Justice Stevens Says Gun Ownership a Threat to Our Constitutional Structure

Great Debates
121

Then why did you bring up the hand grenade strawman? Surely you understand the technology of how it works? Or how firearms work?

OK!

For arguments sake, let’s say I find your postings on a message board to cause mental and emotional harm to me - generically speaking, recognized in both criminal and civil law as valid forms of “harm” which a person can suffer as a result of the actions of another. Liberals who back Roe v. Wade frequently bring up mental and emotional harm as valid and recognized forms of harm which mandate remedy, after all. The same with hate speech.

Your postings affect me and others. If they cause mental and emotional harm then your postings need to be restricted. And like you said, I have a say in it.

Stepping away from Free Speech and looking towards the Free Press…taking your example, any yo-yo can post on a message board and use their ignorance and/or malice to cause emotional and mental harm. I don’t think the founding fathers could have ever envisioned an internet, let alone a message board where people can instantaneously spread their mental and emotional damage across not just the US but the whole damn planet. That sort of power would have been on the order of the supernatural, so it clearly was not in their intent to allow this.

You do however maintain the right to operate your own hand-cranked printing press at home. Go nuts with it.

122

Therefore, he is has to be saying that the other 9 of the Bill of Rights should also not be guaranteed.

Seems to me, that if none of the Bill of Rights are applicable to the states, that a lot of changes need to be made.

Shouldnt his logic also apply to the later amendments as well as the first 10/Bill of Rights? There is nothing magic in “10”. Does he think that the 14th amendment, and the 19th amendment also are not applicable to the states?

Is this guy crazy? …or just stupid?

123

The fact of the matter is, that history has proved that a a lot of people have been murdered by their own government, in a lot of different countries, in the past century, there have also been several military coups in the world in the past 100 years. It has not been just an empty “threat”, but it has been an actual danger.

The founding fathers knew quite well that a central government, or a national military, could always be a danger to an unarmed populace, and that was one of the main reasons for having the Second Amendment.

As far as your “worry” comment, I suspect that it is the unarmed peoples in other countries who should be doing most of the worrying. I can remember over the past 80 years, that it was the people in OTHER!!! countries that did a lot more worrying about their own safety than armed Americans.

124

Hit close to home I guess.

125

Did you mention Hitler a few posts back?

Was there a SCOTUS ruling on Goodwin recently that I’m not aware of? It’s the second time in a week Hitler got a nod.

126

If you really want to talk about Hitler… I think Hitler denied gun rights to the Jews.

Is that the point that you want to accentuate?

127

Originally Posted by emacknight
Did you mention Hitler a few posts back?
Was there a SCOTUS ruling on Goodwin recently that I’m not aware of? It’s the second time in a week Hitler got a nod.

Oh, did you need me to tell you how that turned out?

128

You keep calling it a strawman argument to avoid actually responding to the question. I am not misrepresenting your argument (which would be a strawman) but rather making my own argument which you avoid addressing by improperly proclaiming it to be a strawman argument.

I have already spelled this out. “Arms” means weapons by definition (cite already provided). The Founding Fathers were not specific on what weapons people are allowed to keep. They just said “arms”.

Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas (not sure about the rest) are originalists when it comes to constitutional interpretation. They seek to figure out what the FF’s meant when they wrote the constitution and to those two (at least) that should be the current law that obtains today till it is changed via another Amendment.

So, when the FF’s wrote the constitution were there any weapons, any at all of any type, which were prohibited to a citizen? IIRC some citizens owned cannons. Private ships often went armed to the teeth. Prospectors would use explosives that I seriously doubt were regulated. Name one weapon that Joe Citizen could not privately own in 1791.

So, following the interpretation of SCOTUS justices the 2nd Amendment, as written, allows the citizens access to any weapon whatsoever. That is apparently what the FFs meant if we go with the current interpretation that “militia” in there is essentially meaningless rhetoric.

Thankfully even Scalia and Thomas cannot avoid the realities that many of today’s weapons should not be available to the general public. So, they draw a line and say “these are ok, those are not ok”. It is an arbitrary line.

Now, it was you (more than once I might add) who was careful to note there is a right to “effective” self defense. I believe that was a careful choice of words to head off someone saying why not use a baseball bat or something to defend yourself.

So, you have a continuum of weapons out there in the world. Everything from a rock or pointy stick to a nuclear weapon. They have varying effectiveness in varying situations. You have a right to an “effective” (remember your word) means of self defense. The FF’s forbid you nothing in the law as they understood it (which again I point out is an interpretation held to by some SCOTUS justices).

This brings us to you having access to hand grenades or machine guns or bazookas or what-have-you. The line drawn is arbitrary on what you are allowed to have and what you aren’t. Since it is arbitrary and since the FFs did not contemplate prohibiting any particular weapon and since you have a right to effective self defense then how is it ok to deny you machine guns or hand grenades or whatever?

Sure in some situations a handgun is more effective than a machine gun but so too in other situations a machine gun would be more effective. Heck, go the other way, in some situations a stun gun may be more effective. You do not know ahead of time what you will face so you should be allowed to have whatever is out there that can provide for your “effective” defense because it is your right.

If you deem machine guns or hand grenades as going too far to allow the general public to have then why can’t I deem a handgun as too far?

(I will respond to your second part in another post…this one got too long.)

129

The question has been answered twice, by me.

