The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[triforcharity]

Surrender to whom?

You know, the indian populace managed to throw off the yolk of a tyrant without any weapons at all.

Really? Something tells me that might be wrong.....

 

[triforcharity]

So, a private person can own a Nuclear weapon.

Norm

No, and if you read the rest of the post, you'd understand why your reply is absurd.

 

[triforcharity]

No. What I am suggesting is that had they understood the possible future ramifications of Automatic Weapons and mass shootings, they may have put some limitations on the right to bear arms.

Um, they kinda did. They put in place a system that would be able to make laws with that regard.

The second Amendment was conceived in times when what can be done today was simply incomprehensible.

Agreed. You mean that there's a way we can combine the power and the projectile into one shell, load MANY of them in a tube, and fire them really fast?? Holy crap!!

But Governments all over the place do make laws relating to all these things. As new things come along, new laws are made.

Correct. Just as it's mostly illegal for John Q. Citizen to own automatic weapons. There are some exceptions, and the hoops that must be jumped through are numerous and sometimes flaming.

For instance, background checks for gun purchases. Or, you can't take them into the courthouse.

I think that if I yell fire! in a dark theatre and cause a panic, that this does not come under "free speech" laws. Similarly there are slander and libel laws everywhere, even in the USA. Are you saying that Magazines, radio and TV is not regulated at all?

Most media is regulated very little. The internet is only regulated for crimes, not content. Same with magazines. You can say pretty much whatever you want, as long as that speech is not criminal. It's similar to the MA here. They don't regulate ideas or content, just what is a "crime" based on their laws.

Or the internet? I suspect that Internet Kiddie Porn is illegal pretty much anywhere, and certainly your founding fathers never considered that.

No, you're absolutely right. (Just out of curiosity, why do people always go to kiddie porn when discussing this type of subject? Is it because it's the most vile of "speech"? Odd. /OT )

My question is, does the second amendment or subsequent SCOTUS decisions specifically preclude anyone from owning a Nuclear Weapon?

No. Not specifically. Our laws that have been made since our founding, is what precludes anyone from owning a nuclear weapon.

Yes, I do understand the limitations. How well they are policed is another issue

.

Agreed. And that's a mostly states issue. And it's a derail here, so that's as far as I'm willing to discuss.

And, no I am not an anti gun nut. My brother has a shotgun on his small farm to (illegally) shoot Tiger Snakes because he has young grandchildren who often visit and play in the paddocks. Tigers are protected from humans. Unfortunately the reverse does not apply.

Norm

I though you said padlocks for a second, I was quite confused. Thanks for your post, I enjoyed it. Cheers Norm!

 

[triforcharity]

I think you've got me mixed up with the OP. Someone asked repeatedly did the SA allow you to own a nuclear weapon? No one would directly answer it thus [see highlighted part above].

Um, myself, Newtons Bit, and Cylinder, have ALL directly answered that to varying degrees. So......

 

[triforcharity]

I do find it fascinating that a country so keen on spreading democracy seems to be populated by so many people who seem have no faith in it within their own borders....

It's not so much the concept of democracy that people don't have faith in, it's the people who make those decisions that we have no faith in. Feinstein for instance. Anyway, it's not the concept, but the people in authority to further that concept.

 

[Nessie]

You are seriously arguing that if a burglar/home invader bursts/sneaks into your home planning to shoot, stab or cosh you that the police or a spare army unit will be popping in to save you? I know that does not happen in the US and I am pretty sure it doesn't happen in Australia, England, Canada, etc.

It is very specifically the police's job in Scotland to save you, the Police Scotland's prime aim posted on all police vehicles is "Keeping people safe"

Then there is a legislative requirement, the Police Scotland Act 1967, Section 17 states " the duties of a constable as being to "to guard, patrol and watch so as - (i) to prevent the commission of offences, (ii) to preserve order, and (iii) to protect life and property."

So a call to a home invasion is a top priority, immediate attendance and the police know it is their job to catch the criminal and protect the victims.

I am sure the above also applies to the rest of the UK. From my experience in the US the police will turn up and confront and arrest violent people and protect victims.

I do not like situations where I am denied the right to (fairly likely) superiority of weapon over an invader (why I have learned how to make and use things that do not look like weapons but are very nice ones for places I can't carry the best stuff) and the right to keep and use same and, thus, the right to life. And, I would rather the intruder(s) not survive while I do instead of being captured, maybe tried, not even executed, just jailed a few years if they kill me. I want whoever manages to kill me to die in as terrible a way as possible - worse if they harm a child, my wife, any of my friends.........

The problem is that in the US the decision is too often based on emotion and not actual need, so you get lots of people armed for self defence who are jittery or have a tough guy attitude or have guns available when not needed that get stolen or misused. Furthermore, how do you explain why older, white, Republican males with limited education and who live in the South are the most likely group to have a gun?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

Are they at a particular level of risk? This is a sceptics forum, but many gun owners ditch scepticism and go to emotion when it comes to their supposed need for a gun.

