Media Bias To The Extreme-"Dangerous Weapons Loophole"

[Skimo]

The legal system does recognize limits to even 1st ammendment (yelling fire, making too much noise at night, etc) as it does limits to the 2nd amendment (no tanks, rockets, nukes etc.)

There is a certain parallel between the first and second I will agree but that also extends to the fact that both freedoms are not absolute.

Whoa, slow down.. you mean that while watching a movie in a theater.... I should remain unmolested and further no one should make a false accusation that would compel me to flee the premises? That at night while I sleep.... I should remain unmolested, and that a party next door should keep their noise down so that I and my neighbors can rest in peace?

The difference here is that ones rights do NOT over-ride others rights, this is not a restriction of the amendment that provides us all the right to rally, speak out against our government(s), against oppression or for our beliefs.

This went from large caliber rifles to NUKES?

Let's just be clear about this one thing, shall we. In the event that nuclear weapons become lawful to own/bear in the USA, have you any ANY idea what the cost of owning, maintaining and guarding would be? The cost of owning and maintaining tanks. Rockets... they fall in with the nukes. The need for constant maintenance, fueling, positioning and the fact that you need a workforce knowledgeable in acquiring proper parts, maintaining a stock or replacement parts etc. all of that is prohibitive on its own, maybe a few billionaires could pull off a standing/ready arsenal that would represent only the smallest percentage of what our military can bring to bear.

[tvranesic]

• Want to own a full-auto "arm"??? Get permission first, register it, and pay a fee to have it (or go to jail).
• Want to own a powered megaphone for "enhanced speech"??? Get permission first, register it, and pay a fee to have it (or you go to jail).

And then after you go to jail for not gaining permission and paying the "tax", you've forfeited your right to ever speak again.

That one might not be so bad...if we could invoke it selectively!

[quietmike]

Infringe and regulate are not synonyms.

True enough as regulation is only one of many ways to infringe on someones rights.

A simple reading of the amendment combined with a look at historical precedent shows that the intent was for citizens to be able to own and carry any weapon they wished without interference from the government.

Regulation says that in order to do a thing, first you must do this and that and meet certain requirements. That is interference and an infringement.

[Triton]

I do not equate regulated to infringed.

You do not equate "restrictions" to "infringement?"

[eyeeatingfish]

I would agree that restrictions/regulations could very well be done in such a way that infringes but not necessarily inheretly the case that any restriction/regulation is an infringement.

Quitemike:
As I read the 2nd ammendment I find problems with the wording that it is not clear in and of itself. Indeed the historical context and writings by the constitution framers help a great deal to understand what the intent of the 2nd ammendment was/is. However I think it is worthy of note as to whether the framers of the constitution would have thought the same thing given modern weapons and crime fighting and population trends. When the SCOTUS gets a case they not only look at the literal wording and the historical writings/discussion of the law in question but also try to interpret what was the intent of those who passed it, what was the intent of the law, and how would the people passing and writing the laws approach the same problem in a modern situation.

The second ammendment leaves difficult to answer questions in all of these areas.

I think it is also important to note that not all of the framers agreed on every point in the constitution. They may have disagreed completely about something in it, or maybe they agreed on the law but disagreed on the intent and/or how it was to be implemented.

[eyeeatingfish]

Reply to all:

1. Nukes is just one end of the weapon spectrum used to illustrate that even many 2nd amendment supporters would be willing to draw the line at some point and limit what arms an individual may own. And not all nukes would be prohibitvely expensive. Small dirty bombs would be much more affordable.

2. I do not think the 1st amendment and 2nd are perfect parallels and thus an argument against restricting speach is not necessarily applicable to restricting certain firearms.

3. We do allow for the restriction/regulation of speach in certain cases. Why then can't firearms also be restricted or regulated even though both rights shall not be infringed?

4. There are problems with the wording of the 2nd amendment. What does it mean by militia? What does it mean by arms? What does it mean by well regulated? What does it mean by bear? You cannot just apply modern definitions of those words. Even modern laws are still written in a language that makes them difficult to understand using common english. When you look at a book of laws now you often see at teh beginning of the chapter or section a definitions section. In it the definition is given for any word that might not be clear or obvious, any word that might come up in contention. The US constitution does not do this and this is one of its weaknesses. It makes it more difficult to understand just what the 2nd amendment means.
Rape is illegal but if the laws making rape illegal did not define what exactly constitutes rape then enforcing it would be much harder because we would have to guess at what they meant by rape. This is the problem we are faced by with some of the amendments in the US constitution.

[MVF]

...
4. There are problems with the wording of the 2nd amendment. What does it mean by militia? What does it mean by arms? What does it mean by well regulated? What does it mean by bear? You cannot just apply modern definitions of those words. Even modern laws are still written in a language that makes them difficult to understand using common english. When you look at a book of laws now you often see at teh beginning of the chapter or section a definitions section. In it the definition is given for any word that might not be clear or obvious, any word that might come up in contention. The US constitution does not do this and this is one of its weaknesses. It makes it more difficult to understand just what the 2nd amendment means.
Rape is illegal but if the laws making rape illegal did not define what exactly constitutes rape then enforcing it would be much harder because we would have to guess at what they meant by rape. This is the problem we are faced by with some of the amendments in the US constitution.

