Slashdot Mirror
Do You Have a Right To Use Electrical Weapons?
An anonymous reader writes: David Cravets points out a growing debate in U.S. constitutional law: does the second amendment grant the same rights regarding electrical weapons as it does for traditional firearms? A Massachusetts ban on private ownership of stun-guns is being considered by the Supreme Court, and it's unclear whether such ownership has constitutional protection. The state's top court didn't think so: "... although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment. A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention (PDF). Even were we to view stun guns through a contemporary lens for purposes of our analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military." The petitioner is asking the court (PDF) to clarify that the Second Amendment covers non-lethal weapons used for self-defense. Constitutional law expert Eugene Volokh agrees: "Some people have religious or ethical compunctions about killing. ... Some adherents to these beliefs may therefore conclude that fairly effective non-deadly defensive tools are preferable to deadly tools."
The Constitution does not say "firearms." It says "arms."
"Arms" include firearms, electrical weapons, slingshots, bows and arrows, and any other sort of weapon.
If they don't rule in favor of allowing non-killing weapons they will have more people carrying killing weapons.
The right to bear arms does not classify or limit the types of arms.
However, U.S. federal and State laws have been eroding this constitutional right for decades and has rendered the Second Amendment virtually meaningless today.
Freedom! We'll see about that, bub.
If the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to bear assault weapons, what about howitzers? Or portable SAMs? I might additionally need cruise missiles to defend my family and property appropriately.
Massachusetts ban on private ownership of stun-guns being considered by the Supreme Court, and it's unclear whether such ownership has constitutional protection.
Although logic rarely gets involved in discussions around the 2nd Amendment, I can't think of any logical reason why stun-guns should be treated any different than firearms. The 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it doesn't specify only weapons that use gunpowder. The fact that stun-guns using electricity are of recent development is not a relevant consideration to my mind.
The petitioner is asking the court (PDF) to clarify that the Second Amendment covers non-lethal weapons used for self-defense.
There is really no such thing as a "non-lethal weapon". ANY weapon can be used to kill even if they are primarily designed to incapacitate. That said, prohibiting weapons which are generally less lethal while allowing ones that are designed primarily to kill is the height of stupid.
The supreme court in Mass. has a some serious logical errors in their decision. I suppose that because the "Interwebs" are a thoroughly modern invention with no analog in 1781 that means there is no freedom of the press on the Internet? Stoopid.
load "$",8,1
It also says, "well-regulated militia".
I don't respond to AC's.
Governments and their enforcement branches do not want civilians to have the means of defending themselves from those same government enforcers. Their goal is to keep the public totally defenseless. A defenseless citizenry is easily controlled.
this makes literally no sense in today's age. modern militaries have leaps and bounds better weapons than anything civilians could possess. even worse, this operates on the premise that the only way to have civilization is through constant fear of one another. that's a terrible model of humanity, and no one should want a part of it.
Their goal is to keep the public totally defenseless.
Oh hey, it looks like your tinfoil hat fell off.
I don't respond to AC's.
Yes, the case was used for banning sawed off shotguns. The argument being the military didn't use them, therefore they were not protected.
Couple points, that decision was flawed. It is well documented that it was one of the worse Supreme Court cases in history. And likely staged...Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[5]
So imagine using as precedent a case that was never even defended against. So what were the precedents established?
1.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
2.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
***
If you want to USE that argument. Then guess what? 1. This would overturn the 1986 prohibition against post '86 machine guns and fully automatic rifles. As these ARE used by military. 2. Our military now regularly uses short barreled shotguns in door-to-door operations. As such, short barreled rifles would now have to be legal sans the tax stamp.
And even back in the day it was an incorrect decisions as: During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.[8]
***
AND A BIG FYI - Shot barreled shotguns are NOT illegal per Federal law. They merely require a tax stamp and registration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
LASTLY>>>>>>>
The 2nd Amendment does not state the right to bear guns, or even firearms. But arms....a term for personal weapons...this means guns, knives, swords, electromagnetic pulse pistols, tasers, etc....are ALL protected by the words of the 2nd Amendment.
No mention of FIREarms in the constitution. Does that mean I can get my own nuclear weapon, since the military has one?
... but don't event think of trying to take my laser weapon system away from me.
I don't think that tinfoil was available when the Founding Fathers felt it necessary to add the second amendment to the Constitution.
In many states the permits simply state the right to bear a concealed weapon. Hence often referenced as a concealed weapons permit.
It's one of my objections with the Pennsylvania permit, while it is one of the best states for personal firearms possession. The permit is worded specifically as a "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF)
Thank you Second Circuit. I look forward to exercising my right to bear swords, pikes, and various firearms with accompanying bayonets. All these being Napoleonic melee weapons in common use at the time of enactment of the second amendment. When I open carry these arms (note: the second amendment is not restricted to "firearms"), I fully expect you to back me to the hilt despite the fact that most people consider them to be more threatening and deadly than a taser.
So my WWII era flamethrower is ok then?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
So you are arguing if a weapon driven by electricity versus a weapon driven by gun powder has the same legal/constitutional implications?
Wow ... how retarded is that?
The argument should be: should a weapon where its usage usually is non deadly have the same legal implications as a weapon that usually injures, maims, or kills its victim?
But, well you are in america ... we will never grasp your country.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
modern militaries have leaps and bounds better weapons than anything civilians could possess.
Infantry small arms have not significantly changed in a very long time, and of course civilians can posses small arms commonly borne by infantry.
I'm not american
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2...
Every time there's a local initiative to get people to turn in their guns, I wonder why they don't offer to give each person a stun gun in its place. That would be far more enticing to me. It seems like a reasonable compromise on the debate of gun control would be to have strict regulations on lethal arms while non-lethal may be purchased by all.
Maybe someone better informed on statistics can weigh in on this?
usually injures, maims, or kills its victim?
You mean like cars?
Yea, but,,, what effective non-killing electrical weapons are there?
The cheap stun-gun devices are not effective, and the only brand that is effective (Taser--the only one that the [US] police bother to use) regularly results in deaths*.
*('course, a lot of those deaths involve aggravating circumstances (obesity, drugs, ect),,,, but it is a rather odd concidence that a lot of people seem to..... die..... of heart-related causes.... after being shocked with Tasers)
The idea of self protection being the primary reason for 2nd amendment rights is wrong, and as such the question is does a stun gun even qualify as an "arm". A large problem I see with these acheiving protection is the requirements for use of weapons under the law; as things stand unless a life is being directly threatened or a forcible felony is being committed there isn't a justification to use a weapon. Why would you need to use your weapon if lethal force isn't justified? Do you need to avoid beating the attacker in case he sues for the cost of physical damages (if so, what assurance do you have that you won't be sued for any damage caused by the stun gun)?
I'm wondering where the attack on these weapons is coming from however. AFAIK the ATF doesn't consider electric devices to be weapons and so the distribution isn't exactly limited; neither are carrying the weapons.
Also interesting, the case being brought to the courts is from a woman who allowed police to search her because she thought she wasn't doing anything wrong. What will the anti-snowden shills say now?
