Gun Control

[Mavric]

 

Is there any restriction on the type of arms in the amendment?

 

Just curious if you think it's reasonable for a person to have a gun with a grenage launcher attached, build a surface to air missile in their garage, or mount a .50 caliber machine gun to their Jeep? All of these things are "arms".

 

No comment?

Did you answer my question? Or just keep asking more?

[Junior]

 

Is there any restriction on the type of arms in the amendment?

 

Just curious if you think it's reasonable for a person to have a gun with a grenage launcher attached, build a surface to air missile in their garage, or mount a .50 caliber machine gun to their Jeep? All of these things are "arms".

 

No comment?

Did you answer my question? Or just keep asking more?

 

The 2nd amendment provides a right to bear arms. Doesn't specify type or quantity, which is why I asked the above question.

[Mavric]

Is there any restriction on the type of arms in the amendment?

Just curious if you think it's reasonable for a person to have a gun with a grenage launcher attached, build a surface to air missile in their garage, or mount a .50 caliber machine gun to their Jeep? All of these things are "arms".

No comment?

Did you answer my question? Or just keep asking more?

The 2nd amendment provides a right to bear arms. Doesn't specify type or quantity, which is why I asked the above question.

I could see a strong case being made that "arms" would refer to the traditional use of "firearms", i.e., guns. I would say those would be different from explosive devices such as grenades and missiles, even though they may be fired in a similar fashion to guns.

[Junior]

I could see a strong case being made that "arms" would refer to the traditional use of "firearms", i.e., guns. I would say those would be different from explosive devices such as grenades and missiles, even though they may be fired in a similar fashion to guns.

 

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says, as you pointed out there is no restriction on type of arms. So if you are ok with restrictions of the 2nd amendment to firearms, why can't we restrict the type of firearms allowed?

[krill]

I could see a strong case being made that "arms" would refer to the traditional use of "firearms", i.e., guns.

 

 

I really see no difference between circa 1791 firearms and modern firearms. A poor argument I admit.

 

I am curious why many staunch defenders of the second amendment readily accept NFA restrictions on automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices, and suppressors. This is hardly an absolute interpretation of the amendment as an individual right when you've readily conceded broad categories for reasonable regulation. Thus, why are other reasonable regulations such as magazine capacities suddenly seen as a massive overreach?

[Mavric]

I could see a strong case being made that "arms" would refer to the traditional use of "firearms", i.e., guns. I would say those would be different from explosive devices such as grenades and missiles, even though they may be fired in a similar fashion to guns.

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says, as you pointed out there is no restriction on type of arms. So if you are ok with restrictions of the 2nd amendment to firearms, why can't we restrict the type of firearms allowed?

No, that's what your interpretation with your definition of arms says.

 

As I said - if you would actually read my post - is that I think an argument can be made that explosive devices do not fall into the same category as "arms" as stated in the second amendment.

[Junior]

I could see a strong case being made that "arms" would refer to the traditional use of "firearms", i.e., guns. I would say those would be different from explosive devices such as grenades and missiles, even though they may be fired in a similar fashion to guns.

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says, as you pointed out there is no restriction on type of arms. So if you are ok with restrictions of the 2nd amendment to firearms, why can't we restrict the type of firearms allowed?

No, that's what your interpretation with your definition of arms says.

 

As I said - if you would actually read my post - is that I think an argument can be made that explosive devices do not fall into the same category as "arms" as stated in the second amendment.

 

Do you have a different definition of the word?

 

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

[Mavric]

I could see a strong case being made that "arms" would refer to the traditional use of "firearms", i.e., guns. I would say those would be different from explosive devices such as grenades and missiles, even though they may be fired in a similar fashion to guns.

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says, as you pointed out there is no restriction on type of arms. So if you are ok with restrictions of the 2nd amendment to firearms, why can't we restrict the type of firearms allowed?

No, that's what your interpretation with your definition of arms says.

 

As I said - if you would actually read my post - is that I think an argument can be made that explosive devices do not fall into the same category as "arms" as stated in the second amendment.

 

Do you have a different definition of the word?

 

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

Yes. I've already stated that. These would go a lot faster if you would actually read and attempt to comprehend rather than just fire back with your next talking point.

 

Firearm:

A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc.

a weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

[Junior]

Yes. I've already stated that. These would go a lot faster if you would actually read and attempt to comprehend rather than just fire back with your next talking point.

 

Firearm:

A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc.

a weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the right to bear firearms. It says arms. You could make the case that the founders meant firearms, but I could make the case that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms.

[Mavric]

Yes. I've already stated that. These would go a lot faster if you would actually read and attempt to comprehend rather than just fire back with your next talking point.

 

Firearm:

A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc.

a weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the right to bear firearms. It says arms. You could make the case that the founders meant firearms, but I could make the case that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms.

So are we in agreement on a distinction being made between firearms (basically guns) and other exploding weapons such as grenades and missiles?

 

What would you use to make your case that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms?

[Junior]

Yes. I've already stated that. These would go a lot faster if you would actually read and attempt to comprehend rather than just fire back with your next talking point.

 

Firearm:

A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc.

a weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the right to bear firearms. It says arms. You could make the case that the founders meant firearms, but I could make the case that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms.

So are we in agreement on a distinction being made between firearms (basically guns) and other exploding weapons such as grenades and missiles?

 

What would you use to make your case that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms?

 

I'm saying a case could be made to restrict it to firearms, but that's an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, not a strict reading of it. And you haven't made that case at all yet.

 

My stance is (and the Supreme Court would agree) that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for the citizen to own guns. Not all guns. Not any guns. But some guns. The type of guns can be restricted by elected officials.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/still-limits-second-amendment

 

“Like most rights,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” The court offered no opinion, however, on exactly where that right ends, and reasonable regulation begins.

[Mavric]

Yes. I've already stated that. These would go a lot faster if you would actually read and attempt to comprehend rather than just fire back with your next talking point.

 

Firearm:

A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc.

a weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the right to bear firearms. It says arms. You could make the case that the founders meant firearms, but I could make the case that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms.

So are we in agreement on a distinction being made between firearms (basically guns) and other exploding weapons such as grenades and missiles?

 

What would you use to make your case that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms?

 

I'm saying a case could be made to restrict it to firearms, but that's an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, not a strict reading of it. And you haven't made that case at all yet.

 

My stance is (and the Supreme Court would agree) that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for the citizen to own guns. Not all guns. Not any guns. But some guns. The type of guns can be restricted by elected officials.

http://www.cato.org/...econd-amendment

 

“Like most rights,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” The court offered no opinion, however, on exactly where that right ends, and reasonable regulation begins.

So how would you make that case?

[Junior]

 

http://www.cato.org/...econd-amendment

 

“Like most rights,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” The court offered no opinion, however, on exactly where that right ends, and reasonable regulation begins.

So how would you make that case?

 

I just did.

[Mavric]

 

http://www.cato.org/...econd-amendment

 

“Like most rights,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” The court offered no opinion, however, on exactly where that right ends, and reasonable regulation begins.

So how would you make that case?

 

I just did.

Then you failed miserably.

 

You said your case was that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms. You offered a reference to some ambiguous line that the right was not unlimited that made no mention of the founder's intent, let alone if the line should be at handguns, automatic weapons, grenades, missiles or thermonuclear weapons.

[carlfense]

Then you failed miserably.

Victory has been declared.