Post 111:

Post 115:

The decision on what constitutes “arms” in a legal sense was made in 1934. You may own certain weapons under extremely tight controls (Destructive Devices, as defined, Short-Barreled Shotguns and Rifles, Full-Automatic Weapons) under the constraint of the National Firearms Act. So why are you wasting so much time trying to force an issue that has long since been decided?

You may own a grenade. It’s that simple.

130

The point is what restrictions are ok under the 2nd Amendment? I’m all for placing handguns under the same restrictions you note for hand grenades. Yet gun advocates cry foul at such restrictions being imposed.

You have not answered why it is improper to strengthen restrictions on handguns to that level and is what I was exploring in my previous post. The lines drawn are arbitrary and such restrictions were not contemplated by the FFs which is who gave you the right to bear arms.

131

Just about anything can be owned by citizens at the federal level, given the proper paperwork is completed and taxes/fees paid. The states all either abide by ATFE rules or they make their own. It is improper to strengthen restrictions on handguns to these levels in my opinion because I feel that the restrictions upon machine guns, SBRs, AOWs, etc. are already too stiff.

132

I think you are confusing the Firearms act of 1934, with the 1968 GCA and with the explosives act of 1970.

Prior to 1934, any American citizen could own ANYTHING, any weapon imaginable. No weapons were illegal. Prior to 1934 you/anybody could buy a sawed off shotgun thru the Sears cataloge. The Founding Fathers never outlawed any weapon, and they never even thought about doing it.

And yes, prior to 1934 some private American citizens own fully armed battleships/warships (the most powerful weapons on the planet at the time) and nobody gave it a second thought.

In 1934, only a very few specific types of weapons were restricted/taxed, for example: Sawed off shotguns, machine guns, etc.-----------but most weapons, most military weapons such as bazookas, mortars, grenades, etc were still perfectly legal.

Geerally speaking, non-explosive military weapons became restricted/taxed with the 1968 Gun Control Act. Prior to 1968, anybody could buy working mortars, bazookas, Sherman tanks, artillary guns, whatever, including live explosive rockets/ammunition, as well as the ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns, thru the U.S. Mail with no registration no nothing other than the money to buy them with.

It was not until 1970 that explosives/dynamite/etc. per se, became restricted. Prior to 1970, anybody could go into a hardware store and buy as much dynamite as he wanted. (My own family occasionally used dynamite on tree stumps, and we bought dynamite at our local hardware store )

133

The National Firearms Act was tested in US v. Miller in 1939. In that case the NFA was upheld because the Supreme Court created a test of sorts, the “common use” test.

From Miller:

Now, the collective rights model that Miller supported has been overturned, but the concept of arms in common use has not been. The current Supreme Court has endorsed that view with the Heller decision and reinforced it with this decision.

The only way you’re going to get the control over handguns that you seem to want is to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, the odds of which are only slightly north of zero.

134

Heller gives one very specific example of a weapon which is definitely protected by the 2nd Amendment. That weapon is a handgun. Aside from that I do not believe any other line was drawn by Heller to that level of specificity.

True. I used the word “effective” to stave off the shopworn SDMB mule of “but a baseball bat is just as effective as a shotgun - even at 100 yards!” or “why not just engage the rapist in a round of fisticuffs and give the bloke a right sound thrashing! Toodle pip!” Or better still, “I’m a BIG MAN, and not a scared little girl who needs a metal penis. I’ll shove your gun up your ass! No way am I a bitter loser!”

I’ve given examples of how I differentiate among weapons which could be used.

You read waaaaaaay too much into the word “effective” and not enough into my specific examples of area weapons and high explosives versus individual weapons.

I did not put machine guns and hand grenades into exactly the same basket. In fact, my quote was:

AFAIK the NFA license for a fully-automatic weapon is much easier to obtain than the license for a destructive device such as a hand grenade.

135

My “Jane’s” must have a misprint.

Could I get a cite?

136

I agree a new Amendment on this is exceptionally unlikely.

As I already noted though all I need is a sympathetic SCOTUS. Doubt I will see it in my lifetime but clearly the SCOTUS does change its mind from time-to-time and it might do so on this. Or they might not but the possibility is more real than a new Amendment.

137

Nope. It’s the same Form 4, the same sign-off, and the same $200 tax. The only difference is the reluctance of a Chief Law Enforcement Officer to sign off on it, and that can be overcome via a firearms trust.

138

I disagree. This time it’s different. As recently as 3 years ago you’d be right on point, but for them to “change their minds” now they would have to take aim on an Incorporated Amendment. I cannot think of an Amendment that has been abrogated or otherwise restricted in a manner you propose once it has been Incorporated.

139

I think you need to look closer at the Miller case.

The Miller decision upheld the outlawing of sawed off shotguns, BECAUSE sawed off shotguns were not considered to be “military enough” and sawed off shotguns were not used by our military - at the time.

They did not outlaw sawed off shotguns because shotguns were so terrible, they outlawed sawed off shotguns because they didnt think they were effective enough to be used in a military way, and that sawed off shotguns were not: “military weapons”.

============================================================
On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

  1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
  2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
  3. **The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons **appropriate for use in an organized militia.
  4. The “double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230” was never used in any militia organization.
140

Not so sure about this.

They will not outright ban guns but they may deem greater restrictions as ok.

Abortion rights are constantly under this pressure and are more circumscribed than they once were. The 6th and 8th amendments are not what they once were.

Ya never know.