zwaldd, that’s not necessarily the NRA’s viewpoint that’s the SUPREME COURT’s viewpoint (US v. Miller, 1939). If you read the link you posted in context, what the NRA is (rather clearly) saying is, “This is the test that the Supreme Court has established.”
You might also note this quote from the NRA article: The court also made clear that it was the private arms of these men that were protected.
In point of fact, a study of Miller is somewhat interesting. John Ross has a dramatization of it in Unintended Consequences, in which the facts are laid out: Miller owned a sawn-off shotgun, got busted for it, and the case ended up in front of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the defendants had evaporated (one dead, the other gone) and their lawyer didn’t want to bother with it since he figured that the SC would affirm the appeals court’s ruling that the law was unconstitutional anyway. Instead, since the defense didn’t present any evidence to the SC, the SC ruled in the government’s favor on the case (they may have done so anyway, but with no opposing view presented, they had no real choice as I understand it).
Had evidence been presented, it would have probably gone like this:
[LIST=1]
[li]The firearm type has been used by the military in warfare operations (e.g., WW I), and therefore it is of military use.[/li][li]The law is therefore contradicting the Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear military weapons in the Second Amendment, and so the law is unconstitutional and hence void.[/li][li]Hi Opal![/LIST=1][/li]–
“The man had a point. In fact, he had a whole sword.”
I didn’t threaten you, sir. I simply pointed out that by creating a completely false “either/or” situation in your argument, you are opening yourself up for criticism.
Of course it would. So would a tiger. So what?
It doesn’t. However, as Mr. Achmed pointed out above, the SCOTUS does. The reasoning, I believed, is that a sawed-off shotgun is UNNECESSARY, as a normal-length shotgun does the same job, with the only advantage being CONCEALABILITY with no added gain in potential protection or operation. This concealability is not needed for legitimate uses of the firearm, but makes the illegitimate use far more easier.
Mr. Zwaldd, you still seem to be operating under an “All or Nothing” mindset with regards to gun control, which is folly. I would suggest you drop it if you wish to accomplish anything.
well, the NRA follows the law of the land. US v. Miller stated that a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18" is not a “military weapon” and therefore not necessary to the “militia”. The NRA does not advocate violating the law of the land. show me where they do.
I would add that there is no guaranteee of “the right to bear arms for protection against private citizens”. Rather the right simply to bear arms. it was meant not only for the right of protectioon against rogue “citizens” but also against a rogue government.
read the what the framers said. The intent is very, very, very clear…fool!
because it saves time when debating gun issues. the gun control opponent stance is that the preamble to the constitution protects the bill of rights from further amendment.
what’s with you people. call me into the pit if you want. what’s the friggin holdup? a post i made in a gun related pit thread spawned a great debate thread, so why shouldn’t my great debate thread spawn a pit thread?
the nra posted it on its site, so it supports it.
oh spoofe, you make this way too easy. concealable firearms are not protected under the second amendment? so an all out federal handgun ban would be constitutional? see, the problem with using the nra as your sacred gun cow, is that every time you argue one of their positions, you contradict another.
well that’s what i thought, but spoofe said “The 2nd Amendment is designed to ensure that a private citizen can protect himself, whether from other private citizens or from larger entities”. why don’t you two discuss this and decide what exactly the purpose of the second amendment is.
spoofe, are you even trying to defend your interpretation of the second amendment? there’s no consititutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear tigers!
Sure there is, if you consider a tiger to be an “armament”. Fortunately, the rest of the world seems to know the difference between “arms” in general and naming specific weapons individually.
Your argument was that a sawed-off shotgun would be an excellent weapon for self-defense. I agreed. I also pointed out that a tiger (properly trained, of course) also would be an excellent weapon for self defense. So would a crossbow, a broadsword, ten years of training in karate, a laser gun from Star Wars, a bazooka, saran wrap, a Britney Spears CD, and smallpox, among other things.
The point, dear Zwaldd, is that the 2nd Amendment protects “arms”. This has, so far, been translated rationally (for the most part) NOT as “everyone can own every kind of weapon they want”, but as “people have the right to own weapons of defense, WITHIN REASON”.
Pointing out individual weapons that have been banned, and using that as a premise of invalidating the Right to Bear Arms, is a poor argument, as it assumes an “all or nothing” attitude towards gun control.
keep going spoofe, this is priceless. so the second amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear guns? the feds can constitutionally ban guns as long as they allow the citizens the right to bear other arms? like bats, knives and britney spears cd’s? or does it imply the right to own guns, in which case we’re back to trying to figure out why the nra supports the notion that short barreled shotguns are not constitutionally protected.
and yet another caveat is added to what the nra considers a right which is unalterable and beyond interpretation. so if the feds decide ak-47’s are unreasonable, you’d support that? would the nra support it? or should the second amendment be re-written to say ‘keep and bear arms that the nra considers reasonable’? oh, i forgot, the nra says we can’t rewrite or reinterpret the second amendment.
no, just citing the nra’s arguments is enough to invalidate the second amendment. i’m all for the right to bear guns, just not on the nra’s terms. i have real reasons for keeping guns legal, and ideas about how to reduce gun crime that don’t conflict with them (i know you think my ideas don’t have merit but we don’t need to debate them again - we already did that in uncle beer’s registration thread). i just think gun owners need to quit quoting nra rhetoric if they want any credibility outside their own group.
