Limitations on Personal Armament

Great Debates
1

It is with great apprehension that I post this, ya’ll just be civil to each other.

The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

The Supreme Court has chosen to interpret this to mean the rights of the individual to bear arms, whether one belongs to a “well regulated militia” or not.

Fair enough.

My question does not deal with with the constitutionality of this interpretation, but rather our view of what it means to “bear arms”. The most powefual weapons known to the founding fathers were cannons, and I seriously doubt the framers of the constitution would have batted an eye at the prospect of a private citizen owning one. However, weapons technology has advanced considerably since the second amendment was written.

Nowadays, not all forms of armament are legal for a private citizen to possess. What are the legal issues inherent in banning some weapons, but not all? What are the moral issues? Where should the line be drawn?

I would be highly upset if the feds took my shotgun.

I would also be highly nervous if my neighbors acquired a cache of surface to air missiles or started planting claymores along their property line.
Thoughts?
[sub]If I don’t post again to this thread tonight, it means I’ve gone home and I’ll get back to it tomorrow[/sub]

-Beeblebrox

An RW6 was the sort of thing you only saw in the sort of magazines that were designed to provoke civil unrest.

2

One quick comment (because I have to stop for the night as well): When we talk about “drawing a line”, which I agree must be drawn, we should remember that we’re drawing this particular line on a moving landscape. Technologies continually advance, in weapons design and manufacture as well as security devices and armor. Socioeconomic and political conditions change, conceivably creating needs or insecurities that weren’t a factor before in various areas.

I think it’s far less important where we draw the line today as it is how we draw that line, and how we enable ourselves to evaluate and change that line when we must. ('S why I’m such a big fan of representative democracies.)

3

I say draw the line at kitchen knives. For those who feel the need for the penis-extension that a gun provides, there are now surgeons who can cater to your feelings of inadequacy.

4

Could you be any more ignorant or offensive there, mhendo? :rolleyes:

To the OP: It should be noted that the majority of anti-GUN legislation are not opposed to the restricting of armaments such as Missiles, claymores, armed tanks, nuclear warheads (just in case someone asks why a civilian can’t own one), or other military ordinance.

5

Following the opposite extreme, I say we require everyone to have a nuclear weapon strapped to their body at all times, and for those who are cowardly wimps who can’t control their childish fears, there are psychological programs you can enter so you will not become panicky around things that make loud noises.

Anyway, back in the world of reality…

I’ve always said that we should maximize the freedoms of responsible people, and those that prove themselves irresponsible have their freedom appropriately diminished (let the punishment fit the crime). NOTE: In a truly free society, we must assume people to be responsible until they prove themselves otherwise.

However, this is not to say that there shouldn’t be restrictions… as a wise, wise man on these boards once said, “It’s the methods we disagree on.”

6

Well, since the First Amendment has been proven just as relevant when considering Televison, radio and the internet, and the Fourth has been ‘expanded’, if you will, to include cars, trucks and airline luggage, I’m gonna side with SPOOFE on this one.

7

Sweet Christ, I’m sorry I will be AFK for the next few days.

Basically, it’s a thornier question than it seems. I posted at length - well, at great length actually - how I felt the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow for the individual person to keep and bear arms, and of the historical basis for this. And others focused on how the States should be permitted to be allowed to restrict/unrestrict as they see fit. I also posted about the way to have the Constitution account for changing times (Amendment), without using politically-driven judicial activism to re-interpret selectively the Constitution.

The simple truth is (Elvis, take note), is that the 2nd Amendment, IMO, does in fact need to be changed. Yes, I spent all that time arguing with people who refused to even look at the facts and historical basis (and who certainly would never give an inch, or admit they were wtong on any “factual” post they make that is refuted…but I digress), over what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was.

But can a 2nd Amendment as created originally exist unaltered today? IMO, no. If you accept the clear and unambiguous intent of the Amendment, based on history (IMO, mind you), then you also have to accept that it really does open the door to weapons of mass destruction being available to many people who simply should not be allowed within a mile of them.