None of those words or thoughts are hard to understand, or have changed all that much, but just to answer the argument; all you have to do is look at the practice - there were no restrictions placed on private ownership of weapons. Just because they didn't have weapons as advanced as ours, their most advanced weapons were just as impressive to them (being the most effective they had ever seen) as ours are to us. Yet none of them were restricted. I believe this makes the point and illustrates their intent. I believe they kept things simple on purpose just to avoid this exact scenario, but I guess there is no "simple enough."

[quietmike]

I would agree that restrictions/regulations could very well be done in such a way that infringes but not necessarily inheretly the case that any restriction/regulation is an infringement.

I would be interested for some examples, as it escapes me how it would be possible.

Quitemike:
As I read the 2nd ammendment I find problems with the wording that it is not clear in and of itself. Indeed the historical context and writings by the constitution framers help a great deal to understand what the intent of the 2nd ammendment was/is. However I think it is worthy of note as to whether the framers of the constitution would have thought the same thing given modern weapons and crime fighting and population trends. When the SCOTUS gets a case they not only look at the literal wording and the historical writings/discussion of the law in question but also try to interpret what was the intent of those who passed it, what was the intent of the law, and how would the people passing and writing the laws approach the same problem in a modern situation.

The second ammendment leaves difficult to answer questions in all of these areas.

Those are valid questions, but they are rendered relatively moot since the framers included a handy dandy amendment process in case circumstances changed so drastically that the constitution needed to change with the times.

[eyeeatingfish]

I would be interested for some examples, as it escapes me how it would be possible.

I have already mentioned certain regulations I would support and I think those are not infringing on the right to bear arms.

Those are valid questions, but they are rendered relatively moot since the framers included a handy dandy amendment process in case circumstances changed so drastically that the constitution needed to change with the times.

Until the congress and states get together to edit all we are left with is the SCOTUS interpreting firearms cases.

[eyeeatingfish]

None of those words or thoughts are hard to understand, or have changed all that much, but just to answer the argument; all you have to do is look at the practice - there were no restrictions placed on private ownership of weapons. Just because they didn't have weapons as advanced as ours, their most advanced weapons were just as impressive to them (being the most effective they had ever seen) as ours are to us. Yet none of them were restricted. I believe this makes the point and illustrates their intent. I believe they kept things simple on purpose just to avoid this exact scenario, but I guess there is no "simple enough."

I disagree. If the words and meaning of the words were so clear and easy to understand then all we would need to do is open a dictionary but the fact is that it isn't that easy. The mere fact that so many people can read the same sentence and come up with different conclusions is evidence that the 2nd amendment is not as easy to understand as you suggest. Furthermore we are speaking an english language that is more than 200 years evolved from the english used in the constitution.

[timcsaw]

I disagree. If the words and meaning of the words were so clear and easy to understand then all we would need to do is open a dictionary but the fact is that it isn't that easy. The mere fact that so many people can read the same sentence and come up with different conclusions is evidence that the 2nd amendment is not as easy to understand as you suggest. Furthermore we are speaking an english language that is more than 200 years evolved from the english used in the constitution.

I think you've overlooked one of the most important points MVF offered (highlighted below). Even if, as you suggest, we don't understand the meaning the framers intended, THEY certainly knew what they meant (and THEY allowed machine guns, grenade launchers etc. and even battleships to be owned by anyone).

None of those words or thoughts are hard to understand, or have changed all that much, but just to answer the argument; all you have to do is look at the practice - there were no restrictions placed on private ownership of weapons. Just because they didn't have weapons as advanced as ours, their most advanced weapons were just as impressive to them (being the most effective they had ever seen) as ours are to us. Yet none of them were restricted. I believe this makes the point and illustrates their intent. I believe they kept things simple on purpose just to avoid this exact scenario, but I guess there is no "simple enough."

[eyeeatingfish]

I think you've overlooked one of the most important points MVF offered (highlighted below). Even if, as you suggest, we don't understand the meaning the framers intended, THEY certainly knew what they meant (and THEY allowed machine guns, grenade launchers etc. and even battleships to be owned by anyone).

I have to admit I am not a constitutional scholar but I am not sure if I would fully agree. Were all the framers in agreement on the 2nd amednments meaning? If not then you can find one framer who would think it includes bazookas and one that wouldn't think so. I do realize there are records of their process that we can get a glimpse into their thinking but I am not sure if I would fully agree with MVF's conclusion.

Are you aware of any sources on the subject? I am sure I could find some and I think it would be interesting reading, I was just wondering if you had any handy.

[quietmike]

I have to admit I am not a constitutional scholar but I am not sure if I would fully agree. Were all the framers in agreement on the 2nd amednments meaning? If not then you can find one framer who would think it includes bazookas and one that wouldn't think so.

Irrelevant. The majority of the framers believed in a broad interpretation of the amendment, otherwise it wouldn't have operated as such.

