than on description, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

About "ordinance". What about "cop killer" bullets? That's ordinance. Humor me for a moment and lets pretend "cop killer" is not just a bunch of hyperbole. We'll also assume that if someone owns the ordinance that they also own the means to deliver it, anywhere from rifle to missile. Is it possible for trailer park Bubba to own armor piercing bullets without harming people or property by accident or on purpose? Certainly. It's in fact, probable. Is it possible for Bubba to own a nuke without harming people or property? We don't have to justify it with numbers. If he can't own it without harming his neighbor or his neighbor's trailer, I think there's a case there to say he can't have a nuke. That case doesn't exist for all weapons. Only the ones that can't be owned without harming others.

Isn't that what he's saying? In that summation, in that last paragraph?

I believe the argument at hand here is: if I can buy it or build it, possess it, store it, transport it, use it for its designed purpose, without the likelihood of harming myself or others and not leaving behind residue or materials that cannot be readily and completely cleaned up, then whose business is it?

The one plausible weakness here is that there are those that will complain about lead contamination.

What I'm saying is that it shouldn't matter what the purpose of the object is. The only cause "society" has to prohibit free exercise is when that something necessarily causes harm. I don't like the way I said that but I don't want to take the time to make it better. I'll just assume you can infer what I meant. There are very few weapons that would fit into the concept I'm describing. Really, about the only ones I can think of are nukes, bioweapons, maybe depleted uranium, but I'll admit I don't know enough about it to say.

And on the "lead" issue, there are ways to protect people and property from lead contamination.

That and they'll say that the inherent intended use of a firearm includes or even is defined by the likelihood of harming others; that that is its defined purpose. They say this, intentionally obfuscating the fact that those WE use them against are the ones initiating force. To some, it matters not a whit that Trayvon Martin was first to use force, and that Zimmerman answered that force successfully. i don't know if FL law addresses provocation or if, like Texas was when I was growing up there, the law did not recognize the concept of "fighting words". (Action being included in provocation, not in words)

Maybe not the best example, but the first that comes to mind.

Blessings,
Bill

I think we need to argue the logic of all that. Laws should not be based on emotional arguments.

But one contention I have with what you said: there is no such thing as an inherent use of a firearm. I have a leatherman multi-tool. What's its inherent use? Whatever the hell I need to use it for at the time. A firearm is kinda in the same category. Some guns are better suited for some purposes. But largely, my guns are multipurpose tools/recreational devices. If I were into hunting, I could do that. I could target shoot. I could compete. I could protect myself/family. I could learn to twirl a cowboy gun on my finger while standing in my underware in front of the mirror, like Indiucky.

So that kinda brings up something I hear from gun control zealots, that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people. I'm sure you've heard that bit of bull**** too. So next time ask them this: If that's the only purpose then why are you not dead? 100 million Americans own ~340 million firearms. We're not all bad shots. Why aren't you dead? Certainly, with that ownership rate, if the only purpose for firearms were to kill people, you'd have been shot by now. We all would. Instead, apparently those ~100 million gun owners seem to find many other purposes for firearms other than to kill people.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm using "ordnance" to mean stuff beyond what a cop or a soldier would normally carry. Missles, bombs, DU shells, 20mm cannon, etc. You expect to see those guys carrying handguns and rifles and appropriate ammo.

As to the inherent use, cutting to brass tacks, it's "to propel by explosive charge a projectile in a given direction. Let's not kid ourselves, though- they're designed to destroy whatever they're fired at. (Do not point a gun at anything you do not want to destroy.)

Your leatherman can be used to build things. A firearm tears things apart. That's what we like about them- they rip up targets on the range, and they tear up those who initiate force against us unlawfully, in self defense.

I think we're saying mostly the same things here.

Blessings,
Bill

About "ordinance". What about "cop killer" bullets? That's ordinance. Humor me for a moment and lets pretend "cop killer" is not just a bunch of hyperbole. We'll also assume that if someone owns the ordinance that they also own the means to deliver it, anywhere from rifle to missile. Is it possible for trailer park Bubba to own armor piercing bullets without harming people or property by accident or on purpose? Certainly. It's in fact, probable. Is it possible for Bubba to own a nuke without harming people or property? We don't have to justify it with numbers. If he can't own it without harming his neighbor or his neighbor's trailer, I think there's a case there to say he can't have a nuke. That case doesn't exist for all weapons. Only the ones that can't be owned without harming others.



What I'm saying is that it shouldn't matter what the purpose of the object is. The only cause "society" has to prohibit free exercise is when that something necessarily causes harm. I don't like the way I said that but I don't want to take the time to make it better. I'll just assume you can infer what I meant. There are very few weapons that would fit into the concept I'm describing. Really, about the only ones I can think of are nukes, bioweapons, maybe depleted uranium, but I'll admit I don't know enough about it to say.