The 4th amendment is not very clear and I interpret it two ways. The first is that it allows for a common community cache of weapons for community defensive use. Or, it allows an individual to own any type of weapon made. If the founding fathers meant for the amendment to allow for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government then the second interpretation is the one I would lean toward since the only way to defend against a nuclear state is to have nuclear weapons of your own.
Yes.
It says the militia shall be regulated, not the right of the people, which it says shall not be infringed. In other words, the state militia shall be regulated by ensuring the people's freedom to keep and bear arms, so they have the power to keep it under control. How else do you interpret a constitution written by revolutionaries?
"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."
The 2nd applies to knives, guns, flamethrowers, torpedoes, bombs and tanks.
And yet, we have lost our wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where the only weapons those nations had to face the most powerful army that ever existed in the history of planet earth.....was those same said rifles. Just something to consider.
Why is arms only a term for personal weapons?
It messes with their controls, yes, precious.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention."
As a matter of fact, Benjamin Franklin was quite fond of setting up practical jokes where unwitting victims received significant electrical shocks. While the exact implementation is obviously different, the basic concept is the same. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the possibility of the use of electricity as a weapon.
If that is too tin-foil hat for you, there's also the issue that withdrawing government protection from disadvantaged groups is often used as a method of oppression. Happened to Blacks in the United States, has happened to Jews in many places, and is practically business as usual in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, in the United States I've heard stories of black men on the porches of their houses with shotguns, between their families and the KKK members marching in the street.
While members of those disadvantaged groups are likely to end up on trial for a crime if they are forced to defend themselves, it does provide a deterrent (bullies generally are, after all, unwilling to die for their cause), and can disturb the peace enough to force the government to make changes. Disarming the people takes away this last line of defense.
It's also time to consider that the second amendment was a bad idea. Look at the stats from country to country.
Either way you want to believe (since science may not be your thing) the US government has slowly been inching toward the restriction of the second amendment. In the next 200 years or so, I honestly expect that amendment to be repealed or be legislated into obsolescence from the bench.
Making weapons has gotten easier, so I don't see the defensive social need for it.
Or we should, considering how broadly we interpret the 2nd Amendment. If you go by the NRA's assessment, all US citizens have the right to have guns.
However, the 2nd Amendment says "arms"; which can also be interpreted as *any* type of weapon, including explosives.
However; explosives are prohibited because our corporate masters are more concerned about property damage than about the lives of people.
Consider what the TSA is really protecting; not the lives of people on the plane, but the plane itself, which is worth hundreds of millions.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I have the right to defend myself using whatever is necessary.
No, not constant fear, constant vigilance. Other people cannot be trusted without qualm. ISIS doesn't give a rat's ass what you want civilization to look like. Neither does the street thug.
it refers to a "well-regulated" militia
which translated to today's meaning is "well-trained"
dirty harry constitutional activism in the last century (a freak out over crime, which was actually solved by better policing and sentencing) has meant we have easy guns for every hothead douchebag who wants one. and so the usa has a sky high homicide rate compared to its social and economic peers, who have actual gun regulation
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/8...
but if we followed the actual intent of the founding father's second amendment, they were saying we need *well-trained* gun owners. the founding fathers linked proficiency with ownership. their words. the text of second amendment. not the reinterpretation of activist judges from the last century. we fucked up with prohibition, and reversed that. time to reverse the legal fuck up over firearms from the last century
all we need is testing and licensing before you get a gun. like we do with cars, an equally dangerous tool that any mouth breathing retard should not get just because he wants one
"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws..."
i'm saying you every right to a gun, you have to prove you can use it first. a statement any *responsible* gun owner agrees with. all of the problems with guns is from hotheads easily getting one. make it harder to get one, the hot heads simply don't use a gun. they use a knife, which is far less lethal, because they aren't trying hard in life: they are casual hot heads or genuinely deranged. if it is hard to get one, they don't have the ability to try that hard. the same hard concentration they lack because any sleight or flush of anger makes them start shooting. proof:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
oh sure, criminal masterminds will get any gun they want. and use that gun carefully: they are criminal masterminds. they won't shoot up street corners or discos or movie houses, which is the fucking problem in the usa, because guns are so easy for any asshole to get
"there's too many illegal guns out there already..." yeah, it will take awhile to drain the swamp. progress will be slow and delayed for years as police mop up all the unlawful guns out there. as if just because doing the right thing is hard, that that is somehow a valid argument against doing the right thing
now the crazy part:
guaranteed i will get responses to this comment from people screaming i am stealing all guns. I AM SAYING GO AHEAD AND GET A GUN. just prove you can use one safely and proficiently first LIKE THE FUCKING FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED. a statement any actual responsible gun owner agrees with
still, you will hear "WHY YOU WANNA GRAB MA GUN" (wheeze, gurgle), just because i am saying you need to prove you can use a gun before you get one. hardly earth shattering, completely moderate, agreed to by a majority of responsible gun owners. but the kneejerk propagandized morons will act like i'm out to steal all guns. fucking pathetic brain dead zombie retards
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The problem is that there is an important legal distinction when it comes to the use of force. The use of less then lethal force, or using lethal force with the aim to 'wound' can be used against you in a criminal/civil case as evidence that you were not really in enough danger to justify the use of force at all.
It might not suit your fantasy of what people should be like, but it matches up with reality pretty well.
that real guns are often lethal to a degree higher than stun guns, then yes, you would think that they would encourage more people to protect themselves using less lethal means.
Isn't this just more of the namby pamby thinking that if we take away all the bad things bad people use, then everything will be just dandy all the time... ?
You mean like cars?
Yes.
What is your point?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
the only weapons those nations had to face the most powerful army that ever existed in the history of planet earth.....was those same said rifles.
wow, so much ignorance. The ONLY weapons? Do you realize that the human spirit is the most powerful weapon?
marketing for useless trinkets that won't begin to protect you from your real enemies
How do you make it narrow enough to allow stun guns while not opening the door to all other types of arms, such as chemical and biological which an individual could and have created.It would be interesting to see how the justices rule, especially those that take a strict construction viewpoint.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
modern militaries have leaps and bounds better weapons than anything civilians could possess.
That's true. I would say that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, our soldiers had "leaps and bounds" better weapons than anything their enemies did possess. However, the enemies still managed to hurt and kill our soldiers.
Air power, armored vehicles, missiles... there are all kinds of overwhelming weapons that civilians are not going to have that the military has. And if the military ever used those on the civilians, all the civilians could do would be to get under cover or go somewhere else. But it's impossible to use those sorts of weapons as an "occupying" force, and the more-lightly-armed civilians would inflict losses on the occupying soldiers.
even worse, this operates on the premise that the only way to have civilization is through constant fear of one another.
There is an old saying: "If you would have peace, prepare for war."
It shouldn't be necessary to live in "constant fear" but equally it should be possible to be prepared for the worst case.
I'm going to turn your statement around: you would have us arrange things so that if the government ever did go off the rails, the civilians would know that there was absolutely nothing they could do about it. Is that really better?
Governments can do things wholesale, and when government starts killing people, it does so wholesale. Nazi Germany got really organized about killing Jews... and I don't believe that the German people were innately evil or really completely unlike the people in my own country. Likewise, under Stalin, the Soviet Union got really organized about "purging" people; and look up "the killing fields" in Cambodia sometime. These events are history. They happened. It's not impossible for such things to happen again, and if you want to claim "it can't happen here" you had better explain why.
