The case against guns

[Seth]

Yes, "arms" is a deliberately broad term and it does happen to include swords, daggers, knives, bludgeons and anything else a person might lawfully use as a weapon of self-defense, including a table lamp or a Rottweiler.

Which means, taking the second amendment literally, that the American government could ban any specific weapons or classes of weapons and still leave the right to bear arms, even if those arms are restricted to a knife of blade length less than 4 inches.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you. It doesn't say that the government may ban some arms and not others, it says that my right to keep and bear ANY arms "shall not be infringed." Period.

At the same time, we should realise that the 'right' to bear arms is simply a result of a bunch of guys two and a half centuries back having a rush of blood to the head, causing them to write something down, that people in every generation since have regretted. Well. the rational people anyway.

Yeah, well, that'll do for me. Doesn't matter a whit whether you agree or disagree, it's my country not yours, so your opinion of our laws is irrelevant.

[Seth]

Yes, "arms" is a deliberately broad term and it does happen to include swords, daggers, knives, bludgeons and anything else a person might lawfully use as a weapon of self-defense, including a table lamp or a Rottweiler.

Which means, taking the second amendment literally, that the American government could ban any specific weapons or classes of weapons and still leave the right to bear arms, even if those arms are restricted to a knife of blade length less than 4 inches.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you. It doesn't say that the government may ban some arms and not others, it says that my right to keep and bear ANY arms "shall not be infringed." Period.

At the same time, we should realise that the 'right' to bear arms is simply a result of a bunch of guys two and a half centuries back having a rush of blood to the head, causing them to write something down, that people in every generation since have regretted. Well. the rational people anyway.

Yeah, well, that'll do for me. Doesn't matter a whit whether you agree or disagree, it's my country not yours, so your opinion of our laws is irrelevant.

[Blind groper]

Seth

It does not say ANY arms.

[Hermit]

It does not say ANY arms.

It does not qualify what arms are permitted to be kept or borne either. In the absence of such qualification the amendment would have to allow even nuclear weapons in the possession of private hands, which indicates how absurd it is today.

The gun-control debate is getting rather tedious. Proponents and opponents sound like broken records. I am rather fed up with the rhetorical twists arising out of paranoia and ideological blinkering on the pro-gun side in particular, but the supporters of gun control is not doing a great deal better.

[JimC]

At the same time, we should realise that the 'right' to bear arms is simply a result of a bunch of guys two and a half centuries back having a rush of blood to the head, causing them to write something down, that people in every generation since have regretted. Well. the rational people anyway.

Scared pussies who need to be taken care of perhaps. Weaklings.

As opposed to the macho, posturing fascist bully boys with guns?

[Seth]

Seth

It does not say ANY arms.

It says "arms." The first rule of statutory interpretation is that words in a statute (or the Constitution) are to be given their ordinary customary meaning. The word "arms" is plural, not singular. We've discussed the plain meaning of the word "arms" previously. You can go look up the definition if you've forgotten it.

The starting point in statutory construction is the language of the statute itself.The Supreme Court often recites the “plain meaning rule,” that, if the language of the statute is clear, there is no need to look outside the statute to its legislative history in order to ascertain the statute’s meaning.
Source: Statutory Interpretation:
General Principles and Recent Trends, Congressional Research Service

When a law includes a list of things, it means that the statute covers those things and nothing else. This maxim is called Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, "The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another." In this case, the list is "arms." The corollary to this is that when the legislature has included a list of things in a statute, it may not be interpreted to remove items from that list.

If the statute says "The Congress is prohibited from regulating a, b and c." and b includes within that category more than one thing, for example "firearms" then ALL firearms are included in that category, not just handguns or rifles or shotguns, but all three, as well as any other thing defined as a firearm.

The 2nd Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say "some arms" or "reasonable arms" or "military arms" or "non-military arms" or "firearms" or "non-firearms" or "only swords, knives, and muskets" or "only arms suitable for the individual soldier but not artillery" It says "arms." The plain meaning includes all arms, and particularly military-type arms.

If the Founders had wished to restrict the types, classes, categories, calibers or any other aspect of any particular arms, they must be presumed, under yet another maxim of statutory construction, of doing exactly that. They did not. Therefore they cannot be construed to have done so.

"Arms" means arms. All arms of any description. The right to keep and bear any and all arms, but PARTICULARLY INCLUDING those arms suitable for use in the Militia, is protected against infringement by the Congress. That is what the preferatory "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State..." refers to. This clause provides an informative justification for the necessity of the regulation on Congress' power, but when read along with the statements of the authors, it is clear that the legislative intent was to particularly make certain that the people would always be free to keep and bear arms because of their utility to the militia in time of need in order to secure a free state.

So, you're wrong. It does mean "any" arms...and indeed all arms.

And quite specifically and explicitly, handguns, according to Heller.

And by implication military arms NOT including sawed-off shotguns, according to Miller.

You don't get to redefine the words used in our Constitution I'm afraid. We have a Supreme Court and a Congress for that.

