• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

crescent said:
This argument only works if you propose legalizing drugs.

Drugs are illegal, but available. Speeding is illegal but it happens. Prostitution is illegal, but one can still find prostitutes. Lots of things are like that.

Guns, however, are the only one that conservatives think should be legal based solely on unwillingness to follow the law (ETA: or hypothetically proposed laws). Its a very inconsistent approach.
Click to expand...

Yeggster said:
That doesn't make sense

Most "recreational drugs' ARE legal as well ......

And ... no-one I know of thinks legal gun ownership is based solely on ANY one factor, there are MANY factors ... same as everything else.
Click to expand...

Good catch on my poorly chosen wording. I can totally see how not using the word "illegal" changes the meaning of what I wrote, even if it was in direct reply to your reference to "illegal drugs".:rolleyes:

That said, you seem to be implying that there would be no point in banning this or that type of gun, partly because they would be available anyway, like, say cocaine or meth.

Except that we don't legalize cocaine or meth, even though the laws are not perfectly implemented and those drugs can still be found. The laws criminalizing possession and distribution of so-called "hard drugs" are thought to have value, despite not cutting of the supply 100%

So yes, if we as a society decide to ban this or that type of firearm or accessory, they may still be available - just like illegal drugs. That is no justification to not ban such guns, after all, we continue to ban illegal drugs even though they remain available. There may, however, still be value - enormous value - in reducing the supply, just as with illegal drugs.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
...Did the framer's of the constitution intend that everyone be allowed to own whatever types of arms
Click to expand...

I thought that was obvious ... The framers of the constitution intended everyone to own the same types of arms the current military has ...

The IDEA is so they can overthrow the government AGAIN, if it become necessary.
 
Belz... said:
To hear the other side, those rights have been there since foundation.
Click to expand...

Except they haven't been there insofar as protection from state and local law, until the 14th Amendment was ratified, see section 1 specifically. Even afterwards it took some decades before court cases going up to the SC saw it actually applied correctly.

North Carolina made it illegal for free "coloreds" to keep weapons without special permission, in 1840:

That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.

Texas, yeah Texas, dd this in 1872:

Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions -- and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
Good catch on my poorly chosen wording. I can totally see how not using the word "illegal" changes the meaning of what I wrote, even if it was in direct reply to your reference to "illegal drugs".:rolleyes:

That said, you seem to be implying that there would be no point in banning this or that type of gun, partly because they would be available anyway, like, say cocaine or meth.

Except that we don't legalize cocaine or meth, even though the laws are not perfectly implemented and those drugs can still be found. The laws criminalizing possession and distribution of so-called "hard drugs" are thought to have value, despite not cutting of the supply 100%

So yes, if we as a society decide to ban this or that type of firearm or accessory, they may still be available - just like illegal drugs. That is no justification to not ban such guns, after all, we continue to ban illegal drugs even though they remain available. There may, however, still be value - enormous value - in reducing the supply, just as with illegal drugs.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense ... I understand you ...

I honestly don't think banning any guns will help in these situations (for the many reason that have been posted) BUT...

... In essence I agree with your point ... "just because it's going to be difficult and not 100% successful" ... is no reason to refuse to enact laws, that should be at most a tiny part, of any decision, to make new laws, about anything.
 
Yeggster said:
That makes more sense ... I understand you ...
Click to expand...

Quit it! How can we have a bitter rancorous spiteful and angry argue if we actually read what each other write and give it real consideration!

YOU'RE BREAKING THE RULES OF INTERNET FIGHT CLUB!!
 
Anybody noticed how some people are trying to make the case that their ignorance about firearms in a gun control debate is actually a virtue?
 
lobosrul5 said:
I'm sorry, but nowhere did I ever type that which you put in quotes. That's not even an accurate pseudo-quote. Did the framer's of the constitution intend that everyone be allowed to own whatever types of arms available? I never asked for the word 'arms' to be defined. There is a long history of denying private citizens certain types of arms that no SC decision has ever rules against. That is relevant in a debate about the constitutionality of banning certain types of firearms.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, English doesn't have specific punctuation for "not a literal quote but a summary of the general sense of what's been said". So I have to rely on regular quote marks and the ability of the reader to consider context. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

And of course the points you raise are relevant to the debate. I'm saying that the debate has made progress. There's no reason you have to revert to the same basic question again, as if no progress has been made, and as if you haven't even given the question much thought yet yourself.

I also wouldn't expect everyone, especially the non-Americans, on this thread to be an expert on "two century's worth of court decisions and public debate".
Click to expand...
Why not? They like to style themselves as experts on every other damn thing.

Here's one thing that might happen:

"I'm from the UK, and I haven't given US gun control issues much thought yet. Here's what I think about the Second Amendment. Where can I find more material on the subject, including arguments and court decisions on the many sides of the debate?"

That would be understandable, and welcome.

But most of the regulars on the subject here have been going at it for, I dunno, at least ten years. Seems reasonable to me. I don't think it's too much to expect that by this point they'd be reasonably well-informed about the subject, and ready to build advanced arguments on conclusions they've already arrived at.
 
Yeggster said:
I agree there! .. the bolt action modifications I have seen were dismal!

At one time double loads in each chamber or barrel were manufactured and sold in black power firearms .. a 6 chamber gun, could fire 12 shots before needing to be reloaded for example.

The double barrel Muzzle loader conversion is simply ... multiple shot and powder loads (as described above) are placed in each barrel, and connecting holes are drilled to allow the powder flame from the left barrel to ignite the powder in the right barrel

... and vice a versa down the barrel to the start till all loads have been discharged.
Click to expand...

