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.
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.
On the one had, I agree that a bunch of idiots wandering around with stun guns is preferable to a bunch of idiots wandering around with real guns. Not only are they less lethal than firearms, but they have a limited range so that limits the collateral damage they can do if misused.
On the other hand, the notion that using the weapon won't kill the victim may make the owner more likely to use the weapon, resulting in more injuries.
Hmm...
=Smidge=
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)
1) Define "assault weapon" (I doubt you are capable)
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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
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)
However, U.S. federal and State laws have been eroding this constitutional right for decades
There once was a constitutional right to own slaves, are you making the argument that the constitution is not to be changed?
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.
Those are considered ordinance/artillery, not small arms. Different category. Such things as cannons were usually owned by towns, lords (titled deeded land owners), and vessels (ships in many ways are akin to mini villages, this is why captains often have similar rights - ie: ability to marry).
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! --
"regulation" != "well-regulated".
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
Wait.. what? I'm not allowed to use AA mounted in back of my truck to hunt ducks? Since when was that a thing?!
What if I paint it in pink camo like my daughter's AR?
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
There once was a constitutional right to own slaves
Where? I don't remember seeing the word "slave" in the constitution anywhere, let alone an endorsement saying you could own one. Could you cite the relevant clause for me?
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?
However, U.S. federal and State laws have been eroding this constitutional right for decades
There once was a constitutional right to own slaves, are you making the argument that the constitution is not to be changed?
There was no constitutional right to own slaves prior to the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment simply made it unconstitutional to own slaves. There is a difference.
After the revelation and prior to the civil war the topic of slavery was often debated and occupied a major place in much of the public debate. CLEARLY slavery flew in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it's clear "All Men are created equal" statement, yet it persisted with the united states well into the 1860's. It was the primary issue that brought this country to the Civil War where over a million men from both sides died, paying in blood for slavery. But there was NO constitutional right to owning a slave, there never was. So, the 13th amendment was not changing the constitution on slavery, removing a previously held right, but further clarifying that slavery was unconstitutional, that "all men" included the ones who had previously been treated as slaves.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
It's supposed to be changed using the approved process, that is an amendment or a constitutional convention.
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.
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.
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
Yes....
But I also understand the difference of unarmed human spirit....and armed human spirit.
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.
Where? I don't remember seeing the word "slave" in the constitution anywhere,
do you remember seeing the part where the government says that it's legal to do stuff that it doesn't mention?
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.
Which constitutional right would that be? Are you capable of forming your own thoughts, or do you just parrot others?
On the other hand, the notion that using the weapon won't kill the victim may make the owner more likely to use the weapon, resulting in more injuries.
Hmm...
=Smidge=
A knife will be more likely to be used than a gun cos it makes less noise and attracts less attention.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Which is exactly why the Swiss are completely retarded in their ideas of military thought.
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.
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/...
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
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
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."
All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
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.
"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.
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
(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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
I don't see how a stun gun is legally different
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????
On the other hand, a gun has a much higher intimidation value and can be used without getting too close. This is what makes them effective tools for armed robbery - you can't stab the guy behind the counter as easily as you can shoot them, so you use a gun to intimidate and force compliance.
=Smidge=
On the other hand, a gun has a much higher intimidation value and can be used without getting too close. This is what makes them effective tools for armed robbery - you can't stab the guy behind the counter as easily as you can shoot them, so you use a gun to intimidate and force compliance.
=Smidge=
Right, thats true. But kids carrying a knife around vs kids carrying guns around, the knives get used a lot more. Witness the UK where chavs'll stab you for a packet of crisps.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
Those are considered ordinance/artillery, not small arms. Different category. Such things as cannons were usually owned by towns, lords (titled deeded land owners), and vessels (ships in many ways are akin to mini villages, this is why captains often have similar rights - ie: ability to marry).
In Europe maybe, but in the US the cannons were owned by prosperous citizens or the towns (which meant the citizens).
Technically, the second ammendment covers armaments used by the military, including field artillery and battle tanks.
Of course, the BATF might not agree. 8-)
The situation with Miller is even worse than this:
The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...