 

[Nessie]

So you have a problem with someone who actually look into the issue? Really, you feel that for the sake of class someone should remain ignorant of how they can defend themselves?

sounds like you just think guns are icky and are trying to justify that position.

Any idea how many people make a rational decision to arm themself fro self defence and those who use emotional reasons?

Is the likelihood of being a victim in any way linked to the likelihood of having a gun?

I think from the demographics of who has the guns, there far too many people who make emotional decisions to arm themself and there is little to no link between need and having a gun.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

1. "Right" in scare quotes is dishonest. The Second Amendment is part of our Constitution, and part of the bill of Rights.

2. Your opinion is noted, art. Enjoy Australia. How we do our business isn't your business.

If you're ever in Texas, drop by for a beer, brisket, and home made chili. Your risk of being shot by anyone in quite low, regardless of what you read in the papers.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I believe in the right of self defense and that right extends to not being restricted in your ability to acquire the best individual arm for the job. Right now, I believe the limit is at squad support weapons. But if the M240 or M249 became standard issue infantry rifles, no organized group should be allowed to restrict private ownership of it.

That is why I HATE the second amendment. Its too restrictive. I believe the decision to carry a firearm on an airplane should be the decision of the plane's owner.

 

[angrysoba]

Well THAT's what makes it anachronistic. Citizens today have no hope of overthrowing a modern state with small arms.

Yeah, but then again, some people in modern states such as Syria or the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda could probably have done with some guns, eh?

 

[BStrong]

It sounds like we're heading towards, "It IS legal for someone in the U.S. to sell a nuclear weapon and also legal for someone to buy one."

Yike!

Not legally in the U.S.

FTR, while there are a great many registered DD's in the NFRTR (National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record) the ammunition for devices above .50 BMG caliber such as artillery pieces, mortars, grenade and rocket launchers are registerable items into and of themselves, and genuine HE rounds for any of these weapons are generally unavailable.

There are a few DD SOT's (Kent Lomont* was one of them) that have turned out HE rounds, usually for their own amusement, and although I've seen some live 20mm HE rounds for sale (involving the exact process for purchase as any other NFA device) I've never run across a live HE Arty or mortar round.

The guys that I know that have live artillery pieces and enjoy using them recreationally (the word extravagant isn't descriptive enough here) cast their own solid lead slugs and fire those rather than HE or WP rounds.

*Kent's obit in the Shotgun News:

http://www.shotgunnews.com/2012/01/30/famed-machine-gunner-kent-lomont-dies/

 

[fuelair]

It is very specifically the police's job in Scotland to save you, the Police Scotland's prime aim posted on all police vehicles is "Keeping people safe"

Then there is a legislative requirement, the Police Scotland Act 1967, Section 17 states " the duties of a constable as being to "to guard, patrol and watch so as - (i) to prevent the commission of offences, (ii) to preserve order, and (iii) to protect life and property."

So a call to a home invasion is a top priority, immediate attendance and the police know it is their job to catch the criminal and protect the victims.

I am sure the above also applies to the rest of the UK. From my experience in the US the police will turn up and confront and arrest violent people and protect victims.



The problem is that in the US the decision is too often based on emotion and not actual need, so you get lots of people armed for self defence who are jittery or have a tough guy attitude or have guns available when not needed that get stolen or misused. Furthermore, how do you explain why older, white, Republican males with limited education and who live in the South are the most likely group to have a gun?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

Are they at a particular level of risk? This is a sceptics forum, but many gun owners ditch scepticism and go to emotion when it comes to their supposed need for a gun.

I don't - though I am certain a good number of them (Southern old guys) have a hunting background On the other hand, I am a 66 year old B.S., MLS, white Democratic male born North (West Virginia and moved to middle Tennessee - also mostly North) but now Southern by location. As to their level of risk - most of us in the US are now aware that crazies not properly attended to have killed others (sometimes in remote places, sometimes in small towns, sometimes in big cities, sometimes in malls or movie theaters or school campuses or churches, etc. The risk of any of those and other places is small as a nationwide statistics set but it is not zero. My philosophy (like most of mine such as pro-abortions, anti -censorship, anti-racist, pro-Democrats...) was developed early on and it definitely included being prepared to halt/exterminate attackers- that last solidified when my brother pointed the loaded .22 at me and I realized I was not in fear of guns pointed at me as well as my precise attitude toward their holder. That was when I told my brother he had two options - shoot and make sure he killed me or put down the gun - I also told him, though I can't repeat it here (Rule 10 iirc) what would happen if he did not manage to kill me. I was 12 or early 13 at the time.

As a side note, most US police departmenst do not by law have a requirement to protect you or your belongings. I do have that as a personal requirement. I do not sit up worrying about any such happening, just prepared if it does (which is why I do not need to worry about it).

 

[gumboot]

It was my understanding that in the 17th and 18th centuries it was common for gentlemen to wear swords.

In court, or as part of military uniform perhaps, but even then we're only talking about a small sword, which isn't a serious weapon.