Ah, OK I've heard of double loads before. But that's not quite the same as automatic fire. Your getting 2 shots per barrel about .2 seconds apart from each other whether you like it or not.
 
Yeggster said:
I thought that was obvious ... The framers of the constitution intended everyone to own the same types of arms the current military has ...

The IDEA is so they can overthrow the government AGAIN, if it become necessary.
Click to expand...

It was more or less framed as the States ability to keep a militia to dissolve the Union should they feel themselves tyrannized. Done in order to keep the anti-federalists happy, among other concessions.
 
crescent said:
Quit it! How can we have a bitter rancorous spiteful and angry argue if we actually read what each other write and give it real consideration!

YOU'RE BREAKING THE RULES OF INTERNET FIGHT CLUB!!
Click to expand...

LOL ... I find virtually every argument has SOME common ground :)
 
lobosrul5 said:
Ah, OK I've heard of double loads before. But that's not quite the same as automatic fire. Your getting 2 shots per barrel about .2 seconds apart from each other whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

The double musket theory suggests loading 3 or perhaps 4 loads in each barrel ... and yes .,. once you light off the first one? ... HOLD ON, they are all going off very rapidly! :)
 
Yeggster said:
I thought that was obvious ... The framers of the constitution intended everyone to own the same types of arms the current military has ...

The IDEA is so they can overthrow the government AGAIN, if it become necessary.
Click to expand...

I think two things are reasonably clear (but not necessarily obvious) from the wording of Second Amendment:

First, that the authors recognized an inherent human right to bear arms.

Second, that the authors recognized at least one compelling reason* not to infringe on that right: Private gun ownership would provide a practical basis for raising militias when necessary to protect the state (not overthrow it, as you somehow believe).

The question of what type of arms is not answered, nor even asked, by the amendment. Instead it's been up to the courts to decide what types of arms are covered, on a case by case basis. Examining the Constitution in a vacuum, without reference to the body of case law and statute law that has grown from it, doesn't really even begin to reveal what is "obvious" in terms of practical implications.

---

* Elsewhere, some of the framers argue that it is not practical to enumerate all the reasons to protect a human right. Therefore, they continue, enumerating any reasons has the perverse effect of making it seem like only those reasons apply, and if they are negated, there are no other reasons to protect the right. Since that is not true, it is better to not enumerate reasons, but let the assertion of the right stand on its own, with all possible justifications for it intact, whether they've been discovered yet or not.

Obviously those framers lost the argument, when it came to wording the Second Amendment. But I think the principle remains, and applies: Just because militia is the only reason given, it does not follow that it is the only reason that is constitutionally binding on the right to bear arms.
 
crescent said:
Who?
Click to expand...

varwoche, I think, has taken the line that he doesn't need to know anything about firearms until they've been banned to a much greater degree than at present. The implication is that once most guns are off the table, he might be arsed to learn the technical differences between, say, cap-and-ball revolvers and single-shot muzzle loaders, if it comes to a question of whether to ban them as well.

But for now? Being ignorant of guns is totally acceptable when having an opinion on gun control policy. Because when his opinion is "ban (almost) all guns", he can always come back later and figure out the details of "(almost)" once his desired banmageddon is widely accepted in principle. He's not looking for half measures, so he doesn't need to have refined understanding.
 
theprestige said:
I think two things are reasonably clear (but not necessarily obvious) from the wording of Second Amendment:

First, that the authors recognized an inherent human right to bear arms.

Second, that the authors recognized at least one compelling reason* not to infringe on that right: Private gun ownership would provide a practical basis for raising militias when necessary to protect the state (not overthrow it, as you somehow believe).

The question of what type of arms is not answered, nor even asked, by the amendment. Instead it's been up to the courts to decide what types of arms are covered, on a case by case basis. Examining the Constitution in a vacuum, without reference to the body of case law and statute law that has grown from it, doesn't really even begin to reveal what is "obvious" in terms of practical implications.

---

* Elsewhere, some of the framers argue that it is not practical to enumerate all the reasons to protect a human right. Therefore, they continue, enumerating any reasons has the perverse effect of making it seem like only those reasons apply, and if they are negated, there are no other reasons to protect the right. Since that is not true, it is better to not enumerate reasons, but let the assertion of the right stand on its own, with all possible justifications for it intact, whether they've been discovered yet or not.

Obviously those framers lost the argument, when it came to wording the Second Amendment. But I think the principle remains, and applies: Just because militia is the only reason given, it does not follow that it is the only reason that is constitutionally binding on the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

There in lies the debate :( ... I'm quite certain it will never be resolved ...
 
theprestige said:
I am not saying that.


This does not follow.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does. If the decisions of past courts are changeable by future courts then it's a worthwhile discussion to consider alternative interpretations of the second amendment that would allow controls on firearms that, under current interpretation, would not be allowed.


Personally, I believe the second amendment is a weight around the neck of potential American legislation designed to prevent nutters from killing people. Any attempt to introduce any legislation at all will always fall foul of "shall not be infringed". The moment you require someone to demonstrate a 'right' it ceases to be one and becomes a privilege instead. Any control of any sort will naturally infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners because the very act of asking them to demonstrate their lawfulness is an infringement.
 
theprestige said:
Wherein lies the debate? I covered several points, some of which don't seem very debatable to me.
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to the main the two points you mentioned "What TYPE of arms did they mean" and does what does "Well regulated Militia" mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom