You either accept limits on the 2nd Amendment, or you do not accept any limits at all.

[Hugabear]

The 2nd Amendment refers to "arms". It does not specify what type of arms. It does not mention "firearms", or arms that a typical citizen might have access to.

Now we might be able to infer what the Founding Fathers meant by looking at their other writings - but as far as I can see, none of those other writings are the basis of US law. This is why this amendment has remained controversial all this time, and why differing SCOTUS judges can have such wildly differing opinions on the RKBA.


Fact of the matter is that we DO place restrictions on the types of arms that one can bear. One cannot simply just own a fully-automatic machine gun without going through lots of government red tape. Same thing with sawed-off shotguns. Explosives are very tightly controlled. You can't own a surface-to-air missile, mortar, anti-tank rocket, etc - all of which are easily portable arms.

So once we accept that government CAN indeed restrict the types of arms available, then it stands to reason that we can restrict such weapons as semi-automatics and handguns.

[tk2kewl]

1. sorry... no logic allowed in gun arguments

[Kurska]

2. Reasonable limits, same as the first amendment. Supreme court ruled handgun bans were unreasonable.

You can disagree with that ruling, but until it is overturned it is illegal to ban handguns. I'm not saying anything controversial that is a legal fact.

[maxsolomon]

3. The OP says "restrict", not ban.

Where are you reading that?

[Kurska]

6. He said "Restrict what types of weapons are available' and referenced handguns

Either way plenty of people are also talking about a ban, so I suppose that is aswell relevant.

[maxsolomon]

17. Advocate of effective gun control says "restrict"

2nd amendment advocate reads "ban".

Are "plenty of people" Joe Biden? Barack Obama? Are they in the majority in the House?

No one is banning handguns in America. There are 100s of millions of guns already in private hands. It is not feasible without a 1000 Ruby Ridges.

[Kurska]

21. What do you call "Restricting the availability" of something n/t

[maxsolomon]

22. A restriction.

We RESTRICT the availability of alcohol to those over 21. It's not BANNED.

It's not always Black or White, On or Off.

[Kurska]

25. Would you describe alcohol as being banned for those under 21? n/t

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

[bongbong]

27. Is logic banned for Delicate Flowers?

[Kurska]

33. I'm not familiar with that term. What exactly is a delicate flower? n/t

[11 Bravo]

35. Tom Tomorrow coined the term to describe the gun nuts. It has now been hijacked by people not ...

one tenth as clever as Tom, and is used to describe anyone who owns a firearm.

[Kurska]

37. I don't get the joke n/t

[maxsolomon]

40. It's a gun owner who is super sensitive to percieved slights against their arsenals.

As if the guns themselves had feelings that needed protecting. A "Delicate Flower" might need smelling salts and a fainting couch when someone says Newtown proves we need tighter RESTRICTIONS on firearms in America.

[Kurska]

42. oh, so it is name calling?

I'm glad to see the quality of dialogue on this important issue is so high.

[maxsolomon]

45. I hate to say it, but if you're surprised that 20 dead children

could make people angry enough to resort to name calling, you might be a Delicate Flower.

[Kurska]

47. You know what it reminds me of?

I'm not saying these issues are at all all equivalent, but after 9/11 there were a lot of people very upset. It seemed they were especially upset at any fellow American that didn't think that attack was a reason to occupy and invade other countries. I heard a lot of very good people get called "terrorist sympathizers" or other such trash.

Just because an a reaction is emotional and visceral doesn't make it right. In fact, it generally just makes it less likely to do any good.

Some food for thought.

[maxsolomon]

34. No, I would not:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/Most-States-in-US-Permit-Drinking-Under-the-Age-of-21.html
Share:

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that all states are in compliance with this act. The national law specifically prohibits purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages. It does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking. The term "public possession" is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following:

•An established religious purpose, when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older
•Medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution
•In private clubs or establishments
•In the course of lawful employment by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer."

So I'm sticking with "purchase & posession of alcohol are RESTRICTED for persons under 21".

Look, the OP discussed restricing handguns, you said banning. I think you are trying to say that restricting and banning are the same thing. They are not. One can stop part way down a slope that is not slippery. It's done all the time.

[Kurska]

36. Did you support the Federal Assault Weapons Ban?

Or the reinstatement of it? If you do I don't really see the problem with using the term ban when you talk about firearms restrictions. They are clearly on the table.

