03-06-2018, 02:15 AM
(03-06-2018, 01:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK. So I have one question here. Why is there an "x" to begin with. Why does the second amendment not simply say "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"?
I'd say this: By adding a reasoning, the constitution is adding a distinct foundation to the right. Which is the militia. Now as soon as you argue the self-defense value of certain arms, you don't argue within that foundation. It's a debate not aligned with the second amendment, except when you say that the "x" part/the militia part doesn't actually influence the right and the amendment could just as well do without it and stands on its own.
You've essentially just described the opposing viewpoint of the 2nd amendments wording. The general consensus is that the militia section is not a qualifier, but it by no means is the only interpretation.
Quote:I don't know if my thoughts get clear. I argue that forbidding the launcher happened for reasons that have nothing to do with the amendment - or contradict it. Either way, if there can be that restriction, based on an artificial factor (self-defense value) not mentioned in the constitution, there can be other restrictions, there's already precedence. Is how I'd argue it in court. I'm sure Gorsuch'd be very impressed.
Which falls back on the argument about "shall not be infringed" being absolute or is there a grey area. The argument against semi-automatic rifles that is frequently cited is that they are "weapons of war". Another argument is that the 2nd was written when muskets were the infantryman's weapon, so everyone can have all the muskets they want. The counter to these two arguments is that the rifles the private person owned in the late 1700's were actually far superior to the muskets issued to standing armies. This is actually seen today as well, I own some rifles that are significantly better made than a government issued M4. The grenade launcher has no arguable civilian application, a semi-automatic rifle does.
Quote:OK, terminology clearly isn't my friend in that debate. Guess we can't ban them then. I actually agree.
It's hardly your fault though, semi-automatic gets bandied about by the media like it signifies a weapon of mass slaughter. All it means is one trigger pull discharges one round.Quote:No, of course not, we do make a compromise there, some kind of middle ground. Restricting car speed would be quite the extreme... but then again, so would be just abolishing all speed limits and shrugging off the increasing deaths resulting from that freedom, ah what can you do. Which from the distance looks like the US approach to guns. It doesn't have that middle ground vibe to me, but sure that's just a feeling.
Except the deaths aren't increasing, it's the exact opposite. As I said earlier, gun ownership has gone up while violent crime has decreased.
Quote:know your audience... but hats off, you know stuff about guns. I only take in the first sentence though.
I thought about this, it would be difficult to state it in simpler terms without getting even more long winded than I already am.
Quote:Yeah, now that's bad news for my stance, isn't it.
I'd better row back on that one then.
Maybe there's a correct way to ban something that isn't that wide-spread and still is a deadly machine gun with firing capacity that far exceeds every reasonable need. But I guess it isn't me who could word that.
- Can we ban bump stocks?
Every semi-automatic has a "rate of fire" far in excess of your line in the sand. Maximum rate of fire is not going to be achieved by anyone actually firing the weapon. As for bump stocks, they're a stupid range toy. They crush your accuracy. You can also achieve the same thing with a shoelace or belt loop.
Quote:But a licence doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual guns you might own. It merely would allow you to buy one or many if you so please. It would give those blue states no additional leverage to ban or confiscate anything. Per se.
I mention both as they frequently go hand in hand for anti-gun activists. The problem with a license is that you're requiring an extra step to exercise a constitutional right. You get the same "against" argument in this regard with voter ID laws. Proponents state that proving your identity when you vote is common sense. Opponents state this targets poor people, disproportionately minorities, as it requires an extra step (or barrier based on your position) to exercising a constitutional right.