My answer: it can't happen here because armed citizens would fight the government, and would have effective weapons with which to do it.
The top two rights in the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech, and the right to own and carry effective weapons. These were intended by the authors of the Bill of Rights to be checks on government power.
Nobody wants to see the citizens of our country needing to use firearms to fight our own government. But the fact that they could, if necessary, makes it less likely that they ever will need to do so.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
This issue will be settled by the courts in the case of Connecticut v. Acme Lightsaber & Phaser Pistol Ltd.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
There is more than one threat here.
Might I remind you that arms are only one subset of technology that our lords and vassals don't want us to have?
it refers to a "well-regulated" militia
which translated to today's meaning is "well-trained"
Nope. 'Regulated' means controlled.
If you think there is any mandate to train police departments or even our standing military[1], think again. While some big city departments may have some form of training and qualification[2], smaller towns do not. Get hired as a sheriff's deputy, show up with your gun and you're in.
The idea behind the 2nd amendment was that 'the militia' (which back in the day meant thing like local law enforcement) was to be made up of civilians with the right to bear arms. States assembling their own standing armies and arming them was feared and is prohibited by the Constitution.
[1] In response to the Chattanooga shooting at a military recruiting office, it was suggested that personnel be armed. The response of one branch officer was that they wouldn't trust their people with nerf guns. Presumably that is after basic training.
[2] Our local sheriff's department minimum pistol proficiency standard will get a civilian thrown out of public shooting ranges.
Have gnu, will travel.
Speaking of ISIS, they have instituted complete gun prohibition for those who are not their thugs:
See here
No public gathering other than those organised by ISIS will be allowed at any stage. No guns will be allowed outside of its ranks.
No it didn't...
How many people were killed with semi-automatic rifles (the class that so called "assault weapons" fall into)?
Of the 30,000 quoted as killed by guns. 50%+ of which are merely suicides. What percentage are due to AR15s and similar rifles? Approximately 350. So why is ALL the focus put on a tool that poses very little risk to Americans. But poses a HUGE threat to governments?
This logic of "Thoroughly modern inventions" completely fails when viewed in the light of the near complete raping of the 4th amendment using methods and tools not conceived of when the amendment was written.
When the military has Bradley tanks and F15s, how is this relevant???
Given that it would have been ok to own a cannon armed ship capable of executing a letter of marque at the time, I suspect the original definition was broader than the one currently in use.
But I am betting all you want that live self guided ordinance like missile are forbidden to civilian. Or tanks. Or atoms bombs. Some limit have to be set.
well-regulated means well-trained, translated from 1700s english to today
that's a fact. look it up yourself
and i know what the broken status quo is
the intent of the founding fathers was you had to know how to use the fucking gun. we've lost that intent of the founding fathers, and it's time to get back to our constitutional roots
or do you think it's ok any mouth breathing retard who wants a gun and doesn't know how to use it safely and proficiently should get one easily? you do understand what that has meant for the usa in terms of a sky high homicide rate compared to our peers, right? the founding fathers could foresee this problem, why can't you see the actual problem in front of you? what is the point of trying to defend a broken status quo exactly?
get a gun. any gun you want. just know how to use it safely and proficiently as a requirement of owning that gun
not because i said so, but because the founding fathers did
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Second was written at a time when a private individual could own a warship with enough "artillery" to level a town.
Oh really? When are you guys going to start fighting against the gubmint with your peashooters? Any day now? What a joke.
The NVA also had SAMs, MIGs, artillery, and all kinds of other toys that don't fall under 'small arms'
Yes....
But I also understand the difference of unarmed human spirit....and armed human spirit.
One of my favourite films as a teen in the 80s was Highlander. Those guys walked around with jackets that seemed hard pressed to conceal a kitchen knife, yet they would sense another immortal and out came the sword as easy as you please.
I've often wondered if armies went back to swords if combat would be as regular as it was back in the day knowing full well the majority of bodies clashing get fairly thrashed. Wielding a sword is also not for the faint of heart. One has to be in fairly decent shape to manhandle a sword properly, both offensively and defensively.
In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute. I wonder, how far from that can you go and still claim the 2nd amendment applies?
An semi-auto assault rifle? Generally legal.
A fully-auto assault rifle? Generally not legal.
A grenade launcher? A guided missile? A booby trap bomb? Not legal in the US, today.
So there are limits to protected "arms", ill defined as they are. But If we finally had to update the 2nd amendment due to rising tech, things could get interesting.
If the 2nd Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do arms serve the citizen? If self defense, and since there are many more ways to defend one's home and family today than in 1789, should we amend the 2nd to emphasize the goal of self defense rather than allow it to advocate arms as a means to an end that's ill served by the tech advance of ever deadlier offensive weapons - pistols and rifles?
Given the huge difference between an 18th century musket and modern light arms, and the indifference of regulators to respond to that difference, it seems likely that the escalation of guns protected by the 2nd amendment is going to cross a line, and soon.
If you look into it. You'll realize that ships were in many ways considered to be small villages. This is why ship captains had such rights and authority enact marriage, etc. and had near absolute rule.
They were essentially Lords of a tiny village. Most ordinance/artillery was owned by towns or landed lords.
I'm so glad there are so many constitutional scholars and/or time travelers on the internet that know better than the supreme court.
The idea behind the 2nd amendment was that 'the militia' (which back in the day meant thing like local law enforcement)
a) it did not mean anything of the sort. It meant the "people".
b) regulated meant trained/equipped..
In fact, standing army soldiers were often referred to as "regulars". Essentially, the 2nd Amendment is stating that the militia formed of the people needs to be of similar capability to any standing regular army.
That's not true. All of those opponents had better weapons than just rifles. RPGs have been a favorite weapon in all the conflicts you mention. (Also, we didn't lose any war in Iraq.)
In Vietnam, in particular, we were fighting a war against a state with a full-fledged army that was armed by the USSR. Granted, it was a much weaker state than us, but it was a semi-modern army nonetheless. They made have used a lot of near-obsolete weapons, but they also had tanks, they had artillery, they had MiGs. (Do you think John McCain got shot down by an AK-47?)
And we didn't really lose Vietnam in a conventional sense. We never invaded North Vietnam (presumably because doing so would bring China into the war), instead attempting to beat back communist forces in South Vietnam and Cambodia. We were more or less successful at this, and the kill ratio in the war was spectacularly in our favor. However, since North Vietnam was still intact, they had no problem sweeping in and overrunning South Vietnam after we abandoned them to their own devices.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the US conduct of the war in Vietnam, but saying "they beat us with rifles" is to misunderstand the conflict on many levels. Our enemies had little success against us militarily. Their success was mostly based on terrorizing unarmed civilians.
And I'll never give them up, if you anti-gun turds want them then come get them.
Your move.
Which is exactly why the Swiss are completely retarded in their ideas of military thought.
Ill take a desert eagle over ball and cap any day.