Remember how I said regardless of this specific op, there are plenty of people talking about a ban?

[maxsolomon]

38. I didn't give a shit about it. Because it's re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

It was transparently window dressing, political theatre. This country is SATURATED with firearms. A "ban" is not politically or practically feasible, and people saying "ban handguns" are reacting emotionally, and likely know it's not workable. "Ban" the sale of handguns, in public or private markets, maybe in theory that could work, but not the posession of pre-existing weapons or the inevitable black market.

My desire is to RESTRICT firearm purchases of all types by extending & strengthening background checks. Cross-referencing information between federal agencies, states, cities, counties. Lengthy waiting periods. So schizophrenics like James Holmes can't order arsenals online in a month. That would be a start.

How to deal with the negligence of the Nancy Lanzas of this nation, I have no clue. How to deal with the firearms currently in the hands of the insane or homicidal/suicidal, I have no idea.

I suppose a RKBA advocate would just say it's the price we have to pay for FREEDOM.

[derby378]

39. Cleita and I came up with one idea to tackle that - a civilian armory

If Nancy Lanza had access to an armory where she could store her weapons, Sandy Hook probably never would have happened.

And an armory is a community entity, as well. If there's going to be a push to convince gun owners that they're part of the community instead of feeling like they have to stand alone, an armory sounds like a good way to do it.

[maxsolomon]

41. Would gun owners be required by law to keep "Assault Weapons" there

rather than in their homes, or would participation be voluntary?

"Assault Weapons" is in quotes because it doesn't mean anything in a nation SATURATED with semi-automatic firearms of every description.

[derby378]

43. We disagree on whether participation should be mandatory

I believe in voluntary participation in an armory, but you bring gun owners around to the concept by incentivizing it. Consider it the difference between inviting gun owners vs. imposing something on them. And it would head off yet another court battle.

And let's face it - we're tired of seeing crimes committed with stolen guns. That's another incentive to bring people into the armory.

[Kurska]

44. You say a start, I'd like to hear what else you'd like.

I have no problem with a week long waiting period or something like that. I don't really object to background checks either.

[backwoodsbob]

4. I would say if we are going to be serious about gun violence

a handgun ban is where we need to focus.
It would take some serious work but I believe it is possible.

[Kurska]

8. Handgun bans are unconstitutional, read Heller. n/t

[msongs]

14. "heller" is just one ruling on one day and can be overruled on any other day nt

[Bake]

18. Assuming you have a different Supreme Court.

That is willing to overlook stare decisis.

Not as easy as you might imagine.

Bake

[bongbong]

28. The current wingut SCOTUS always ignores precedent

Ever since they placed Cheney's assistant in as figurehead pseudo-president.

[Bake]

32. I wouldn't say "always"

Although this Court is more than willing to ignore it to advance its agenda. I doubt they'd ignore precedent to limit the 2nd Amendment though. Just sayin'.



Bake

[bobclark86]

23. ...and McDonald.

Courts don't like to reverse themselves. Plessy v Fergeson is an exception and took almost 100 years.

Your argument could also be read as a take on Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona or Lawrence v. Texas.

[bongbong]

29. The current wingut SCOTUS always ignores precedent

They ignored decades of decisions and legal history treating the 2nd Amendment as a group right when they mis-decided Heller.

[billh58]

31. Slight correction:

Handgun bans are unconstitutional for individual use in the home. Heller did not address the concealed or open carry of handguns in public, and in fact stated that they were purposely not addressing that aspect of gun regulation.

We do not need to "ban" specific weapons, but we sure as hell can regulate where, when, and how they can be used.

[Hugabear]

9. I never said anything about a complete ban

Even machine guns aren't banned. They just require tons of paperwork and government approval, and are quite expensive.

It would be possible to place such similar restrictions on all semi-automatics - regardless of whether it's a rifle, handgun, etc.

[Kurska]

11. It could be possible, it could also be unconstitutional the courts would no doubt rule on it.

I will note the result of making handguns as expensive as the machine guns currently are is that only the rich and criminals will have guns.

I suppose that is acceptable to some people.

[Recursion]

5. Of course that's constitutional; Heller was very clear about that

Just about anything short of a full-on DC or Chicago-style ban is OK in Heller; you don't even need strict scrutiny.

