the second amendment and "arms"

[arely staircase]

I do believe the second amendment grants an individual right to gun ownership. however it never mentions guns. It says "arms". so to interpret that literally and absolutely, I would have the right to a thermonuclear device and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nobody believes that. Therefore even the most staunch firearms enthusiast/gun nut has to admit the government has a legitimate interest and therefore the power to "well regulate" what arms are kept by whom.

Having said.all of that, why is it not.reasonable to prohibit 100 round drum magazines?

[randr]

1. Any body who does not understand that the world we live in today

is not in any way the same world the framers of our Constitution faced have their heads so far up their ass it is no wonder they are suffering from oxygen deprivation.
The real challenge we face is not how we interpret the original words but how to rise to the same level those brave men did in drafting our Constitution and Bill of Rights and frame our discussion in the present reality.

[PoliticAverse]

2. How hard do you think it would be to amend the constitution to prevent individuals owning

nuclear weapons and large missiles ? n/t

[arely staircase]

7. iy isnt necessary

As I said. Even the most absolutist Second amendment interpreter wouldn't argue that it grants such a right. Therefore the argument is to what extent the government may regulate the.ownership of "arms."

[Richard D]

3. What arms were available when the second amendment was ratified?

That's what the founders were talking about.

[former9thward]

8. That means the First Amendment only applies to the forms of communication that then existed.

So the government could determine what is said on the internet, radio and television for starters.

[safeinOhio]

16. Dang if they didn't screw up the 1st Amendment

with all of those kiddy porn laws. You can't even sell bogus investments on tv and the radio.

[former9thward]

26. There are limits on commercial speech and obscenity as you know.

But if you are going down the road of "only the type of arms" that existed at the founding then that logic says there are no limits to what the government can censor on the internet, radio and television. If Republicans took over the federal government and shut down DU, etc. you would have no argument against that with that line of reasoning.

[arely staircase]

13. not really

Some weapons from that era I would not allow just anyone to own and completely unregulated. Explosive artillary rounds for example. While there are modern firearms that I believe fall under second amendment protection.

[Zoeisright]

41. Exactly right.

Gun nuts can have as many fucking muskets as they want. Period.

[rl6214]

4. Not this tired old arguement again.

[ethereal1]

5. Why?

Because, unfortunately deranged people such as this savage, would turn to other means of delivery for his despicable act.

Take away his '100 round clip' (which does not exist), and he turns to those nice little Improvised Explosive Devices he created back in his apartment.

We need to look at the root causes of these isolated events and figure out how to build processes to identify and assist these guys before they step over the edge.

Banning a rifle will never discourage a man hell-bent on evil.

Ethereal1

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. "which does not exist"

Really? Police seem to think it exists, and was used - and they have it in custody. There is even a link in the thread to an online seller.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002987381

[madinmaryland]

10. That is not the point of ethereal1's post, as I am sure you are aware of.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. I get the whole root cause argument

but remain baffled as to why outlawing 100 (!) round magazines is brushed off the table as a non-issue.

[arely staircase]

14. +1 nt

[madinmaryland]

30. That's all I was commenting about...

I had actually never heard of 100 round magazines. I remember the arguments about 30 round magazines.

All this gun shit brings back bad memories. My best friend who was seriously into guns killed himself two years ago. He was very meticulous with his firearms and was an excellent shot with his firearms.

He used ropes and fuel oil to...

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. Oh man.

I hate hearing that. I'm so sorry.

These forums are a total swamp today.

[madinmaryland]

34. ...

He and his wife got me and my wife together after my divorce. We've been together for 15-1/2 years now.

He and his wife were going through a divorce when this happened a couple of years ago. I have kept in contact with his wife and we saw her last fall. He had fallen into a serious Rx addiction that led to this.

What made it even worse for me, was my mother had passed away three weeks earlier.

[PoliticAverse]

11. That's a 'drum magazine' not a 'clip'. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. I know. That is a link to my thread where I posted it.

You think 100 rounds without having to reload is a non-issue?

[PoliticAverse]

27. I think in this case even if he had to change magazines several times it wouldn't have

made a difference.

[ethereal1]

17. It's not a 'clip'

Ruby-

It's a magazine, which fits in the magazine well of a rifle.

My point is there are certain terms/words/phrases which automatically evoke an almost visceral response in the crowd after a horrific event such as this and often times is attributable to ignorance being accepted in an effort to jump out in front of a competitive news source.

The same can be said for the term "assault rifle." It almost immediately develops a picture of a military rifle in one's minds eye, however, the term is a civilian created term and not a true definition used by the military to describe any weapon military system ever developed or employed.

These terms amount to a 'boogie man' of sorts and are counter-productive when attempting to sort out the facts ex-post-facto when these horrific events transpire.

The unfortunate reality is that there are evil men (and women) in this world and they will find a way, no matter the obstacle we place in their way, once they have decided to harm their fellow citizens in such a manner as we all witnessed early this morning.

It's unfortunate, but true none the less.

Ethereal1

[arely staircase]

20. it is a clip

and a magazine. a clip is any detachable magazine.

[JeepJK556]

22. Incorrect.

A clip is used to feed a magazine.

The terms are not interchangeable.

