home
D.C. Circuit Upholds Individual Right to Bear Arms | 94 comments (94 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Originalist or Living Constitutionalist? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Peter G on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 08:53:59 PM EST
The language does seem to say that the reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms is that they need to be able to participate in a well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state.  It doesn't exactly say that only those who do participate in the "militia" are entitled to keep (possess privately) and bear (carry) arms, although it could certainly be interpreted that way.  But why did the Framers believe that a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state?  Because it would allow the people to defend themselves against any attempt by the central government to use a paid (standing) army to take away their liberties, that is, to prevent the militarization of civilian society.  It seems to follow from this, that the "arms" that the people would be entitled to keep and bear would be the sort of weaponry that might prove effective for this purpose. (Just as stored e-mail today counts as "papers" under the Fourth Amendment even if never printed on paper.)  Not handguns, surely, against the modern professional military.  The only arms that would possibly serve the core purpose of the Second Amendment today would be anti-aircraft guns, missiles, and highpowered automatic weapons, plus (we have recently learned) IEDs, car bombs, etc.  I'm not a certified constitutional scholar, so I might be wrong, but I think that an originalist (a la Scalia) should say that only flintlocks and derringers are protected "arms," while the proponents of a "living Constitution" would ban handguns but support private ownership of nuclear weapons.  Did I get that right?

Interesting interpretation (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:19:42 PM EST
of "living constitution" in light of evolving technology and growing power of the central government. The more powerful the federal government the broader the rights of the people to use technology? Is communication technology a potential weapon?

[ Parent ]
I'm of a similar mind (none / 0) (#16)
by Light Emitting Pickle on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:19:42 AM EST
What does the right to bear arms mean? Does it mean that you can have a handgun, a bazuka, a missile launcher, a nuclear warhead?

I'm all for people being able to hunt, but I don't understand why hunters "need" an assault rifle.

That said, if the point is to be able to counteract a military state, then why aren't citizens allowed to acquite modern weapons? And, no, I am NOT advocating this.

[ Parent ]

Assault rifles (none / 0) (#18)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:11:33 AM EST
Have been illegal to own since the twenties.  Now if you are talking about rifles that look like assault rifles being bad then....

[ Parent ]
So when I read about attempts (none / 0) (#37)
by Light Emitting Pickle on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:05:57 PM EST
to ban assault rifles, they're not really talking about assault rifles?

And, my questions were the following: What is considered arms? Does the second amendment preclude the banning of any type of weapon?

[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 0) (#40)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:03:57 PM EST
Assault rifles are automatic.  Pull the trigger and the rounds fire until the mag is empty.  Those have been illegal since the twenties.  The problem is politicians try to make something that looks mean illegal.  Most rifles and pistols and the great percentage of shotguns are semi automatic.  Pull the trigger and one shot.  What is the percentage of crimes where "assault rifles" have been used anyway?

[ Parent ]
legal definitions (none / 0) (#48)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:53:35 PM EST
 are different than popular definitions

  In the law "assault rifles" encompass more than fully automatic weapons. A number of features can cause a rifle to be categorized in the law as an "assault rifle"  I can't list them all off the top of my head but they include things like the type of stock, certain grips, length, capacity, muzzle guards, flash suppressors, etc.

[ Parent ]

I didn't comment on the frequency of the use of (none / 0) (#53)
by Light Emitting Pickle on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:06:44 PM EST
assault rifles in crimes. I did comment, however, on whether or not one has a right to possess an assault rifle. Or bazuka, Or nuclear weapon. Who decides where to draw the line?

[ Parent ]
What (none / 0) (#60)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:27:33 PM EST
the heck is a bazuka, like a burka?  I guess the homeowners, if they can fit a missile silo in the yard, can have a nuke.  They can also grow pot down there and have sex with goats for all I care.  Just as long as the condo association doesn't mind the flag on the house.  

[ Parent ]
I've used this argument on gun nut sites... (none / 0) (#72)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:58:02 PM EST
I've used this argument on gun nut sites.... starting out small, and extending the argument to nuclear weapons.  The nutcases go crazy, of course.

My personal opinion is that the 2nd Amendment is null and void -- "well regulated militia" has been rendered meaningless within its original context -- and absent that context, there is no "there" there.

When that Amendment was passed, the Founder still thought the US didn't need a "standing army" (while acknowledging the need for a standing Navy.)   That's why they needed militias -- and their opposition to taxation meant that militiamen were expected to provide their own rifles.  In truth, the 2nd Amendment outlived its purpose when the good guys won the Civil War (personally, I think the South had every right to secede, but they lost that war, and the nature of the US government and its constitution changed as a result.)

[ Parent ]

If (none / 0) (#79)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:55:54 AM EST
you want to pose this straw man argument then go ahead.  I will reply that sure, if you want a nuke then you should be allowed to have it.  Of course where are you going to get the weapons grade material to make it?  how about the explosives to set off the chain reaction?  how about the centrifuges to make the necessary weapons grade material?  How about the electricity to power the centrifuges to make the material?  The machinery to machine and mill the material?  

[ Parent ]

D.C. Circuit Upholds Individual Right to Bear Arms | 94 comments (94 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft