America - Gun Control

[Cultured_Bogan]

The weaponry was drastically less sophisticated. No one was running around with anything quite like semi-auto or fully automatic weapons.

And no it was not specifically written for particular weapons, but it was written for the times Abe. You have to observe it in an historical context. Do you honestly believe a Second Amendment would be necessary in the modern USA? If the Second is still legitimate and doesn't subscribe to particular weapons do you think Americans should have access to RPG's, Bazookas, artillery and nuclear weapons?

The USA is not the same nation it was 230 years ago, not by a long shot.

Your trying to take the second amendment out of context. It covers an individuals write to bear arms, not to own nuclear warheads and to drive down Hollywood boulevard in an armored tank.

Ask yourself why it was written, and if your honest with yourself you cant possibly come up with a legitimate argument that somehow it was limited to muskets, when people of that era were already using more sophisticated weaponry than muskets anyway.

Its like arguing that the First Amendment should be limited to people writing with ink pots and quills, because computers weren't invented back then. Of course its not the case, because the principal and spirit of the amendment are front and center, notwithstanding changes to technology.

Yoss has pretty much covered off on what I intended to reply with. My response to you was to put it in a context from a historical perspective, taking into account the events at the time. The primary intent was to be able to conjure up a large civilian militia in the absence of a national standing army, the giveaway is in the actual wording of the Amendment. Self defence from each other is merely a modern expansion of the Second Amendment.

Do you believe that if the Amendment (in it's original context,) did not exist today that it would need to be enacted given the military might of the USA?

That is exactly the point, there was a modern interpretation put on the amendment in 2008, by the supreme court, that extended the "right to bear arms" to people not in a militia on the grounds of self defence. The vote was won 5-4 and resulted a handgun ban from 1975 being overturned. At some point in the future that interpretation will be challenged again and likely eventually overturned.

Correct. It is only a recent interpretation. Most recent rulings are gravitating away from the original intent of the Amendment and moving toward a self defence orientated basis. Now that they no longer need protect themselves from the English, they need to protect themselves from each other.

 

[Tim Sheens]

The weaponry was drastically less sophisticated. No one was running around with anything quite like semi-auto or fully automatic weapons.

And no it was not specifically written for particular weapons, but it was written for the times Abe. You have to observe it in an historical context. Do you honestly believe a Second Amendment would be necessary in the modern USA? If the Second is still legitimate and doesn't subscribe to particular weapons do you think Americans should have access to RPG's, Bazookas, artillery and nuclear weapons?

The USA is not the same nation it was 230 years ago, not by a long shot.

Your trying to take the second amendment out of context. It covers an individuals write to bear arms, not to own nuclear warheads and to drive down Hollywood boulevard in an armored tank.

Ask yourself why it was written, and if your honest with yourself you cant possibly come up with a legitimate argument that somehow it was limited to muskets, when people of that era were already using more sophisticated weaponry than muskets anyway.

Its like arguing that the First Amendment should be limited to people writing with ink pots and quills, because computers weren't invented back then. Of course its not the case, because the principal and spirit of the amendment are front and center, notwithstanding changes to technology.

Yoss has pretty much covered off on what I intended to reply with. My response to you was to put it in a context from a historical perspective, taking into account the events at the time. The primary intent was to be able to conjure up a large civilian militia in the absence of a national standing army, the giveaway is in the actual wording of the Amendment. Self defence from each other is merely a modern expansion of the Second Amendment.

Do you believe that if the Amendment (in it's original context,) did not exist today that it would need to be enacted given the military might of the USA?

That is exactly the point, there was a modern interpretation put on the amendment in 2008, by the supreme court, that extended the "right to bear arms" to people not in a militia on the grounds of self defence. The vote was won 5-4 and resulted a handgun ban from 1975 being overturned. At some point in the future that interpretation will be challenged again and likely eventually overturned.