Zwald, have you read US v. Miller? I didn’t think so. If you ever bother to actually read a Supreme Court case that deals with gun control, you will find that the court deemed the sawed off shotgun to be not protected by teh second amendment because it is not the type of weapon that is essential to the operation of a militia. The inference then is that the types of weapons protected are those that ARE essential to a militia.
Now what would those be…hmmmmm…well M-16’s, AK-47’s, Semi Auto 44 mag pistols, Uzi’s, etc.
And as far as arms go, at the time of teh framing of the 2nd, Arms were defined as weapons that could be carried.
But Ex Tank has cited and quoted the support for this about a million times. I am tired of educating those that would rather destroy a constitutional right than read about the issue.
But if you feel like reading some quotes from the Framers and some court cases, visit www.guncite.com here.
You can’t argue the intent o meaning of the second. You can ague that it is obsolete. You can also argue that democracy, free speech and the right to a fair trial are obsolete. Be my guest.
I think this is beginning to get to the heart of the matter, because the word privilege comes from the Latin privus or private, and lege or law. The old fashioned interpretation of privilege was elitist, something the founders avoided from their distance from aristocracy, which enshrined the word “privilege.” The word “rights” is an English idea also used in “birthright” to denote just claim. By simply asking ourselves, “Is this right?” We have placed ourselves squarely in the mindset of the founders. If yes, how? If not, why? Is it a privilege? It can always be conceived as such, but not logically by default. I think the ideals of equality and justice needs to be invoked somewhere. Is it just to lose one’s freedom for possessing a gun to defend oneself against police for reasons that are never adjudicated? That’s what is happening on a daily basis in America, people’s crime or drug sentences are compounded by having a gun and I don’t see the NRA standing up to it.
zwaldd
I’m not in the habit of going to the Pit, but I was unable to determine from your earlier post whether you were suggesting I’m a mindless drone of the Gun Rights camp, or if you were actually offering a helpfull hint.
If you’re calling me a drone, we’re Pit-bound; if you’re trying to be helpfull, well, thanks, but: Rhetoric is usually counter-productive, as it polarizes people into mutually antagonistic camps and limits free discussion of ideas.
All
It’s really very simple:
The Right to Keep And Bear Arms is called out in the Bil of Rights. That makes it a Right, under the Constitution. The Bill of Rights also states the no-one’s Rights may be permitted to trespass on the Rights of others. Gun control legislation and court cases attempt to define the boundary between those two concepts. I’m of the opinion that gun control legislation has gone past the point of protecting others, and started to directly harm MY Constitutional Rights, but that’s another Thread.
The Bill of Rights is afforded special protection, but can be ammended. First, you’d need to amend the Constitution to permit amending the Bill of Rights, then you’d have to directly amend the Bill of Rights. Not likely to happen any time soon, I’d guess.
Opal’s getting lotsa attention in this thread. Hi!
Arguing the point (if there really is one, anymore) from emotion, using extravigant and rather ridculous positions (If you defend the Second Ammendment, then you also want to have TacNukes and kill babies; if you try to control weapons, then you obviously want to turn us all over to the power of the mind-controlled, jack-booted thugs of the Evil Government), you don’t convice anybody of anything except maybe that you’re a dangerous fanatic. That won’t help your cause any.
Then again, this thread isn’t helping anyone resolve the real cause of this debate: Crime. If people wern’t commiting so much (but still rather less that they used to) crime, if no-one was getting killed, there’d be no argument. So, what say we take a look at the real issue here, hmmm?
you didn’t give me a chance to answer. no, i didn’t read it. i just read the quotes the nra deemed relevent enough to include on their site. whatever point you’re trying to make, keep in mind that my reference to the miller case was in answer to spoofe’s comment that the second amendment was designed to arm a militia to protect private citizens against both private citizens and larger entities. since spoofe agreed that a sawed off shotgun would be a good weapon against private citizens, then it would well serve that purpose of the militia, so i don’t see how banning them could be considered constitutional. my argument is that either spoofe’s interpretation is wrong, or the ban of sawed-off shotguns is unconstitutional. and if the ban on sawed-off shotguns is unconstitutional, the fact that the nra doesn’t oppose it is just another log in their bag full of shit.
and if you read my posts very, very carefully, you’ll see that i’m not arguing the meaning of the second amendment. i am simply pointing out contradictions in nra supported arguments.
tranquilis - i was trying to be helpful. i’ve participated in enough of these threads that i know if you say the bill of rights can be altered or amended, someone is going to drag out the preamble and say that it forbids this. i’m not saying i agree with that, just that if you’re going to suggest altering the bill of rights, you may as well throw in that you don’t think the preamble says what the nra thinks it says.