And on the "lead" issue, there are ways to protect people and property from lead contamination.



I think we need to argue the logic of all that. Laws should not be based on emotional arguments.

But one contention I have with what you said: there is no such thing as an inherent use of a firearm. I have a leatherman multi-tool. What's its inherent use? Whatever the hell I need to use it for at the time. A firearm is kinda in the same category. Some guns are better suited for some purposes. But largely, my guns are multipurpose tools/recreational devices. If I were into hunting, I could do that. I could target shoot. I could compete. I could protect myself/family. I could learn to twirl a cowboy gun on my finger while standing in my underware in front of the mirror, like Indiucky.

So that kinda brings up something I hear from gun control zealots, that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people. I'm sure you've heard that bit of bull**** too. So next time ask them this: If that's the only purpose then why are you not dead? 100 million Americans own ~340 million firearms. We're not all bad shots. Why aren't you dead? Certainly, with that ownership rate, if the only purpose for firearms were to kill people, you'd have been shot by now. We all would. Instead, apparently those ~100 million gun owners seem to find many other purposes for firearms other than to kill people.

 

[MTC]

..."ordnance" to mean stuff beyond what a cop or a soldier would normally carry...

Agree and ... go on.

 

[jamil]

Wait. Why can't I have a 20mm cannon?

 

[rugertoter]

I would eliminate the following words from the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

I agree. This is the part that the anti-gun lobby uses all the time, trying to say that it means the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard and such....we all know this is crap, and refers to the wording of the day. Gun owning Americans are the Militia, not some reserves that came about years down the road. I wish this part was not in there, and it just said "the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed".

 

[Bill of Rights]

Wait. Why can't I have a 20mm cannon?

I didn't say you can't. I just said that was the type of thing a soldier or cop was unlikely to carry as normal equipment.

Look back up, I said I'm not keen on regulating objects by what they are, but by how they are used by the person in question.

I will say that I was posting that (re the 20mm cannon) from my phone, during a short lull last night. Truth, it probably should not have been in that post. Mea culpa.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

I didn't say you can't. I just said that was the type of thing a soldier or cop was unlikely to carry as normal equipment.

Look back up, I said I'm not keen on regulating objects by what they are, but by how they are used by the person in question.

I will say that I was posting that (re the 20mm cannon) from my phone, during a short lull last night. Truth, it probably should not have been in that post. Mea culpa.

Blessings,
Bill

No worries. I should have just acknowledged what you said at the end about saying the same things. In stead I opted to poke some fun.

 

[Shalashaska]

I'm OK with background checks at the state level.

 

[KLB]

I'm OK with background checks at the state level.

Because they are so useful?

 

[jamil]

Because they are so useful?

Didn't Indiana have statewide universal background checks for years, and then ended them because they were so useful? Indiana loves gun violence, after all.

 

[RMC]

I look at how the 2nd Amendment could be changed and what steps could lead up to it. Many believe that the definitions of the terms used had different meanings and ramifications back then than they do now. Another point is back then the firearms were single shot muzzle loaders, not the semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacities that can be changed in a second like we have today. I don't believe the 2nd Amendment suggests anything about OC or CC and whichever one prefers shouldn't matter. However, many of the terms in the Bill of Rights is open to interpretation and whoever is appointed to the Supreme Court has a direct impact on what that interpretation will be. If it is deemed that people have a right to feel secure in their surroundings is Constitutional and the sight of a firearm jeopardizes that then the 2nd Amendment as we know it is in jeopardy if the majority of Justices are anti-gun. I believe as it is now, only one more anti-gun Justice is needed to cause concern for gun owners. Unfortunately, we don't have a say in the matter except we CAN vote for a President that hopefully will not appoint an anti-gun Justice.

 

[RMC]

THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

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.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[jamil]

I look at how the 2nd Amendment could be changed and what steps could lead up to it. Many believe that the definitions of the terms used had different meanings and ramifications back then than they do now. Another point is back then the firearms were single shot muzzle loaders, not the semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacities that can be changed in a second like we have today. I don't believe the 2nd Amendment suggests anything about OC or CC and whichever one prefers shouldn't matter. However, many of the terms in the Bill of Rights is open to interpretation and whoever is appointed to the Supreme Court has a direct impact on what that interpretation will be. If it is deemed that people have a right to feel secure in their surroundings is Constitutional and the sight of a firearm jeopardizes that then the 2nd Amendment as we know it is in jeopardy if the majority of Justices are anti-gun. I believe as it is now, only one more anti-gun Justice is needed to cause concern for gun owners. Unfortunately, we don't have a say in the matter except we CAN vote for a President that hopefully will not appoint an anti-gun Justice.

That's really the crux. It is a fundamental shift from negative rights to positive rights.

 

[RMC]

.

 

[Shalashaska]

Because they are so useful?

This is operating under the assumtion that there's a coherent, working system, not the mess we have today