It must also be remembered that it was a decision that shocked legal minds globally, despite the panel that made it being very much a political one dominated by appointees of the Bush republicans that are in the pockets of the NRA.

 

[MG1962]

Here we go, back to ole faithful "guns don't kill people, people kill people"…

And as was observed recently. Then we should allow North Korea to continue their nuclear ICBM program. After all nuclear bombs don't kill people - people kill people.

 

[jamesharden]

Here we go, back to ole faithful "guns don't kill people, people kill people"…

And as was observed recently. Then we should allow North Korea to continue their nuclear ICBM program. After all nuclear bombs don't kill people - people kill people.

if the united states are allowed to then why can't north korea?

But i get your point :slight_smile:

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Here we go, back to ole faithful "guns don't kill people, people kill people"…

And as was observed recently. Then we should allow North Korea to continue their nuclear ICBM program. After all nuclear bombs don't kill people - people kill people.

if the united states are allowed to then why can't north korea?

But i get your point :slight_smile:

And the USA used atomic weapons when not one little yellow foot was on the US mainland. Not a good precedent. It proves the point that just possessing a weapon greatly increases the chance of a weapon being used. Same for credit cards - people spend more just because it is easily accessible.

 

[jamesharden]

Here we go, back to ole faithful "guns don't kill people, people kill people"…

And as was observed recently. Then we should allow North Korea to continue their nuclear ICBM program. After all nuclear bombs don't kill people - people kill people.

if the united states are allowed to then why can't north korea?

But i get your point :slight_smile:

And the USA used atomic weapons when not one little yellow foot was on the US mainland. Not a good precedent. It proves the point that just possessing a weapon greatly increases the chance of a weapon being used. Same for credit cards - people spend more just because it is easily accessible.

i wish guns and nuclear weaponry etc was not owned by anyone. Most of all the United States

 

[Abraham]

I got 7 different responses overnight about the Musket/2nd Amendment issue, and i don't really want to start 7 different conversation on the same issue. So i am not trying to be rude by not replying to everyone individually, just that running 7 discussions on the same topic is not going to very productive.

Whether people agree with the 2nd Amendment is a side point, but the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to Muskets is an issue of simple fact. Its been written about extensively from both viewpoints, but opinions cannot circumvent the realities contained within the text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

This was written by James Maddison who was a military figure and lawmaker. If he wanted the text to apply to muskets, he would have written the word "muskets. He didn't. He used the word "Arms", and the universally accepted definition of arms leaves little room for any additional interpretation.

If you disagree it is probably because of personal opinion, not because of anything factual within the text that gives rise to the idea that the Amendment means something other than what it clearly says.

Even the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that : "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

 

[Abraham]

Yes to all of the above. If you can successfully do it for fertilizer, you can do it with stockpiled weapons. Here in Kansas alone I am aware of at least three potential terror attacks foiled over the last couple of years by the tracking of fertilizer sales.

Horses for courses. Its not as simple as you propose.

To build a bomb you need large quantities or fertilizer, and require licenses to obtain the fertilizer in specific quantities. If someone doesn't have the license, then BAM ! Arrest them and pats on the back all round.

To shoot 100 people you literally need one gun and a few magazines. This covers maybe 100 million Americans at present.

Good luck with your surveillance operation.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

You can also make bombs with chemicals that plumbers use to clear blocked drains - but you must be a licensed plumber to purchase. I know how to make great crude bombs from easily accessible materials but won't publish on the internet.

 

[jamesharden]

You can also make bombs with chemicals that plumbers use to clear blocked drains - but you must be a licensed plumber to purchase. I know how to make great crude bombs from easily accessible materials but won't publish on the internet.

i doubt in our lifetime there will be any regulation on gun and weapons control in the USA

 

[Geo]

You can also make bombs with chemicals that plumbers use to clear blocked drains - but you must be a licensed plumber to purchase. I know how to make great crude bombs from easily accessible materials but won't publish on the internet.