TF
the constitutional fashion of the day is frequently overridden by later courts. there are dozens of major issues like this. slavery and segregation for example
at one point, the highest court of the land upheld prohibiting all alcohol
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/...
that was obviously fucking stupid. and quickly reversed
it doesn't take a random yahoo on the internet to point out the fact that the supreme court is often later reversed. and that a random voice on the internet, me, just made you aware of the fact, doesn't change the fact. i can see you want to avoid the simple fact though, which says something about your intellectual honesty. shoot the messenger and you can avoid the message even if it is right?
the second amendment says a "well-regulated militia." aka, well-trained. it's not very controversial. it's quite plain. and yet the legal status quo today completely ignore the founding fathers obvious intent
so that will change
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For a great many of them, the motivating factor isn't making society safer. It is not a reasoned position of "Firearms cause too many injuries and deaths, however research indicates that by implementing X, Y and Z controls we can reduce that number significantly and thus we should to make things safer. Usually it is an emotional "Ahhhh! Guns are scary! I hate guns, I hate the people who like guns, get rid of them!" type of reaction. They've done little to no actual research and study on firearms (or other weapons) and just want it to all disappear by magic.
Unsurprisingly this leads to a lot of bad and ineffective laws.
Also for some it is a statist type of position: They want more weapons control because they believe the government should have more power. It again isn't about safety, it is about control. They want the government to have all the guns.
Hence you get things like trying to ban Tasers and other laws that vilify less-lethal weapons as much or more than firearms. It seems strange from a public safety standpoint, but you have to understand that for those behind it, public safety isn't the concern.
Do you think it might be possible to do it in stages, disarming all the African Americans first, then the Hispanics, then everybody of English and German decent? I think even the KKK might support that.
It meant the "people".
According to the Constitution, it also means the state appoints your officers. So, next time your inawoods gang gets together for some target shooting and refers to itself as a militia, I shall expect to see an officer selected by your governor in charge.
Have gnu, will travel.
all we need is testing and licensing before you get a gun.
Oh, you mean we need some subjective restriction in place so that we can start expanding what's "good enough" on that test until nobody can actually qualify? I see. Excellent idea. It worked in MD with their requirements on concealed carry permits, right? Oh, sure, sure, MD has a concealed carry permit option. Just submit qualifications and the state police will dutifully review and blanket reject, I mean carefully consider, your application based on merit.
I wonder if the framers ever conceived of rubber bullets or bean bag guns...
Also, what happens if something like a hand-held electric rail gun is ever developed? It may well be recognizable as a "firearm" to the framers, but it certainly will be using technology which they never dreamed of, and would seem to fall under the category of "electric weapon"... Farther along, there may even be lethal and non-lethal directed energy weapons, also most certainly "electric" (in some sense, at least) -- would they be banned as "electric weapons"?
Lastly, it makes no sense to ban NON-LETHAL weapons, just because the framers did not imagine them. But if that ever comes to pass, everyone who would've bought (or is forced to turn in) a stun gun should immediately get a REAL GUN. I wonder how the folks banning the stun guns would feel about THAT!
I am not opposed to having to take some safety courses and pass basic proficiency tests for gun ownership.
However the sentence structure of the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted as saying that in order to have a well trained and equipped militia, the citizenry must be able to have arms. If you don't have a weapon it is difficult to become proficient with it, chicken and egg problem. This is kind of like how major sports leagues promote their sport starting in grade school, so that they'll have a ready supply of talented players to draw from.
well-regulated means well-trained, translated from 1700s english to today
that's a fact. look it up yourself
I did. In the Constitution itself. When it means 'training', it says 'training'. Legally, there is no better basis for the definition of a term than it's use throughout the same document.
Have gnu, will travel.
I honestly thought this was going to be about Cyberwarfare.
Are we constitutionally protected in our right to bear malware and zombie networks for DDOS attacks?
it works in every one of our fucking social and economic peers
japan, germany, uk, france, australia, canada... heck even switzerland which gun lovers love to cite because of the high gun ownership rate, while conveniently forgetting all the rules about guns in switzerland they would scream about if they actually understood them
if we have actual rules about gun ownership: proficiency and safety, like the fucking founders intended, we can cut down on our disgusting and horrifying homicide rate because of easy guns
do you consider our sky high homicide rate a problem? you should
want a gun? GET A GUN. just prove you are proficient and understand safety
why is that so fucking controversial?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
While I have to admit that the legal guarantee to arms granted by the second amendment of the Bill of Rights is not limited to weapons that existed almost 300 years ago, I do like the Massachusetts court's interpenetration that if you feel that you need to protect yourself you should kill your assailant, no use some wimpy non-lethal form of weapon on them for religious or other superstitious reasons.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not that we have tinfoil today - I have never see actual tin foil. Most of what people call "tin foil" is really aluminum foil. It's probably more likely they had tin foil back then than today.
My son posed some what if questions after a drunk wanted to pick a fight with me at a concert. My answer hit him with my 4wd.
How about you ask the militants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Small arms can and have been used successfully in guerrilla campaigns. Heck go ask the Vietnamese how well the tanks, B-52 bombers, F4 Phantoms did in the 50's through 70's.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
i understand and thanks for your point
but we have plenty of gun ranges, and it would be an easy legal accommodation to appoint many gun ranges (not too far away from any american) as places people can go and get training, and take a test, and get a license. heck, it's more business for the gun ranges, they'd love it
just like we do with driver's ed: there's no chicken and egg problem. you drive around in a car with a guy sitting next to you who also has brakes and a steering column. then you sit in a classroom and hear about the rules of the road and take a test
it's not nutty to have a gun instructor have special training guns you can use on the range to show you are proficient and understand the points of safety, and then get tested on that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The prohibition of alcohol was enacted by a constitutional amendment, and then repealed by another constitutional amendment, it was not an interpretation of an existing amendment. And the fact that previous supreme court opinions can and have been overridden by later ones doesn't make them any less of the law at the time that the decision was in force. You can't say 'well obviously this legally means blah' contrary to what the supreme court has decided because what they decide _is_ legally what it means, at the time that the decision is in force. You can have your own opinion and you can try to have the law changed to match your opinion, but your opinion isn't law, theirs is. The real crux of the problem though is saying what the "actual intent" was as though it were not just your opinion. I don't remember there being much in the way of tests and licenses for arms in the 1700s.
Don't hear much talk about peace, and goodwill toward other humans here. I would expect more thoughtfulness, and less puffery and pro-gun talk from the IT crowd. Seems like there is a great reverence for weaponry, but not much love of thy fellow human.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
so you're saying "well-regulated" means the government should regulate guns heavily?
i'm not saying that
you are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Their goal is to keep the public totally defenseless.
Oh hey, it looks like your tinfoil hat fell off.
that's a Faraday Cage, you insensitive clod!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
there were plenty of test for arms in the 1700s: regular life
life was rural, with french, british, and spanish on the border, hostile native americans, and wild animals
you needed a gun to get yourself something to eat
a call to arms was a community necessity, for basic survival
your average nine year old then was more proficient with a tricky and complicated musket, than most gun owners are with a point-and-click gun today. they had to be. to live
so in the founder's mind, proficiency was necessary. "well-regulated"
we need testing and training today, only because driving to mcdonalds in suburbia does not require a fire arm. it's individual action that motivates gun ownership today, not the community call. and it's hand guns, not muskets. the concern is crime, not hostile forces. any old douchebag who wants a gun can get one, and not know the first fucking thing about how to use it proficiently and safely
so we have to enforce the proficiency and safety training the founding fathers depended upon that was, only back then, part and parcel of gun ownership
it's obvious what the founders intended, it's not my opinion. "well-regulated." i'd love to see variosu douchebgas dance around that term, and argue for irresponsible gun use. the legal status quo is obviously untenable and will change. and you're right: so what, someone still has to change it. so we shall. don't you agree you should know how to use a gun before using it? the founding fathers sure did: "well-regulated." what is the point of arguing otherwise exactly?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It is well documented that it was one of the worse Supreme Court cases in history.