Guns are “arms”, genius. Do you want to debate or not?
THAT HAS BEEN DEALT WITH. What part of “sawed-off shotguns are non-essential” do you not understand? I’ve explained this… since a regular-length shotgun or a handgun would do the same job as a sawed-off shotgun, and since the only advantage gained from having a sawed-off shotgun helps those who with illegitimate gun usage in mind more than it helps legit owners, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED. Now stop going in circles.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Again, you are assuming that the NRA and gun owners in general are unreasonable and unrealistic, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE.
If there was evidence to support the assertion that AK-47’s are unreasonable, yes. Was that so hard to figure out?
What the hell are you talking about? The NRA doesn’t need to say anything. If something is unreasonable, there would be evidence to support that notion. What the NRA believes or doesn’t believe is immaterial in this matter.
The NRA’s argument: “Reasonable gun control”. Since you seem to think that this is an argument AGAINST gun rights, I think it’s safe to conclude that you are an UNREASONABLE PERSON.
YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE NRA’S TERMS ARE!
Oh, you mean the thread that all but proved that your ideas don’t have any merit?
How is “resonable gun control” NRA rhetoric? That’s REASON. That’s RATIONALITY. Again, if you disagree with it, you are unreasonable and irrational.
Actually, I think the preamble is as it’s been represented: A resriction on amending the Bill of Rights, which is why I think it’s gonna take two ammendments if anyone’s going to alter it. Not that I think that’s a good idea. The Bill of Rights was made to be a tough target on purpose, and if we go after it for one purpose, then all the other Rights enshrined therein are vulnerable, as well.
Which is why I say: If you want to resolve this issue, tackle the real problem: Crime and violence. And not from a dogmatic approach, but from a creative, solve-the-issue approach, where we take a hard look at ourselves, and apply the energy and courage required, rather than taking a simplistic one-size-fits-all, throw-away-the-keys approach.
spoofe, a short barreled shotgun is easier to carry and provides better maneuverability and shot spread at close range than a long barreled shot gun. similarly, a handgun is easier to carry and provides better concealability and maneuverability than a rifle in close quarters. so how can you defend banning sawed off shotguns and oppose banning handguns? or do you not oppose banning handguns?
hold on a second. this debate is not a ‘how do we reduce crime’ debate. i started this thread as a debate about inconsistencies in the nra’s interpretation and application of the second amendment. if you want to debate ways to reduce crime and violence, you should open a new thread.
Yes, I oppose banning handguns. And no, I’m not defending the ban of sawed-off shotguns… I’m explaining to you that a ban on sawed-off shotguns does NOT nullify the second amendment!
The reason a sawed-off shotgun is not necessary is because handguns already fulfill the role that a sawed-off shotgun plays.
As far as I’m concerned there is no comparison between a handgun and a shotgun… a shotgun is not a close-quarters weapon. It is designed to release a spray of pellets that spread out and have a wide coverage at long range. Sure, a shotgun IS effective at short range, but so’s a handgun.
Now, are you going to drop this line of reasoning or not? Because I can assure you that there’s no way in hell you’ll be able to invalidate the 2nd Amendment by grasping onto the sawed-off shotgun ban.
Yeah, you’re right. I’m reluctant to start a thread like that, as I can’t predict how much time I’ll have to participate (Work has periodic surges, sometimes lasting months), and I get pissed when somone launches a thread and walks-away. Anyone have the time and energy? I’ve some nifty ideas for really controversial GD Threads…
Anyway, I think this thread has reached stalemate. I’m outta here.
i agree. what it nullifies is your notion that one of the purposes of the “militia” is personal protection from private citizens. and if that’s null, then we’re back to arguing that the 2nd amendment is no longer capable of fulfilling its purpose. take the branch davidians for example. they were about as armed as a civilian group could expect to be, excersizing their second amendment rights to the letter, and were no match for a handful of agents using weapons and technology that don’t even put a dent in what the military is capable of.
i’m sorry, did you say both of these things in the same post?
ok, i’m going to make an analogy here and risk setting myself up for more implications of idiocy. here goes: a sawed off shotgun is to a handgun as a regular barreled shotgun is to a rifle. both sawed off and regular shotguns have relatively short range and require less precise aiming, as opposed to their rifled barreled counterparts. in a short range gun fight, i would much rather be armed with a sawed off shotgun than a handgun. for the purposes of a militia, if a federal ban on short barreled shotguns is validated by the legality of handguns, then a ban on long barreled shotguns could be validated by the existence of rifles.