Byron Bay Bomber..has a ring to it…

 

[magpiecol]

Your trying to take the second amendment out of context. It covers an individuals write to bear arms, not to own nuclear warheads and to drive down Hollywood boulevard in an armored tank.

Ask yourself why it was written, and if your honest with yourself you cant possibly come up with a legitimate argument that somehow it was limited to muskets, when people of that era were already using more sophisticated weaponry than muskets anyway.

Its like arguing that the First Amendment should be limited to people writing with ink pots and quills, because computers weren't invented back then. Of course its not the case, because the principal and spirit of the amendment are front and center, notwithstanding changes to technology.

Yoss has pretty much covered off on what I intended to reply with. My response to you was to put it in a context from a historical perspective, taking into account the events at the time. The primary intent was to be able to conjure up a large civilian militia in the absence of a national standing army, the giveaway is in the actual wording of the Amendment. Self defence from each other is merely a modern expansion of the Second Amendment.

Do you believe that if the Amendment (in it's original context,) did not exist today that it would need to be enacted given the military might of the USA?

That is exactly the point, there was a modern interpretation put on the amendment in 2008, by the supreme court, that extended the "right to bear arms" to people not in a militia on the grounds of self defence. The vote was won 5-4 and resulted a handgun ban from 1975 being overturned. At some point in the future that interpretation will be challenged again and likely eventually overturned.

Correct. It is only a recent interpretation. Most recent rulings are gravitating away from the original intent of the Amendment and moving toward a self defence orientated basis. Now that they no longer need protect themselves from the English, they need to protect themselves from each other.

Don't we all!

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Yoss has pretty much covered off on what I intended to reply with. My response to you was to put it in a context from a historical perspective, taking into account the events at the time. The primary intent was to be able to conjure up a large civilian militia in the absence of a national standing army, the giveaway is in the actual wording of the Amendment. Self defence from each other is merely a modern expansion of the Second Amendment.

Do you believe that if the Amendment (in it's original context,) did not exist today that it would need to be enacted given the military might of the USA?

That is exactly the point, there was a modern interpretation put on the amendment in 2008, by the supreme court, that extended the "right to bear arms" to people not in a militia on the grounds of self defence. The vote was won 5-4 and resulted a handgun ban from 1975 being overturned. At some point in the future that interpretation will be challenged again and likely eventually overturned.

Correct. It is only a recent interpretation. Most recent rulings are gravitating away from the original intent of the Amendment and moving toward a self defence orientated basis. Now that they no longer need protect themselves from the English, they need to protect themselves from each other.

Don't we all!

How many enemies do you have Col?

If you need a weapon to protect yourself from all the people you think might want to kill you, chances are the problem isn't them? That, or you have an inflated opinion of the impact you think you have on the lives of others.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I got 7 different responses overnight about the Musket/2nd Amendment issue, and i don't really want to start 7 different conversation on the same issue. So i am not trying to be rude by not replying to everyone individually, just that running 7 discussions on the same topic is not going to very productive.

Whether people agree with the 2nd Amendment is a side point, but the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to Muskets is an issue of simple fact. Its been written about extensively from both viewpoints, but opinions cannot circumvent the realities contained within the text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

This was written by James Maddison who was a military figure and lawmaker. If he wanted the text to apply to muskets, he would have written the word "muskets. He didn't. He used the word "Arms", and the universally accepted definition of arms leaves little room for any additional interpretation.

If you disagree it is probably because of personal opinion, not because of anything factual within the text that gives rise to the idea that the Amendment means something other than what it clearly says.

Even the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that : "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

Very good Abe, you read the same Wikipedia article I did and conveniently left out the following:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Again, the extension of the right to bear arms as a means of self defence from other average Americans is a modern interpretation as the well regulated militia has made way for the Reserve National Guard and US military.