Or just the ones you dislike.
"arms"
a strict constitutional lawyer cold say only muskets or Muzzle loaders are protected.
You opinion on the word or its current meaning are of no interest to the court.
The fact that a new thing is created that was not and could not be addressed in the constitution is why we have the court.
Where's the amendment about drivers licenses in the constitution?
you're right
let any asshole drive a car who wants to, no need to prove he knows the rules of the road. completely acceptable way for society to deal with cars on the road
is that your point?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't know about the constitutionality, but I've always sorta wanted to take apart one of those electric flyswatters and build it into a sap glove...
-- "Oh. This guy again."
So people living in cities weren't allowed to have arms in the 1700s? Or did people living on the frontier just get mailed a gun license assuming that they were proficient in the user of arms? And while people who want to restrict the rights granted love to jump on the "well-regulated militia" bit in the first clause, separate from "the people", they always conveniently fail to recall the "shall not be infringed" portion. Please tell me how you will implement this testing and licensing body such that it can't and won't be used to infringe upon peoples rights for arbitrary reasons, including 'oh, well you aren't qualified _enough_' for some arbitrary and unstated value of enough. The point in arguing against such as system is because it will be used against people, not just for 'safety'.
Let's frame the question another way. "What new weapons do we want in the hands of criminals, that ordinary citizens will not legally be able to defend themselves with?" Ah. A lot of different answers now. Mostly in the realm of "none."
the point of the second amendment was, and is, to prevent government stepping all over the people, right?
so therefore any douchebag who doesn't know his ass from a gun barrel should use one, and satisfies that requirement?
i know some who don't think so: the founding fathers: "well-regulated"
arguing for irresponsible gun use: that's so brave of you. and directly contradictory to the obvious and plain intent of the founders
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The premise of the question is false. The Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights to the people. It places specific LIMITS on what the government may legislate. In addition, the Ninth Amendment says that the rights of the people are NOT limited to those that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments.
Ask Sweetness how good of a farmer she and her NY NY friends are at farming.
When we go back to farming, the first move is to blow the bridges to NY NY.
An armed society is a polite society.
I am a programmer and I am KSCA.
when it was asked if our cell phones and email were protected from search and seizure, and wireless was protected under anti-wiretappng laws.
the precedent is set, the change of technology does not change the legal protections when they are used for the same purpose.
To quote the founding fathers, "shall not be infringed". Tell me how requiring an arbitrary 'fitness' test is not infringing. Also, I would like to know who you propose will pay for all of this, unless only the rich and middle class have second amendment rights as well as passing the tests you think they should pass to have second amendment rights.
"non-deadly defensive tools are preferable to deadly tools."
The problem is that the stun guns are deadly and being miss used _BY_THE_POLICE_.
The police in our rural area have killed two people in recent years using stun guns.
I'm not making an argument about right to bear stun guns (or to arm bears) but just point out that stun guns are deadly and to think otherwise is counter the evidence, e.g., wrong.
Personally I think we need to arm the bears and bear the arms and all keep are arms bare but that's a different issue.
No, in fact that is pretty much the complete opposite of my point. Driving is not a constitutional right, the government can make pretty much any law they want restricting who is and who isn't allowed to drive. The right to bare arms is a constitutional right, any laws restricting the ownership of arms must meet the challenge of not infringing upon that right.
So, you're saying that the government-- you do understand that the constitution is about the government, right?-- should require that people who own guns should have proper discipline and training "imposed" on them.
OK, sure.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yes, Japan, where these 'safety' regulations have made private gun ownership all but non-existant, and not much better in the rest of them. Who knew there were so many dangerous people in these countries. It is of course obvious that the reason there are so many homicides is because criminals didn't pass a safety class first, we should also have them for owning knives, if ONLY they knew weapons can hurt people.
(a freak out over crime, which was actually solved by better policing and sentencing)
There;'s a fairly compelling body of evidence indicating that crime rates fell at the same time and in the same places as atmospheric lead pollutants decreased.
The correct term for stun guns and pepper spray is "less lethal". People HAVE died from stun guns. I don't know about pepper spray, but I could imagine a fatal allergy or a blinded/stunned person taking a fatal fall. (Leaving aside the flammable propellant problem, which AFAIK is no longer an issue.)
That said, I would prefer more stun guns and fewer firearms on the streets, so if I were the judge I'd rule they were at least as protected as modern firearms are. OTOH, I'd *also* prefer all weapons regulated with mandatory background checks and waiting periods at the very least.
It all comes down to People. Are People evil? I say some of them are. Are Governments Evil? They're made of people, so yes, some of them are. The right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness is the ideal that the constitution needs to uphold for the most people. The problem was that the founding fathers didn't consider slaves to be a person like them. In this sense, the founders had some evil in them, and it corrupted that part of the constitution. The constitution needed to be and was changed to encourage freedom for all (including slaves). It needs to be fair and just. It needs to enable as many liberties for as many people as possible. I say further that the right to Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness should very obviously extend to those that are not inside the US/Non US citizens, but lets not get off topic, we're talking about guns not immigration and drone strikes.
Governments are made up of people, and people like to control others. The US government has grown and is growing obscenely large, taking over parts of our lives it should not be doing. This loss of the citizens control to the government is a direct violation of the principle of freedom for everyone. The 2nd Amendment is a much needed check against an already overbearing government becoming Tyrannical.
Please don't take it away.
Nope. Back in the 17xx's, the founding fathers feared states forming their own armies. So they put some restrictions into the Constitution itself preventing them from doing so. But the states screamed that their militias would effectively be disarmed. So the Feds authored the second amendment promising to keep their hands off the people's right to arm themselves, from which the states could form their militias. But they put the term "well-regulated" in the amendment to make clear that they were not removing the other Constitutional checks on state militias.
States' regulation of guns also applies to its militias. So if a state chooses to restrict its people from some type of weapon, they can't turn around, hire them as cops and arm them with it. On the other hand, if a state determines that their militia (police, sheriffs) have no need to carry full auto weapons (for example), then they could arguably keep their citizens from posessing them. That seems reasonable. So if the cops carry Tasers in your state, you should be able to as well.
Have gnu, will travel.
Police are not militia, also police can have post 86 full autos or full autos at all in states where the average citizen can not.
fists when they pry them from my cold dead hands
It says you have the right to bear arms, period. What did you think it only meant the cap and ball muskets, pistols and swords and knives of the era it was written in? The right to self defense grows out the the fundamental right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. How do you have the right to your own life if you have no right to defend it.
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context.
It is clear YOU don't know. The rest of us, well, we do know.