There are two ways in which I see this can be done while still allowing for an individual right to keep and bear arms.

First - Amend the Constitution to clearly and unambiguously spell out which sorts of “arms” an individual should be allowed to have in a society that is somewhat safe. I can just imagine the debates in Congress and the States over this one…

Or, Amend the Constitution to give the States the power to decide which sorts of “arms” an individual should be allowed to have.

Personally, I prefer the second option, so long as the Amendment prohibits the States from completely elimintating arms used for the lawful purposes of self defense, sport, hunting, or any other activity where the goal of said activity is not to cause harm to law-abiding citizens. Yeah, I know, hardly clear and unambiguous language there.

Anyhow - wish I could be around for this one.

8

That’s what the Supreme Court is for. I recall Cecil running a column on this subject a while back, so I decided to do some research on my own. Amongst the multitudinous ravings of gun nuts on the web, I found cites to the SCOTUS case. As I recall it (and amidst the gun nut cacophony I might have constructed this incorrectly) there was a major case about this back in the 1930s or so. The plaintiff argued that the constitution provided for any weapon that would have been carried for use as a personal infantry weapon in a conventional army. That meant sawed off shotguns, submachine guns, grenade launchers, etc. It looked like the court was prepared to decide in the plaintiff’s favor, but he never showed up for the case and was never heard from again (I like to think he was shot… I like irony). He lost by default. So by that case, we are restricted to non-automatic weapons.

So just be glad we have the restrictions we do, it coulda been worse.

9

Chas.E, the implications and details of that case (US v. Miller) have been discussed here in GD at length (you may know that, I don’t know). There are a few points of yours regarding the case that I would have to take issue with, especially on the conduct of the court in that case, but 1) I have to go, and 2) Others have discussed the case at length here better than I can on short notice, pro and con. Search for “Miller” and “shotgun” in GD and you can find them easily. Sorry I have to run now - there is a Fierra in England that needs lots of sex from her lady, and I must not fail in my duties… :slight_smile:

10

Why do you claim that case restricted us to non-auto weapons? Full-auto weapons are legal now, although the manufacture of new ones for sale to the public isn’t. For that matter, short barrelled shotguns, which is what that case was about, are legal to manufacture if you fill out the right paperwork etc. pass the background check, and pay the tax.

11

**Absolutey. We will back ourselves into a hole if we don’t constantly reinterpret what it means to “bear arms”. More on that in a minute.

**I don’t think the first one will work. Ambiguity is going to be essential to keep up with the changing technologigical landscape. The second proposal is closer to the mark, but transportation across state lines could become a major problem.

I tried to word the O.P. to put as little emphasis on gun control legislation as possible and to emphasize the fact that not all arms are firearms. As the “Information Age” progresses, conventional weapons become less and less relevant in the checks and balances on government. If we stick to a narrow defintion of what constitutes arms, then we risk the possibility of the second amendment losing all meaning. What good is a 12 gauge when a government employee can destroy my life with a few keystrokes in an office a thousand miles away?

The interpretation of the second amendment must take into account non-conventional weapons, such as computer viruses and the like, in order to retain its relevance. This is not to say that all such weapons should be legal, just that we should remember that the second amendment may cover them. I am not sure any law could have the proper wording to address unforeseen changes. The courts may have to be the sole interpreters.

mhendo, your ignorance is showing.

To all others, thank you for your posts. Unfortunately, I will not be able to respond to any posts until Tuesday as I as I am going to St. Simon’s. Unless…

Can I come, darling? :smiley:

[sub]Dear Penthouse Forum, I never thought anything like this would ever happen to me…[/sub]

-Beeblebrox

“So an RW6 is a spaceship, then?”
“Yes! It’s - oh never mind. Look, just get some kind of grip will you, Arthur? Or at least get some kind of catalogue.”

12

My opinion is that the line should be drawn at those weapons which are specifically designed to kill people. Shotguns, rifles and single-action revolvers are okay because they can be used for target practice and hunting as well as self-protection. Forget about automatics, semiautomatics or any weapon which can 1) fire multiple shots in a very short period of time, 2) fire a large number of rounds without reloading, or 3) be easily concealed.