[Hermit]

The 2nd Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say "some arms" or "reasonable arms" or "military arms" or "non-military arms" or "firearms" or "non-firearms" or "only swords, knives, and muskets" or "only arms suitable for the individual soldier but not artillery" It says "arms." The plain meaning includes all arms, and particularly military-type arms.

...

So, you're wrong. It does mean "any" arms...and indeed all arms.

And quite specifically and explicitly, handguns, according to Heller.

And by implication military arms NOT including sawed-off shotguns, according to Miller.

You don't get to redefine the words used in our Constitution I'm afraid. We have a Supreme Court and a Congress for that.

So you do accept at least one exception to what arms may be kept and borne, despite your correct observation that there are no exceptions made in the amendment. I expect more of your rhetorical acrobatics shortly.

[Seth]

It does not say ANY arms.

It does not qualify what arms are permitted to be kept or borne either. In the absence of such qualification the amendment would have to allow even nuclear weapons in the possession of private hands, which indicates how absurd it is today.

Ah, the old "nuclear weapon" canard. This is just a red-herring argument to try to evade the actual debate. Whether or not the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons can be infringed or not has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, primarily because nobody has had the balls to challenge the law. A law duly passed by the Congress is PRESUMED to be constitutional and may be enforced until and unless it is successfully challenged in court. But the fact that an infringement on the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, or biological weapons, or chemical weapons has not been challenged in court has absolutely nothing whatever to do with whether OTHER types of arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment against infringement by Congress. You are attempting to argue that because a plenary definition of "arms" might include nuclear weapons, it is therefore necessary to conclude that other arms are excluded from its protection, and that Congress, or Netwits on the Internet, get to define which arms are obviously too dangerous to be allowed.

That's not the way it works. The way it works is that "arms" includes all arms, and until the Supreme Court rules that this, that or another type, set or category of arms is NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment, then all arms are included. So far the Supreme Court has NEVER RULED that any particular type or kind of "arms" are without the protections of the 2nd Amendment. Not once. Not at all.

The only thing it has done is to allow the government to TAX the transfer of particular types of arms, including machine guns, short rifles, short shotguns and other specific categories of arms, as well as "destructive devices."

This is why it is perfectly legal to own a machine gun, or a sawed off shotgun, or a hand grenade, or a 105mm howitzer, or an F-16 fighter jet, or a 40mm grenade launcher, or a ground-to-air shoulder-fired missile...If you can find one that's legally for sale and you pass the background check by the BATFE and pay a $200 transfer tax.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about...again.

The gun-control debate is getting rather tedious. Proponents and opponents sound like broken records. I am rather fed up with the rhetorical twists arising out of paranoia and ideological blinkering on the pro-gun side in particular, but the supporters of gun control is not doing a great deal better.[/quote]

All I can do is keep repeating facts and truth to counter the lies and obfuscations of BG. You can make up your mind yourself, and if you're bored, then kindly fuck off somewhere else.

[Seth]

The 2nd Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say "some arms" or "reasonable arms" or "military arms" or "non-military arms" or "firearms" or "non-firearms" or "only swords, knives, and muskets" or "only arms suitable for the individual soldier but not artillery" It says "arms." The plain meaning includes all arms, and particularly military-type arms.

...

So, you're wrong. It does mean "any" arms...and indeed all arms.

And quite specifically and explicitly, handguns, according to Heller.

And by implication military arms NOT including sawed-off shotguns, according to Miller.

You don't get to redefine the words used in our Constitution I'm afraid. We have a Supreme Court and a Congress for that.

So you do accept at least one exception to what arms may be kept and borne, despite your correct observation that there are no exceptions made in the amendment. I expect more of your rhetorical acrobatics shortly.

Actually, that was an incorrect statement, which I retract. It is NOT illegal to own a sawed-off shotgun, it's just that you have to follow the rules of the NFA to make or possess one, and you have to pay a tax to transfer it. What the Miller Court said was that Miller and his codefendant (neither of whom was represented at the SCOTUS hearing), who had "made" sawed off shotguns without filing a Form 4 and paying the tax, could not argue that the 2nd Amendment made the NFA an unconstitutional law. They did so by saying that because no one presented evidence to the court that a sawed off shotgun is part of the "ordinary arms of the soldier," which they took pains to note ARE protected, they could not therefore conclude that the NFA was unconstitutionally infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.

This ruling did not constrict the category of arms that are protected by mentioning the arms of a soldier, it merely said that ONE of the purposes of the restriction on Congress was to ensure that the people would not be debarred, in particular, those arms particularly suitable for use by the ordinary soldier. Of course, the sawed-off shotgun HAS been part of the soldier's arsenal since they were invented, but because no one represented Miller before the Court, and therefore no such evidence (which is voluminous) was presented AT THE HEARING, the Court declined to take judicial notice of those facts, which the Court is entitled to do.