Yes, lots of people do claim, with perfect and unshakable confidence, that they know exactly what that clause means.
Since they firmly and confidently assert different things, they can't all be right. And I don't see any particular reason to think that that any of them, except by statistical average, are right. Much less you. The more confident a person's opinion is that they know exactly what the clause means, the less I trust their judgement.
It means "well armed, equipped, and trained".
No, it means "well regulated." That's what it says. Explicitly.
Whatever it may mean, it does not authorize the government to outlaw arms guaranteed by the very next clause.
Yes, that part of the right seems pretty clear. It's the first part that is unclear.
(except for the part about "non-criminals" that you just slickly inserted into it. That part is not anywhere in the amendment.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
touch my ham radio antennas with the key down, and you die.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Great line from a SCOTUS opinion a while back. Applicable here.
The attorneys have nothing in the record to indicate the military uses electrical weapons.
But the military has all sorts of electrical weapons, from hologram projectors, satellites, acoustic, electromagntic, interferometry, radar, electronic warfare, and many types of purely stun gun based and electrifying systems. The military can even create lighting bolts wherever they want.
This document lists many of these types of non lethal weapons. Title: non lethal weapons, terms and references.
The military keeps all this information classified so the best information is not even available, so of course the lawyers couldn't have the info to add to the record.
http://oregonstatehospital.net/d/otherfiles/1997-07%20Non-lethal%20Weapons%20Terms%20and%20References,%20Institute%20for%20National%20Security%20Studies,%20U.S.%20Air%20Force%20Academy,%20Colorado.pdf
Here is a sample set of weapons, not even including the section on electricals.
Hologram weapons:
Hologram, Death. Hologram used to scare a target individual to death. Example, a drug lord with a weak heart sees the ghost of his dead rival appearing at his bedside and dies of fright [149:4].
Hologram, Prophet. The projection of the image of an ancient god over an enemy capitol whose public communications have been seized and used against it in a massive psychological operation [609].
Hologram, Soldiers-Forces. The projection of soldier-force images which make an opponent think more allied forces exist than actually do, make an opponent believe that allied forces are located in a region where none actually exist, and/or provide false targets for his weapons to fire upon. New concept developed in this document.
Electromagnetic weapons, with ideas of their potential to hurt and target humans:
Electromagnetic, Engine Kill. The use of high-powered microwaves to kill the electrical system of an engine.
Electromagnetic, High Power Microwave [HPM], Weapons. Energy generated by a conventional electromagnetic apparatus, such as a radar transmitter, or released from a conventional explosion converted into a radio- frequency weapon which causes the disruption of electronic systems. Usually an ultra-wide ban source focus due to target vulnerability considerations. HPMs can also cause human unconsciousness without permanent maiming by upsetting the neural pathways in the brain and/or death [256,278].
Electromagnetic, Interference (EMI). Flight control systems of military aircraft are sensitive to electromagnetic interference (EMI). It is suspected that several crashes of Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters may have resulted when they flew too near large microwave transmitters [278].
Electromagnetic, Maser. Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. A microwave generation device.
Electromagnetic Pulse, Non-Nuclear [NNEMP], Weapons. Non-nuclear EMP generating weapons mounted on cruise missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) which would disable enemy tanks and early warning radars would be invaluable. Such weapons when they explode would produce a momentary burst of microwaves powerful enough to disable all but special, radiation-hardened electronic devices [205,261,262].
Electromagnetic, Radio Frequency [RF], Weapons. A class of weapons which transmit short, high-powered pulses of electromagnetic radiation over significant ranges [278].
Electromagnetic, Rocket-Powered Unit. Unmanned miniature-wheeled vehicle launched by a police cruiser which delivers an electromagnetic energy pulse to the underside of a fleeing car's engine controls and associated sensors to disable it [644:4].
Electromagnetic, Static Unit. See Electromagnetic, Rocket-Powered Unit. Static version resembling a pancake shaped bump in the road. Remote control or unmanned automatic control [644:4].
Electromagnetic
Police are not militia
As defined in the Constitution, yes they are. Because some of the articles that refer to militias restrict certain rights to Congress. Allowing states to create any kind of force and simply rename it to bypass Constitutional restrictions would defeat its intent.
also police can have post 86 full autos
Because these weapons have been provided to them by the National Defense Authorization Act since 1990. Which is a power constitutionally granted to Congress.
Have gnu, will travel.
Both sides of the aisle miss the real point of the 2nd amendment. The point is that the way to have a free and safe country is to not have a Standing Army that can be easily defeated but to have armed citizens that receive enough training that any country would be stupid to invade. Kind of like Afghanistan. That is why In the congressional powers it says Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy. But it says raise and support an Army but no apportionment shall be more than two years.
It's a standing Army that is dangerous. Both because it can be used on the citizens and it can be used to cause trouble overseas.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Cannons, just sayin'. The Second Amendment was about being able to overthrow the government again if they had to, as well as defending themselves against the Indians (who for some reason didn't like having their land stolen), organized defense against bandits, fighting back if the Brits ever invaded again (not counting that inconvenient war where the US military invaded Canada and got their hats handed to them.) Not even worth stating was the need for rifles for hunting and general personal self-defense against robbers and bears and scoundrels who refuse to marry your daughter or who insist you marry their daughter or people named either Hatfield or McCoy, depending on your perspective.
Today? Trying to overthrow the government would really annoy lots of your neighbors, and defending yourself against invading National Guard or police was usually a losing battle before the Drug War militarism of the police, and except in rare cases, is basically just going to get your family and neighbors killed. It's been almost a century since striking union workers defending themselves against company thugs and their bought-off sheriffs was feasible. And most of our gun control laws were because of the Black Panthers legally carrying long guns to protect themselves from the police, or because the War On Drugs encouraged both sides to arm themselves.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Let's do a hypothetical. If I had a high powered laser that could cut through dozens of people, silently and instantly, should that be banned? I would think so. I might be able to help fight off some tyranny for a few hours, but I could also take a hundred lives at a ball game before someone stops me.
It's obvious to most people that such a device should be illegal. Or should it? Suppose it cost $10m to make. Then we wouldn't even bother with a low - no one could afford one. Suppose it cost $10 of parts from Radio Shack. Pretty sure we'd make it illegal. So, where does the legality lie? In the device's cost?
A handgun is also death device, except it's really effective at taking 1 life. So where does the legality lie? Should it be 1, 10, or 100 lives?
We try to find simple black/white answers, like ALL of this should be illegal or NONE of that should be illegal. Maybe we need to simply enumerate all the different types of deadly weapons, find all its meaningful vectors (deadliness, availability, price, etc) and write a classification function, and that would be the law.
In an idealist world, a person would be allowed to own machinery of whatever type.
Killed someone? Then a court gets to decide if it was a justified killing or not. Justified killings usually involve self-defense, or as one of the parties in a war.
The means used for the killing should not be subject to law, whether an unlawfully possessed firearm, or even a makeshift dagger made out of a broken bottle. The idea is to sanction the act of unlawful killing. If one prone to kill unlawfully can not get his/her paws on a firearm made from unobtainium, a baseball bat may be substituted, and where would that leave the Holy Sport? What about a naturally-occurring stone conveniently situated by mother nature - are we now going to remove all rocks larger than 2 inch diameter from a jurisdiction? So you rather try to control the action (with the assumption that it sprouted out of free will/willful choice), instead of an inanimate, free-will-less, self-unaware object/machine.