[Hugabear]

10. Except the NRA screams bloody murder at even the most mild of gun control suggestions

For example, look at their reaction to the mere idea of shutting down unregulated private sales (the gun-show loophole).

[Recursion]

13. Of course they do; that's their job. That said, they are open to expanding NICS

A whole lot of gun owners would like to be able to access a background check system when they sell their own weapons. The NRA certainly doesn't want it mandatory but
1. Voluntary is better than not available, and
2. Once it's voluntary we can make it mandatory later.

Stop calling it "the gun-show loophole" (it has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows and it's a needlessly confrontational term) and we could make some progress, I think.

[KamaAina]

7. I've often wondered why Second Amendment absolutists don't demand their right* to carry on airplanes

[NutmegYankee]

12. Owners of private property are free to make their own rules, as long as it doesn't discriminate.

That is why you see malls and other businesses with No Gun signs.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Airports are frequently public property.

Rkba nuts have demanded the right to carry in many other public facilities. Teabag loonislatures have given them that right on many occasions.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. Agreed. The 2ndAm doesn't prohibit all regulation.

There's lots of legal precedent for the imposition of reasonable regulation. Moreover, linguistic analysis also allows for regulation that does not constitute an "infringement" of the right.

I would point out, however, that the term "arms" (as used in that period) is generally considered to refer to what we would be more likely to call "small arms" today: firearms, swords, etc. It did not refer to artillery, explosives, etc. There is little evidence to suggest the Framers considered the right of the people to keep and bear arms extended to those sorts of weapons on an individual basis.

There is still precedent for the restriction of arms by type (short-barrel shotguns, fully automatic firearms...), though. The sticking pint on moving from rather narrow restrictions like those into very broad categories of arms would be if such restrictions crossed into "infringement" territory. I suspect any such legislation would end up before the SCOTUS on that precise point.

[rrneck]

16. Of course we can restrict them.

It actually has less to do with the second amendment than with the mountain of case law that has followed it.

[JoePhilly]

19. And ... the Government can regulate COMMERCE.

Notice that the 2nd amendment says NOTHING about the sale of "arms".

The 2nd amendment says you may "Keep and Bear" arms ... it does not say you can, in all cases, BUY or SELL them.

Which means the government CAN regulate the sale and purchase of "arms". Once you have them, you can keep and bear them.

[One_Life_To_Give]

20. If Blackwater is a person under citizens united

Then apparently some people can get just about anything short of a Nuke.

Or is it that only the privileged few have a right to such things?

[bongbong]

30. Quit asking the Delicate Flowers such hard questions

They have their "approved" list of what weapons they are supposed to whine about. Orders from the NRA.

[bobclark86]

24. Even Scalia thinks there are limits...

Ted Nugent and other fuckwads think it's black-and-white.

It's just a matter of what limits are acceptable or not. I think a 10-round magazine ban could be upheld by the SCOTUS. A handgun ban not so much (even though more people are killed by handguns than rifles by a factor of 20 or so).

I don't believe in the "Founding Fathers were perfect" line of bullshit (they liked kicking the can down the road just as much as now, like the Three-Fifths Compromise), but feel the Constitution is a "living document" that NEEDS to change over time. Nobody knew the Internet would be invented, nobody knew tobacco would kill half a million people a year, and nobody knew guns would become more advanced. As times change, interpretations MUST change.

[Tsiyu]

46. Thank you

I did not see this post yesterday, but lay in bed last night thinking how this one "right" has become an infinite entitlement.

It's interpreted much like the Bobble is. Take one word and create a whole universe of RULZ IZ ALL FOR ME around that word.

The funny thing is, most of the gun humpers whose screeds I read on the internet abolutely HATE the First Amendment. They absolutely ABHOR OWS and many have mentioned their desire to use "second amendment remedies" to stop OWS protesters.

So they demonize the Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, and they believe their firearms will actually help them nullify the First Amendment. But they masturbate to the Second Amendment, gun in the other hand, getting off on their little illusion that that weapon gives them infinite POWER over everyone else.

Classic narcissistic sociopaths...

[JoePhilly]

48. We can also create laws that regulate COMMERCE.

The 2nd amendment says you can "keep and bear arms" ... but it does mention the SALE or PURCHASE.

Therefore, congress can regulate the sale and purchase of "arms".