[quietmike]

I have already mentioned certain regulations I would support and I think those are not infringing on the right to bear arms.

I must have missed them. Would you mind repeating them?

[Tommythewho]

The framers meant the contemporary military firearm of the day, whatever day it is, then to now

[eyeeatingfish]

I must have missed them. Would you mind repeating them?

Restricted/regulated:
Probably fully automatic being illegal
Anything with explosive rounds to include explosives not necessarily fired from a weapon. So basically grenade all the way tiill a nuke being illegal
Requiring a permit to carry a firearm around on ones person, with photo on permit. Similar to requirements for drivers license.
Certain restrictions on ownership after being convicted of certain types of crimes. Not sure of the specifics of what crime and how long the restriction but to allow for the existence of such a system.

Those are the first that come to mind. Obviously I have no problem with the .50 cal, I don't care if the pistol has a vertical foregrip or a shoulder stock, I don't care about the length of a shotgun barrel.

You will find that I am moderate on many issues, though more towards conservative than liberal.

[eyeeatingfish]

Irrelevant. The majority of the framers believed in a broad interpretation of the amendment, otherwise it wouldn't have operated as such.

So as long as 51% meant it to have a very broad interpretation when we should be able to purchase grenades, bombs, nukes whatever we want?

Tommythewho just made an interesting suggestion as to what they meant and I have to find it rather fair. I don't know what that statement is based on but if accurate this would mean that the public could own basic fully automatic rifles but perhaps not cannons and explosives etc.

[Codger_64]

Many if not most of the cannons owned in the U.S. during the War for Independence belonged to individuals, excluding those donated by the British during battles. All of the battleships initially were armed privately owned ships. Both fired incendiary rounds, explosive rounds and cannister (grape) shot. Cirizens today can own fully automatic firearms, etc. I showed a video earlier in this thread of privately owned weapons being fired. There are just prohibitively high taxes required to own and transfer them. I recall a collector on the West coast who owns dozens of tanks. I can give you a source if you wish to buy a fully operational howitzer or mortar as used during the War Of Northern Aggression. Since they are loaded from the muzzle, you don't have to pay a tax and register them.

[quietmike]

Restricted/regulated:

Probably fully automatic being illegal

Again, I would say that if advances in technology are allowed to operate under other rights, (speech, privacy) then they should flow as to arms as well.

Anything with explosive rounds to include explosives not necessarily fired from a weapon. So basically grenade all the way tiill a nuke being illegal

Grenades date back the the 14th century, so if the framers intended for them to be off limits, they had the opportunity to exclude them

Requiring a permit to carry a firearm around on ones person, with photo on permit. Similar to requirements for drivers license.

Courts are already saying that requiring Photo I.D. to vote is unconstitutional, I wonder why the same logic wouldn't apply here.

Certain restrictions on ownership after being convicted of certain types of crimes. Not sure of the specifics of what crime and how long the restriction but to allow for the existence of such a system.

At first blush I would tend to agree, but I think once a person has served his sentence, the punishment should be over. Having rules where certain people can own weapons and others cannot, necessitates a massive bureaucracy to manage the records and make those decisions.

----------

To the original question, I believe that the framers intended for every citizen to be able to own and carry any weapon he so chooses. Any action that could prohibit that function is an infringement on that right, whether we call it regulation, restriction, or cotton candy. The function of the act is the important issue, not the name.

[timcsaw]

I have to admit I am not a constitutional scholar but I am not sure if I would fully agree. Were all the framers in agreement on the 2nd amednments meaning? If not then you can find one framer who would think it includes bazookas and one that wouldn't think so. I do realize there are records of their process that we can get a glimpse into their thinking but I am not sure if I would fully agree with MVF's conclusion.

Are you aware of any sources on the subject? I am sure I could find some and I think it would be interesting reading, I was just wondering if you had any handy.

I suspect that many disagreements existed during the creation of our constitution, but that really doesn't matter as it was accepted "as is" and provisions were included it to change it if need be. Those who disagreed with the 2nd after it's adoption, didn't try to subvert it in "round-about ways" by requiring "registration", "ammo limits", or by restricting certain weapon's types or sizes.

Todays problem isn't that some of the founders might have wanted to prohibit a "civilian" from owning a bazooka but didn't win that argument, the problem today is that those who want to infringe on second amendment rights do so, in spite of what the constitution says.

The founders agreed upon the second amendment (over any objections at the time) and wrote it "as is", allowing grenades etc. and THEIR most powerful weapons into the hands of the populous, and they KNEW this to be the case. Even during their lives in following years, weapons technologies improved and STILL they left those weapons in the hands of the people (and could have amended the Constitution if they desired... they didn't desire to).

I'm sorry, but I don't recall any specifics concerning the development of the 2nd during it's writing. I've read much in the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers and a bit of the writings from our founders but nothing about the 2nd comes to mind. I too would be interested in reading any records of argument about the wording of the 2nd if anyone has any links.

But again EEF, even if any individuals arguments against allowing the people to own grenades, howitzers, machine guns, and battleships exist, THEY were not persuasive enough to change the 2nd and prohibit the people from owning the most powerful weapons of the day.