 

[Abraham]

I got 7 different responses overnight about the Musket/2nd Amendment issue, and i don't really want to start 7 different conversation on the same issue. So i am not trying to be rude by not replying to everyone individually, just that running 7 discussions on the same topic is not going to very productive.

Whether people agree with the 2nd Amendment is a side point, but the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to Muskets is an issue of simple fact. Its been written about extensively from both viewpoints, but opinions cannot circumvent the realities contained within the text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

This was written by James Maddison who was a military figure and lawmaker. If he wanted the text to apply to muskets, he would have written the word "muskets. He didn't. He used the word "Arms", and the universally accepted definition of arms leaves little room for any additional interpretation.

If you disagree it is probably because of personal opinion, not because of anything factual within the text that gives rise to the idea that the Amendment means something other than what it clearly says.

Even the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that : "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

Very good Abe, you read the same Wikipedia article I did and conveniently left out the following:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Again, the extension of the right to bear arms as a means of self defence from other average Americans is a modern interpretation as the well regulated militia has made way for the Reserve National Guard and US military.

I'm not following the logic of your argument.

Does the Second Amendment refer to Muskets or not?

If so, show me the evidence.

If not, why are we still talking about it?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I got 7 different responses overnight about the Musket/2nd Amendment issue, and i don't really want to start 7 different conversation on the same issue. So i am not trying to be rude by not replying to everyone individually, just that running 7 discussions on the same topic is not going to very productive.

Whether people agree with the 2nd Amendment is a side point, but the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to Muskets is an issue of simple fact. Its been written about extensively from both viewpoints, but opinions cannot circumvent the realities contained within the text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

This was written by James Maddison who was a military figure and lawmaker. If he wanted the text to apply to muskets, he would have written the word "muskets. He didn't. He used the word "Arms", and the universally accepted definition of arms leaves little room for any additional interpretation.

If you disagree it is probably because of personal opinion, not because of anything factual within the text that gives rise to the idea that the Amendment means something other than what it clearly says.

Even the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that : "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

Very good Abe, you read the same Wikipedia article I did and conveniently left out the following:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Again, the extension of the right to bear arms as a means of self defence from other average Americans is a modern interpretation as the well regulated militia has made way for the Reserve National Guard and US military.

I'm not following the logic of your argument.

Does the Second Amendment refer to Muskets or not?

If so, show me the evidence.

If not, why are we still talking about it?

No one to the best of my knowledge in this thread said that the Second Amendment was written explicitly with muskets in mind.

It was a reference point, not a fact (y'know, like stating that Gatling Guns were invented 80 years before they actually were.) You're asserting that everyone has said that the Second Amendment explicitly referred to muskets. No one else has addressed muskets other than to address the type of weapons that were available at the time. If semi/fully automatic rifles, RPG's and nuclear weapons were available in the late 1700's the Second Amendment there may have been some stipulations. Of course that is only speculation because that is not the way it played out.

Given the actual ratified wording of the Second Amendment, and the subsequent introduction of the National Guard as a dual role state and national reservist militia, that would essentially render the Second Amendment useless. The English aren't coming back, there's a culture of worship for their serving troops so they have faith in their military, so that leaves self defence from other Americans (or lunatic sovereign citizens who think the government is going to enslave them,) as the last argument for preserving the Second Amendment.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

America need the English to return and disarm them.

 

[cochise]

I got 7 different responses overnight about the Musket/2nd Amendment issue, and i don't really want to start 7 different conversation on the same issue. So i am not trying to be rude by not replying to everyone individually, just that running 7 discussions on the same topic is not going to very productive.

Whether people agree with the 2nd Amendment is a side point, but the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to Muskets is an issue of simple fact. Its been written about extensively from both viewpoints, but opinions cannot circumvent the realities contained within the text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

This was written by James Maddison who was a military figure and lawmaker. If he wanted the text to apply to muskets, he would have written the word "muskets. He didn't. He used the word "Arms", and the universally accepted definition of arms leaves little room for any additional interpretation.