And what the Court actually ruled is that the NFA is not an "infringement" of the RKBA because while it REGULATES the possession of certain types and classes of arms by requiring registration and the payment of a tax, it does not debarr anyone who has the money and can find an NFA "arm" to buy from doing so.

[Hermit]

It does not say ANY arms.

It does not qualify what arms are permitted to be kept or borne either. In the absence of such qualification the amendment would have to allow even nuclear weapons in the possession of private hands, which indicates how absurd it is today.

Ah, the old "nuclear weapon" canard. This is just a red-herring argument to try to evade the actual debate. Whether or not the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons can be infringed or not has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, primarily because nobody has had the balls to challenge the law. A law duly passed by the Congress is PRESUMED to be constitutional and may be enforced until and unless it is successfully challenged in court. But the fact that an infringement on the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, or biological weapons, or chemical weapons has not been challenged in court has absolutely nothing whatever to do with whether OTHER types of arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment against infringement by Congress. You are attempting to argue that because a plenary definition of "arms" might include nuclear weapons, it is therefore necessary to conclude that other arms are excluded from its protection, and that Congress, or Netwits on the Internet, get to define which arms are obviously too dangerous to be allowed.

No, that is not what I am arguing at all. I am merely pointing out that the 2nd Amendment would allow the possession of nuclear - and as you have pointed out - biological and chemical weapons in private hands. There simply is not even a hint in the amendment - as you have also pointed out - that the possession and bearing of any arms whatsoever is illegal. To say the least, I find the unaltered state of the 18th century constitutional amendment in the light of 20th and 21st century weapons technology absurd to the nth degree.

[Blind groper]

What the second amendment enthusiasts continuously fail to appreciate is that the wording meant one thing when formulated, and that meaning is now lost and gone as a result of historical changes.

When written, bearing arms meant having a primitive one shot, slow loading tool that was handy to the government because it could be used in war. It did not mean carrying a hidden multishot weapon on civilian streets where it could be pulled out for murder. Today, that is what handguns are used for. They have no purpose except killing people, and not in war. They are close to useless as weapons of war, compared to modern war arsenals.

It is hard to imagine the founding fathers accepting murder tools under the second amendment.

[Collector1337]

that meaning is now lost and gone as a result of historical changes.

[Collector1337]

At the same time, we should realise that the 'right' to bear arms is simply a result of a bunch of guys two and a half centuries back having a rush of blood to the head, causing them to write something down, that people in every generation since have regretted. Well. the rational people anyway.

Scared pussies who need to be taken care of perhaps. Weaklings.

As opposed to the macho, posturing fascist bully boys with guns?

Macho? No. I just don't want or need to be taken care of like you do. I was taught self reliance.

Fascist? WTF? Are you shitting me? I'm Libertarian. Pretty far from being even remotely fascist.

Bully? Bullying who?

Seriously, where do you come up with this garbage? Becuase it's appears it's purely stereotyped thinking, and your not even close to knowing me at all.

Could you explain for me, how a Libertarian, who is pro-gun, pro-cannabis legalization, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-anything freedom basically, how I am "fascist" or "bullying" anyone?

How is being in favor of people making their own life choices, fascist?

Seriously. Explain.

[Blind groper]

Strange, Collector.

I agree with most of your freedoms, but draw the line where a freedom substantially hurts people. Free to smoke pot, or drink alcohol, sure. But not free to drive afterwards, where you might kill someone.

For exactly the same reason I oppose freedom to carry hand guns, which kill 8, 000 people each year in the USA.

[Collector1337]

Strange, Collector.

I agree with most of your freedoms, but draw the line where a freedom substantially hurts people. Free to smoke pot, or drink alcohol, sure. But not free to drive afterwards, where you might kill someone.

For exactly the same reason I oppose freedom to carry hand guns, which kill 8, 000 people each year in the USA.

That's where your error in thinking occurs.

Free to smoke/drink, but not drive afterward. That makes sense. It's not prohibitionist. You're holding the individual accountable, not the inanimate object.

But then, you are totally inconsistent when it comes to guns.

When it's about guns, you are nothing but a prohibitionist. You blame an inanimate object, instead of holding the individual accountable, as you would with drinking and driving.

That's like saying, some people drink and drive, so we must ban alcohol. Trust no one. No one can be responsible. It's ridiculous.

You are okay with those who die from drinking and driving, because you're not about to ban alcohol, therefore those deaths are acceptable. But, because you personally dislike guns, your attitude is BAN THEM. Those deaths are unacceptable.

You have ZERO consistency in your position which makes it impossible to respect. It's rather sad that you have such a disconnect there. Very much not rational, at all.

People are capable of smoking weed/drinking without hurting anyone, just fine. I am also perfectly capable of owning firearms without hurting anyone either. Just like you don't punish all alcohol drinkers by banning alcohol because of the few who do stupid/malicious things, including killing people, you don't punish all gun owners because of the few who do stupid/malicious things, including killing people.

Please get some consistency in your thought process, instead of just being a bleeding heart. People who die from guns, are not somehow more important than those who die in other ways, such as from alcohol.