13

I’ve been called ignorant by a couple of people here, and offensive by at least one person. I’ll take the “offensive” tag on the chin, as what i wrote could offend some people. But i would be willing to bet that such people would be no more offended than i am at the stubbornness of those who insist on the right to have a deadly weapon in their house.

As for ignorance, this is a case of pots, kettles, black. I realise that there are a few on this thread who concede the historical contingency of the second amendment and say that it should be updated for modern times. But there are still plenty of ignoramuses around who refuse even to consider such historically-based revision. And even of those that do, their point is often simply to make sure that they’re allowed to keep their gun.

When i say ignorant here, i’m not really talking about what people do and don’t know about the constitution. It’s more about what they are happy to ignore about guns per se.

SPOOFE says:

Well, i realise that you are talking about individuals here, but America is also a society, and one that has pretty much failed to prove itself responsible in implementing its right to bear arms.

I’m sure i don’t need to drag out the comparisons between the US and other countries regarding the number of gun deaths and murders in general. That’s been done on SDMB before. On the other hand, gun toters can have short memories, so here you go.

Or check this out:

Or look at this site and this one for comparative figures also. And for the paranoid out there, the figures collected at the various sites aren’t made up by gun-control ‘freaks’, they are collected by governments and law-enforcement agencies.

While i may not be as well versed in the intricacies of recent court and message board debates over the legal status of the second amendment as others on this thread, i would prefer that sort of ignorance to the type of ignorance that consigns this whole issue to the rarified atmosphere of constitutional law rather than actually taking time to look at the real-world consequences of the gun obsession in the United States.

14

That goes against the intention of the second amendment, I believe. By outlawing the most effective weapons, a government can take away the ability of its people to become a grass-roots fighting force. The citizens would no longer be able to insure their liberty through the use of force, should the need arise.

On a side note, there are some non-lethal weapons which could due extreme damage. I’m thinking of an EMP bomb. Drawing the line at lethality is oversimplistic.

mhendo, I am very familiar with the type of statistics in your post and find the logic behind them flawed. Of course the U.S. has more deaths from firearms than other countries. We have more firearms. We also have more deaths caused by automobiles than Zimbabwe. The comparison is meaningless. Also, no one has mentioned protection from criminals in this thread. Who attacks who is irrelevant. Try to stay on topic.

This is not a typical gun control thread. I have no desire to debate the societal impacts of a tool that is obviously designed for its lethality. What I am trying to do is discuss how the American people can retain their ability to defend themselves against possible tyranny through the use of force in a technological environment that is constantly changing. I believe this ability is important. I also believe that there should be some restrictions so that we don’t end up throwing Sarin bombs at each other.

In my mind, it seems it will be up to the court system. I have not yet decided if judicial based interpretation is sufficient or if we need something more concrete to insure these rights. Does anyone know of a case where the second amendment was applied to something other than a firearm?
-Beeblebrox

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t.

15

It seems to me that if you concede that the US has more firearms deaths because it has more firearms, then you don’t find the logic behind the statistics flawed at all; in fact, you are in full agreement with that logic. Every site i linked to in my last post makes exactly that argument: more guns = more deaths.

I take your point about automobile deaths. The modern obsession with the car is another issue that we could spend a whole thread on. But all i would point out here is that it is no less logical to draw the line somewhere between automobiles and firearms than it is to draw it somewhere between firearms and sarin gas or mobile rocket launchers. The ‘rights’ we are dealing with here are all socially contructed.

You tell me that the issue of criminals is irrelevant, and suggest that i stay on topic. This is your thread, and you can decide what topic you’re interested in, but i find it curious that in the very next paragraph you say:

Surely your reference to defending themselves against “possible tyranny” puts the motivation behind gun ownership front and centre. If by this you mean against domestic tyranny, surely criminals would come into play here. Or are you one of those paranoid paramilitaries who feels the need to arm yourself against your own government? If so, then that is hardly what the second amendment was designed to encourage, attached as it was to a document that constituted the government.