If you disagree it is probably because of personal opinion, not because of anything factual within the text that gives rise to the idea that the Amendment means something other than what it clearly says.

Even the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that : "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

Very good Abe, you read the same Wikipedia article I did and conveniently left out the following:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Again, the extension of the right to bear arms as a means of self defence from other average Americans is a modern interpretation as the well regulated militia has made way for the Reserve National Guard and US military.

A modern interpretation that will eventually be reversed

 

[Abraham]

No one to the best of my knowledge in this thread said that the Second Amendment was written explicitly with muskets in mind.

Yes they did.

That's why we were having this specific discussion.

It was a reference point, not a fact (y'know, like stating that Gatling Guns were invented 80 years before they actually were.)

y'know, i corrected it immediately to the puckle gun.

But if that's your way of trying to somehow one-up me, then best of luck with that. Give yourself a hi-5.

You're asserting that everyone has said that the Second Amendment explicitly referred to muskets. No one else has addressed muskets other than to address the type of weapons that were available at the time. If semi/fully automatic rifles, RPG's and nuclear weapons were available in the late 1700's the Second Amendment there may have been some stipulations. Of course that is only speculation because that is not the way it played out.

Given the actual ratified wording of the Second Amendment, and the subsequent introduction of the National Guard as a dual role state and national reservist militia, that would essentially render the Second Amendment useless. The English aren't coming back, there's a culture of worship for their serving troops so they have faith in their military, so that leaves self defence from other Americans (or lunatic sovereign citizens who think the government is going to enslave them,) as the last argument for preserving the Second Amendment.

Geo posted a couple of times insinuating that the 2nd Amendment was referring to Muskets rather than modern weapons, and that's how this whole sub-conversation started.

The 2nd Amendment never did specify a certain type of weapon. It has also been confirmed time and again by the Supreme Court that it applies to modern weapons. That's it. Black and white.

Now try some single nostril breathing and calm down.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

No one to the best of my knowledge in this thread said that the Second Amendment was written explicitly with muskets in mind.

Yes they did.

That's why we were having this specific discussion.

It was a reference point, not a fact (y'know, like stating that Gatling Guns were invented 80 years before they actually were.)

y'know, i corrected it immediately to the puckle gun.

But if that's your way of trying to somehow one-up me, then best of luck with that. Give yourself a hi-5.

You're asserting that everyone has said that the Second Amendment explicitly referred to muskets. No one else has addressed muskets other than to address the type of weapons that were available at the time. If semi/fully automatic rifles, RPG's and nuclear weapons were available in the late 1700's the Second Amendment there may have been some stipulations. Of course that is only speculation because that is not the way it played out.

Given the actual ratified wording of the Second Amendment, and the subsequent introduction of the National Guard as a dual role state and national reservist militia, that would essentially render the Second Amendment useless. The English aren't coming back, there's a culture of worship for their serving troops so they have faith in their military, so that leaves self defence from other Americans (or lunatic sovereign citizens who think the government is going to enslave them,) as the last argument for preserving the Second Amendment.

Geo posted a couple of times insinuating that the 2nd Amendment was referring to Muskets rather than modern weapons, and that's how this whole sub-conversation started.

The 2nd Amendment never did specify a certain type of weapon. It has also been confirmed time and again by the Supreme Court that it applies to modern weapons. That's it. Black and white.

Now try some single nostril breathing and calm down.

I'll go back and look at Geo's posts to clarify.

I know that I never said that it specified any weapon. And yes, you're correct that the Supreme Court has confirmed a number of times in the last 30 years that it applies to modern weapons. Again I haven't disputed that, I said that it hasn't always been the case and it is only a modern interpretation of the Amendment.

Lastly I don't require any breathing techniques old mate. If you think this is getting me worked up then you don't know me all that well.