It was actually considered incredibly inappropriate to wear a sword in polite society, particularly in the presence of a lady. I think romance novels have perpetuated a bit of a myth about the sword-carrying gentleman, and in particular extended the period in which it happened.

As the industrial revolution heated up and populations became increasingly urban there was a bit of a lag in urban law enforcement, so you had a couple of centuries in which cities were highly dangerous places, and men would carry weapons for protection out of necessity, but ultimately it wasn't a right, at was still at the discretion of the urban authorities.

For example, in 1705 the newly appointed Master of Ceremonies of Bath, Richard Nash, issued a blanket ban on the wearing of swords within the city. He followed up with a ban at Tunbridge Wells. The two locations were made into popular spa resorts by Nash, and probably contributed to the sharp decline of the sword as a status symbol - other factors were the increasing effectiveness of the Bow Street Runners as an early police force in London, and the Age of Enlightenment rejecting force and aggression as unsuitable behaviour for a civilised man.

 

[Information Analyst]

It's not so much the concept of democracy that people don't have faith in, it's the people who make those decisions that we have no faith in. Feinstein for instance. Anyway, it's not the concept, but the people in authority to further that concept.

Presumably you mean elected politicians? I think we all get the fact that back in the 18th century, the British subjects decided they didn't have any faith in their government (i.e. the British one), but what seems weird is replacing it with a local one that their descendants don't seem to have much faith in, either. Most people in western democracies have a cynical view of politicians, since power and privilege can corrupt (can - it's silly to say it always does like its an immutable law), but the idea that a people having their own small arms is what stops becoming the Fourth Reich overnight seems to be over-egging it.

 

[Information Analyst]

Yeah, but then again, some people in modern states such as Syria or the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda could probably have done with some guns, eh?

There was no shortage of small arms in Yugoslavia due to the pre-existence of organised local militia-type units. What was unbalanced was that the Serbians had control of most of the heavy weaponry at the start.

 

[Nessie]

I don't - though I am certain a good number of them (Southern old guys) have a hunting background On the other hand, I am a 66 year old B.S., MLS, white Democratic male born North (West Virginia and moved to middle Tennessee - also mostly North) but now Southern by location. As to their level of risk - most of us in the US are now aware that crazies not properly attended to have killed others (sometimes in remote places, sometimes in small towns, sometimes in big cities, sometimes in malls or movie theaters or school campuses or churches, etc. The risk of any of those and other places is small as a nationwide statistics set but it is not zero. My philosophy (like most of mine such as pro-abortions, anti -censorship, anti-racist, pro-Democrats...) was developed early on and it definitely included being prepared to halt/exterminate attackers- that last solidified when my brother pointed the loaded .22 at me and I realized I was not in fear of guns pointed at me as well as my precise attitude toward their holder. That was when I told my brother he had two options - shoot and make sure he killed me or put down the gun - I also told him, though I can't repeat it here (Rule 10 iirc) what would happen if he did not manage to kill me. I was 12 or early 13 at the time.

As a side note, most US police departmenst do not by law have a requirement to protect you or your belongings. I do have that as a personal requirement. I do not sit up worrying about any such happening, just prepared if it does (which is why I do not need to worry about it).

That last part is weird to me. I believe it came about to stop the police from being sued for not getting there in time. But it is the fundamental role of the police, to protect life and property and I am sure US police officers still see their job as just that.

 

[fuelair]

That last part is weird to me. I believe it came about to stop the police from being sued for not getting there in time. But it is the fundamental role of the police, to protect life and property and I am sure US police officers still see their job as just that.

Even if the policy was that they had the responsibility, by the time the police arrive in response to a call, unless they are right down the street, the damage - whichever way it goes - is likely already done.

 

[sadhatter]

I'm not really part of the 'anti weapon crowd', whatever that is. I have a deep fascination with the apparent US love affair with firearms, however, with the above, you hvae missed my point entirely because: Wrong Indians.





That's exactly what happened. It's called 'peaceful non-co-operation' and it freed a nation.

That is quite a unique view of history you have there. Care to be a little less vague though?

 

[sadhatter]

Any idea how many people make a rational decision to arm themself fro self defence and those who use emotional reasons?

Is the likelihood of being a victim in any way linked to the likelihood of having a gun?

I think from the demographics of who has the guns, there far too many people who make emotional decisions to arm themself and there is little to no link between need and having a gun.

That is a darn fine personal opinion you have there friend, problem being, someone roses reasons for owning a weapon should not effect me. and beyond that, there shouldn't be a class based system for gun ownership, having to prove one is in need of a gun would simply be a way to make getting one darn near impossible. As need would be defined , arbitrarily.

 

[Graham2001]

It is considered a right because it was listed as a right in the country's founding documents. Second amendment and all that.

If they'd passed the first two amendments (I. Congressional Apportionment Amendment) and (II. Congressional Pay Amendment (Passed 1992 as Amendment XXVII)) back in the 1700's then the 'Right' to have guns would have been (IV. Right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of an organized militia (This is what I think they meant.)) somehow I don't think it would have had as much emotional force if this had happened, but...