But you don’t seem like one of those paranoid loonies, so i infer that you mean tyranny from outside that might threaten the US? This would be an interpretation much more in line with the second amendment’s original intent. If that is the case, i’m just wondering what you think the US Defence (Defense?) forces are for?

Maybe you are worried about the ability to defend yourself against terrorists who might enter the US? Certainly, the armed forces probably wouldn’t be of much use in such an instance. But then, neither is some local hero with a shotgun. The right to bear arms didn’t stop the World Trade Center bombing in NYC; nor did it stop McVeigh in Oklahoma.

And if you truly believe that the “societal impacts” of weapons can be picked out and separated from discussions of self-defence, the use of force etc., then you’re living in dreamworld. In fact, you obviously don’t believe that they can be separated, because your desire that “we don’t end up throwing Sarin bombs at each other” shows a direct concern with the societal consequences of weapons use. As with my earlier example of where to draw the line (automobiles, guns, gas, etc.), this is another socially constructed demarcation. I really believe that well-intentioned people (as you seem to be, and as i consider myself) can disagree on where these boundaries are drawn, but to choose to leave out consideration of important issues just because they don’t fall in the same place as your line-in-the-sand is a head-in-the-sand attitude.

16

mhendo, son, since you are new here and all, I’ll just give you some friendly advice. Use the search tool to look for past gun threads in GD. You are rehashing ancient, well debunked arguments that every gun-grabbing newbie has posted here many times before. Please read these old threads and at least come up with some new arguments, mkay?

17

To Demise,

I find it interesting that people who constantly appeal to the second amendment (written over 200 years ago) would be worried about whether my arguments are new or not.

I did read the other threads before making my arguments, as my earlier post makes clear. The fact that you may not agree with these arguments doesn’t mean that you have debunked them.

If you believe that an argument’s validity is erased simply because more than one person makes it, or because one person makes it on more than one occasion, then your conception of rational debate is seriously flawed. And if you use the fact that someone is a “newbie” to SDMB as the main criteria for rejecting his or her arguments, then you are even more narrow-minded. Much as i have enjoyed SDMB in the time i have spent here, i, apparently unlike you, am under no illusion that Dopers constitute the whole wealth of human knowledge. And i include myself in that - i make no claim to omniscience

My most recent post to Beeblebrox was really more concerned with setting the terms of the debate than it was with making a particular argument about gun control. While Beeblebrox and i obviously disagree on the issue, at least he wasn’t naive enough to suggest that i had made no effort to look at the issue, nor did he assume that my argument was incorrect simply because i haven’t been around SDMB for very long.

And please don’t call me son; not only is it patronising, but the lack of rational coherence in your criticisms of me indicate that it is unlikely that we are so closely related.

18

Ooo, missed this little gem. This is exactly the reason the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution. What do you think was happening at the time the Constitution was being drafted? A big beach party complete with volley ball? Or just maybe the States were in the process of overthrowing a tyranical goverment. Can you see the relation?

19

When you post cites like these, it is abundantly clear that you have not read past gun-control threads.

20

mhendo, this is not to second what Demise said, but I think you might do well to tone down your emphasis on the practical impact of guns and open your mind a bit.

While I totally agree with your point that the societal impact of weapons must be considered by reasonable people in any discussion involving limits and controls, I think you are misinformed regarding both the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, and it’s evolving importance to the nation. Anthracite’s point was well made; “original intent” is instructive and important, but the reasons behind the right to keep and bear arms have changed right along with weapons technology.

Any discussion about “line drawing” better consider the importance of personal weaponry to a free people along with the effects of such weaponry. Surely your social pragmatism has room for social idealism as well? Otherwise, you’re not progressive at all, merely reactive.

Demise: Please reread Beeblebrox’ opening sentence. “Civil” discussions usually don’t include insulting or demeaning language. Look, we’re all fairly passionate about this issue; our respective levels of passion Do Not determine the validity of our respective positions! -Can we not avoid the usual bickering and sniping in just one gun control thread?