So I guess the above principle is much too short and full of common sense to ever be implemented rigorously. (And yes, I do know that there are nuances to it even if applied as set out above.) My excuse: IANAL.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Yes, you won't. Slaves cannot understand why the free people get to carry arms to defend themselves against any wannabe masters. Slaves don't see the point, because they are all too often happy with their masters because they don't treat them as bad as they could, and are even genuinely nice on occasion.
the intent of the founding fathers was you had to know how to use the fucking gun
Unless you're a time-travelling telepath, you'd need to give some references for that claim. Can you, for example, show where this point was raised in the recorded discussions around the Second Amendment, of which there were plenty?
or do you think it's ok any mouth breathing retard who wants a gun and doesn't know how to use it safely and proficiently should get one easily? you do understand what that has meant for the usa in terms of a sky high homicide rate compared to our peers, right?
You should decide if you're arguing from an utilitarian standpoint, or from a constitutionalist one. The utilitarian outcome matters not one bit if the matter at stake is whether something is unconstitutional or not. If it's unconstitutional, but it really needs to be done, then the proper approach within the constitutionalist framework is to amend the constitution.
the founding fathers could foresee this problem, why can't you see the actual problem in front of you? what is the point of trying to defend a broken status quo exactly?
You keep claiming that FFs saw it as a problem on the basis of one particular interpretation of the amendment itself - an interpretation that is very heavily contested, and people who do so have ample literary evidence on their side.
So tell me this. If you believe that they saw the problem, then why haven't they enacted the laws to solve it? You claim that 2A is written in such a way as to give them the ability to legislate on the matter; fine, so why didn't they legislate? or if they did, then what are the corresponding laws? Can you point just one, from the time period where those people still participated in the government on any level, that required a validation of proficiency, or denied anyone RKBA if they were to be proved non-proficient?
Taking literally, it's saying that government should regulate militias heavily. Given what they turned into today, it doesn't sound like a bad idea.
I don't see where it says anything about regulating guns. Nor do I see anything there saying that only militia, regulated or otherwise, has the right to own guns. It says "the right of the people"; it doesn't say "the right of militia", or "the right of people in militia". Everywhere else it says "the people" without qualification, it means everyone under US jurisdiction. I don't see why this particular use should be interpreted differently.
You may not like this - that is fine. A hundred years ago, many people didn't like alcohol and thought that it was very harmful to society, so they decided to ban it. To do so, they organized, and successfully promoted a constitutional amendment that gave the federal government the power to ban alcohol, and to enforce such a ban. You're welcome to do the same. In fact, if you were to promote an amendment that would allow reasonable regulation (e.g. background checks, safety standards) while also clearly blocking more extensive gun control with no rational purpose (e.g. AWB, magazine capacity limits) or that is too oppressive (e.g. requirement to demonstrate a "legitimate reason" to own a firearm), I would support such an initiative. But there's a proper process to follow.
The Afgans are hardly successful. Drones silently stalk them and then kill them well out of range of their little pop guns.
Vietnam Nam? The Vietnam Cong had Russian, Chinese, and left over French Military hardware as well as training.
When I see and hear those old fat jackasses for the NRA rant about fighting tyranny, I snicker at their hubris. Spending a couple hours at the shooting range every week is nothing. I swear those putzes act like they are a couple of push-ups away from being Navy Seals.
In the beginning of the American Revolution, the British troops were just slaughtering the revolutionaries. It wasn't until the Germans and French strafed training and equipping them that they started to be a match for the half-assed British force.
you can own any cannon you like long as it loads from the front ... you could have 12 inch bore 10 foot long cannon behind your suv
0 laws on cannons that load from the front
Yes, this 'constant fear' model is terrible.
It is the worst, except for all the actual alternatives.
The founding fathers knew this 200 years ago.
Some folks are challenged learning this, perhaps because it collides with the way they would like the world to be.
Ca and Ma seem in a competition to see who can do the dumbest thing in this 'if wishing would make it so' contest.
Disallowing non-lethal in favor of lethal on the grounds of gun control seems a excellent ploy in this competition.
Wishing may have worked for Dorothy in Oz, but I don't think it's going to work in this case.
I don't see how a stun gun is legally different
What about Assault rifles? Invented by the Germans in WWII.
Stun guns are nonlethal weapons. Given the choice, their use is far better defence than a firearm.
And what about pepper spray? No right to have them because they weren't available in 18th century USA? And they're chemical weapons....
I was at OWS, and there had met a man who now is part of an anarcho-communist farm (which doesnt mean there are no rules or enforcement, but that the members all share in creating the rules, and holding equal standing with other members). This farm is within a half hour drive from New York City, where most of the collective members lived prior to the farm. They raise plants and meat to eat, trade, and sell as needed, and have other skills which they work share, and hire out when here is something they need which they cannot gain in the more broad context of capitalist society. The farm has been in opperation for multiple years now.
Furthermore, as regards Anarchists, there is no ban on using force ( see Spanish Civil War where Anarchists held Barcelona, or the Zapatista movement in Southern Mexico where there has been sucessful active militant resistance to the Mexican National military for almost two decades despite the best efforts of the Mexican government to murder anyone they think are "leading" the movement. There is quite the robust mechanism for widespread collective decision making in S. mexico as well)
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
So imagine using as precedent a case that was never even defended against. So what were the precedents established?
1.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
2.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
You missed the most important precedent. It's a subtle one, and most people miss it, but it is absolutely critical for understanding the current state of the US legal system.
By creating a ruling that directly contradicts the written text of the Bill of Rights the Supreme Court chose to put a major contradiction into US law.
For legal professionals to create contradictions in the law, or to be involved in writing or enforcing law that does this, is always unethical practice of law, without exception. Contradictions make the law harder for non-professionals to understand, and that creates a long term artificial demand for the services of legal professionals, hence the ethics issue.
Even the appearance of contradiction would have been a problem, and to make matters worse, the court ignored the well documented history behind the 2nd Amendment and ownership of arms in Colonial America.
It follows that the legal authority of the court in this case was actually limited to telling the government a constitutional amendment would be required before the law they had passed would be legal. That's inherent in the oaths the judges swear when they accept positions with the court.
Further, the right to ethical practice of law being one of the most important rights protected under the 9th Amendment (under any reasonable statement of such a right, even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided if alternatives exist), the judges not only violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, but by their example effectively gave carte blanche to the legal profession to ignore major ethics issues in the law. US law is now riddled with ethics problems, and while we can't blame all of that on Miller (Slavery, aside from the moral issues, was certainly ethically invalid, as were the Jim Crow laws), this case does serve as a very damaging precedent.
Worse, rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment, by definition, can not be taken away by any entity of government. That's the whole point of having the Bill of Rights be open ended! This was such as fundamental issue (and so critical to overcoming the opposition of the Anti-Federalists) that James Madison actually put it in the document twice, in the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) and also in the 10th Amendment (which provides for unspecified rights reserved to the people). By ignoring the right to ethical practice of law, the court effectively created a second major contradiction in the law!