[arely staircase]

25. it is in the vernacular

if someone says a fifty round "clip" I picture a round drum detachable magazine.

[Tejas]

33. If someone uses the phrase "fifty round clip", give them a cookie and send them on their way.

Tell them to try using "fifty round clip" as a search phrase on Google and see what pops up. There is no such thing, but if they insist on being obtuse then give them another cookie and hope they leave.

[PoliticAverse]

24. No...

http://www.thegunzone.com/clips-mags.html

[arely staircase]

9. do you believe the second

Amendment gives one the right to an improvised explosive device? I am guessing you do not. Therefore you already agree the government does.have the legitimate interest in and power to regulate "well" what "arms" you may process.

So now we are down to amatter of degree.

[safeinOhio]

18. Exactly. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. ^^ This ^^

[pipoman]

35. They already do..

and have for generations..are you implying there are not already restrictions? That there should be more? What new regulations do you wish for? Keeping in mind that there must be a pretty good outweighing public interest at stake before we may restrict constitutional rights and civil liberties, as well as some proof that the restrictions will provide the desired result..

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. It's my understanding, that in the language of the period...

It's my understanding, that in the language of the period (and to this day, in military history circles and other milieus), the term "arms" in the context or weaponry meant those weapons which an individual woudl carry, but not things like artillery, etc. This would exclude modern extrapolations (like nuclear weapons, missiles,etc.). It might be argued that it does not prohibit things like shoulder-launched rockets and fully-automatic weapons, but there is a compelling interest to regulate those. And, as it happens, one CAN get fully automatic weapons and other "military" ordnance, but the process is much more heavily regulated. Those regulations work well, too...although that's probably in part because there just aren't that many of those weapons in circulation.

I suppose that rationale could be extended to things like 100 round magazines, too. I'm not sure how much that woudl change anything (a competent person who practices a little can swap the 20-30 round magazines common to an AR-15 in a couple of seconds, but it would probably be considered constitutional.

[arely staircase]

23. that is

A thoughtful and intelligent post and welcomed given the passions this stirs up. I am not sure you are right about the etymology of "arms". Not saying you are wrong either. And a couple of seconds switching out thirty round clips may be exactly what the victims needed to tackle the guy or get away. Even better if you got it down to a five round clip, which is.plenty for deer/hog hunting and I would think most self defense home invasion burglary scenarios.

[JeepJK556]

21. Banning 100 round drums is pointless

Since a reload can be done in under two seconds.

Besides, it's an arbitrary number. Why limit it at 100? Why not 50? or 30? or 10? or 2?

How many crimes are really committed with such magazines in the first place?

[ethereal1]

28. Because....

People have this innate drive and desire to do 'something' after events such as this.

So, limit the amount of rounds a magazine can carry and a man will carry more magazines.

None of this speaks to the root cause of the matter; the savage who committed this horrific act.

Ethereal1

[arely staircase]

29. personally i think 5 is reasonable

Six with one chambered.

[pipoman]

36. And I think 182 is reasonable

183 with one chambered..

[arely staircase]

37. so then we both believe in a limit

now it is.only.a matter of reaching a compromise.

[pipoman]

38. No, I didn't say I believe in a limit,

just that I think 182/183 is reasonable..I think you should be able to limit yourself to 5/6 if that is your reasonable..

[arely staircase]

39. so you think there is

No limit to you second amendment rights? You may posses whatever "arms" you wish, be they missile armed drones or nuclear armed submarines. Do you apply that logic to other constitutional rights? Oppose laws against making false advertising claims illegal?

[pipoman]

40. No, I think there is no limit to magazine capacity

there are plenty of limits to 2nd Amendment rights...perhaps more than any of the others..

[arely staircase]

42. what is the purpose of a high magazine capacity

IMHO it is to give the user the ability to crank out large amountsof ordinance in a small amount of time. This is enough reason in my opinion for the government to have a.legitimate interest and therefore constitutional power to regulate them. I am simply applying the.time honored.test that has been used by courts in this country for generations when it comes to weighing individual rights against the common good/public safety.

[pipoman]

43. We don't regulate constitutional rights

based on humble opinions. The courts require some quantifiable proof that a proposal to limit civil liberties will have the effect those who are proposing the limitation proclaim. The test which has arisen in the high courts previously has been, is the item in question "in common use for lawful purposes". The statistical data on extended magazines would easily prove that they are in fact "in common use for lawful purposes". If the statistical standard required for regulation of a civil liberty/right were as low as the abuse rate of these magazines, there would be many things outlawed before extended magazines.

[arely staircase]

44. we do indeed

Regulate them on opinions. Perhaps they aren't humble but opinions are exactly what they are. And I would disagree that high capacity magazines are in common use. Virtually everyone I know owns at least one gun. Most, including myself, own more. I know one person who.has.a.weapon with a.high capacity magazine and it holds 30 not fifty.

[pipoman]

45. When the 'arely staircase' acquaintance

standard is applied, who you know will matter. Every weekend for 50+ years gun shows and gun shops across the US have been selling millions of extended mags. Out of those millions in private hands a minuscule few are used for crimes..all but the most tiny multiple of 1% are possessed and used legally.