It's ironic, because less than a decade before the events at Nuremberg, the US legal hierarchy was effectively giving the US legal profession a precedent that would allow them to ignore the concept of individual responsibility with respect to major ethics issues, while claiming hierarchical absolution ("my superiors said it was ok"!), something that has largely remained true to this day.
This has certainly had a chilling effect on a wide variety of rights that can reasonably be asserted under the 9th Amendment, such as the right to privacy, but there are broader implications. Not only do we now live in the "Land of the Lawsuit", but there are all kinds of other problems in US federal, state, and local law that trace directly to the willingness of the legal profession -- following the example of the Supreme Court set here and in other cases -- to ignore major ethics issues.
It's not an accident that, for example, the federal tax code is 2700 pages long, a length and complexity far beyond any reasonable size, allowing a lot of loopholes to be hidden in the law, l
"although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed" The principle stayed the same, but modern guns shoot more than one round, and those much faster, and with tremendously better accuracy than the hand crafted muskets that the settlers used to ward off a bear once in a while or a Native more frequently. Back then there was only small city life with incomes roughly the same for most and not as much of a multitude more for the rich folks. The entire socio-economic fabric of the US is vastly different than it was 200 years ago paired with incredible (and very deadly) advances in firearm tech. So whoever claims that because the basic principle did not change we do not have to ditch a 200 year old law that only generates death and devastation is either blind, dumb, or a triggerhappy moron. Repeal the Second Amendment...or how many more innocent people have to get shot by 'legal' guns????
It also specifically mentions "a well regulated militia" but most gun rights advocates conveniently forget that part.
Are you sure you know what "well-regulated" means in that context?
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context. I would, for example, interpret this as meaning that the government can (in fact, should) regulate arms, but can't forbid carrying them.
Then you would be wrong. You have a right to be wrong, but thankfully you have no right to force that on others.
Wrong on the first part, correct on the second. I have no claim to, nor interest in, forcing my interpretation onto anybody else.
Nor do you.
As I said:
Many many people have argued many many other interpretations.
...[quotes from D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision]
You selectively skipped over a vast swatch of the opinion. They very clearly wrote that the second clause of the amendment is to be interpreted in light of the first clause. That's why the decision spend so much time discussing the first part: it's a single-sentence amendment, and you can't ignore part of the sentence and say you'll only pay attention to the other part. But the decision also clearly stated that the initial clause does not negate the "shall not be infringed" part and cannnot be used as a justification to write regulations that negate the second part.
That makes sense to me.
They went on to say that the DC regulations, by requiring guns in a home to be unloaded, essentially did constitute a ban on having and carrying arms (since an unloaded gun is not "arms" in any real sense of the word. The DC law didn't have any exception saying "well, you're allowed to load the gun if a burglar breaks into your home.")
Seems like a good decision. It is perfectly consistent with what I just said: regulating is allowed, but banning is not, with the clarification that the regulation can't be regulations that are de facto bans.
If (part of) the 1st Amendment had been written "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." would you just as quickly attempt to justify banning literature? Or would you support regulation if the government only kept books out of the hands of those who do not vote?
You just switched from the word "regulating" to the word "banning".
This is why it is impossible to have any conversation with gun nuts: if a mention of any form of regulation is brought up, the nuts say "you can't ban our guns!"
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
No, militia officers were generally elected by the members. But not always.
The problem is not the training, it's who gets to do the control. Letting others in far places do that is a conflict of interest and subject to abuse. As in, "Power Corrupts".
If someone is a crazy criminal, then convict them so they have a record. Then everyone will know not to sell them a gun. Works pretty well where I live.
If you are in a big city, then you live in a sick place and should move! 8-)
... this operates on the premise that the only way to have civilization is through constant fear of one another. that's a terrible model of humanity, and no one should want a part of it.
You realize, of course, that there are a lot more dangerous things than guns? Cars, chainsaws, medication, etc.
There is no reason to be terrified of a person with a gun. Just because you are scared of them, is not enough reason. People are scared of the dark, too.
Where I live everyone has guns, everyone is polite to each other, and some people don't even bother to lock their doors. You are wrong about what would happen.
The situation with Miller is even worse than this:
The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You selectively skipped over a vast swatch of the opinion.
Maybe because the opinion is over 40 pages long? I copied and pasted a relevant snippet of the actual holding. Those vast swaths covered why those many many interpretations trying to link the 2A to military service are absurd. But yet anti-gun folk want to continue to bring it up and act like "well"="highly" and "not infringed"="whatever the hell the government/majority wants."
I'd suggest spending 5-10 minutes reading various versions of the 2A using synonyms for 2 of the 3 words you admittedly do not understand. Try swapping out "highly" (since that's what you know you really want), then "properly" or "correctly", for "well", and see what the entire sentence says. After you dislike those outcomes, try "uniformly" and change regulated to "trained and equipped."
Before you bother about "what you really want", the assumption all current anti-gun people asking for more regulations want guns to be highly regulated is valid. It's more deduction than assumption, since guns are already extremely regulated. The land of the free has over 200k gun laws, but surely just 1 more will save a life!
If (part of) the 1st Amendment had been written "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." would you just as quickly attempt to justify banning literature? Or would you support regulation if the government only kept books out of the hands of those who do not vote?
You just switched from the word "regulating" to the word "banning".
This is why it is impossible to have any conversation with gun nuts: if a mention of any form of regulation is brought up, the nuts say "you can't ban our guns!"
Yet you completely ignored my question. It's as if it's impossible to have any useful conversation with an anti-gun nut.
In any case, regulating and banning are virtually interchangeable when it comes to guns. If you paranoid people aren't looking to prohibit ownership of certain types of property, a la Assault Weapons Ban, Undetectable Firearms Act, LEOPA, 922(r), 922(o), etc. (All of those BAN groups of firearms or ammunition), then you're seeking to prohibit certain activity such as concealed carry, open carry, or perhaps shouldering a pistol's arm brace.
Please tell me what new regulation or policy that's been suggested in the last 3 years or so that doesn't seek to ban something. Just because it wouldn't be a total and complete ban of all firearms doesn't mean it's not a ban. That would be equivalent to claiming a lit match isn't fire because the entire house isn't in flames. I should have said "certain literature," because that would obviously just be a minor bit of regulation.
Lastly, maybe you haven't noticed how often the US gets compared to England and Australia. Us gun nuts can read through those lines just fine. Or maybe we understand the NIJ studies that conclude no restrictive gun law short of a complete ban will actually save lives in any significant number. A complete ban would save some lives in the long term, but we aren't willing to take the risks and make the tradeoffs that anti-gunners refuse to admit even exist.
In any case, regulating and banning are virtually interchangeable when it comes to guns.
They are not. They are different words and mean different things.
I explicitly and clearly said "regulate but not ban". Repeatedly. The Supreme Court even stated, clearly and explicitly, that a regulation that has the effect of banning guns is unconstitutional. But with any mention of the word "regulate," you immediately go to "you're trying to ban our guns!" This is a straw man; I'm not talking about banning guns.
Let me repeat a little louder, maybe you will notice.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BANNING GUNS.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com