Do you support the second amendment?

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

For reference, here’s the common troupe:

JonNC:

It protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and it lists as the primary purpose the necessity of the citizen militia to protect a free state from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.

Sorry, you quoted the primary purpose of the constitution right, it wasn’t an elaboration on potential tyranny.

The founders agreed with me, that the ballot box was the primary method of controlling tyranny.

Already beat ya to it.

Since they have Abrams tanks, Apache attack copters and loads of other “goodies” that you don’t have access to, your vote is a far, FAR more effective “weapon” against tyranny than anything you can buy at your local gunshop.

 

[starshiptrooper]

United States v. Miller concerned the possession of a short barreled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and whether or not the 2nd Amendment protected such a weapon.

SCOTUS ruled that the shotgun was not a protected weapon under the 2nd Amendment because there was no evidence that short barreled shotgun was "… Any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. "

Semi-automatic rifles are carried by the average infantryman which makes them ordinary military equipment and therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment.

The Court then stated:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power –

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

In other words, weapons that are not part of ordinary military equipment are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure that the people are effective when acting as a militia and therefore it must be interpreted accordingly.

To be effective today, the militia has the right to keep and bear arms similar to ordinary military equipment, namely semi-automatic rifles for starters.

This is similar to the 4th Amendment protecting your computer and the 1st Amendment protecting bloggers. Rights evolve with advancing technology.

 

[JonNC]

But it should raise the reasonable question of “how much firepower should one person be allowed?”

Whose business is it with what frequency I exercise my constitutionally protected right, as long as I do not violate the rights of others ?

And lets keep them legal!

Let’s just also make them less available to obtain.

“Banned” and “controlled” are not synonyms, even if your argument really needs them to be in order to work.

The intent is the same. If you are trying to make a right more difficult to obtain, unless your target is criminals, the control has a ban motive to it because of the intent.

They’re still available to the poor even if the permit is $10k. They just have the prioritize and save for it.

Just like a poll tax.
Should they prioritize and save up for due process? How about protection against illegal search and seizure? If it can be done to one right, it can be done to others.
And in fact, the progressives in Congress demanded we do just that: treat due process as a right that can be suspended, limited.

 

[Vonsalza]

In other words…

Yeah this is where you’re mucking it up.

Take it from my personal experience, if you ever try to paraphrase a judge with “in other words”, especially in their court, it’s not going to go very well for you.

The pronouncement states what it states and nothing more.

We obviously see the point you’re still trying to make fall apart completely when presented by the unambiguous fact that there is an ocean of military technology that you cannot own.

Surely you recognize this?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yeah this is where you’re mucking it up.

Take it from my personal experience, if you ever try to paraphrase a judge with “in other words”, especially in their court, it’s not going to go very well for you.

The pronouncement states what it states and nothing more.

If you want to disagree, cite an actual incongruence between my words and the words of the Supreme Court.

We obviously see the point you’re still trying to make fall apart completely when presented by the unambiguous fact that there is an ocean of military technology that you cannot own.

Surely you recognize this?

I never claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected access to all military technology. United States v. Miller clearly offers as a rationale for the restrictions on a short barreled shotgun, the absence of evidence the weapon was part of “ordinary military equipment”.

If you want to explain how the militia is supposed to be effective without the 2nd Amendment protecting access to small arms such as semi-automatic rifles, then go ahead. I have already proved my point.

 

[Bon_Croix]

The only way to support the Constitution is to support the 2nd Ammendment. Because without the 2nd, there would not be the Constitution.

Reason, some states or colonies made a deal to ratify the Constitution with a contingency. The contingency was the 2nd amendment.

END OF DISCUSSION!!!

 

[Vonsalza]

Whose business is it with what frequency I exercise my constitutionally protected right, as long as I do not violate the rights of others ?

If the free exercise of the right gives you the power to readily and unacceptably impose on the lives of others, then that right must be subject to some degree of judicial purview; as we see with pedestrian frequency.

But as we’ve already discussed, you guys collectively have done a sub-par job proving that the right to bear “arms” unalterably means that you must have easy access to semiautomatic rifles with high-cap detachable magazines.

The intent is the same. If you are trying to make a right more difficult to obtain, unless your target is criminals, the control has a ban motive to it because of the intent.

More false equivalency and slippery slope… sigh The intent is not the same. A ban intends to ban, a permit intends to limit. Anyone with an accurate dictionary can distinguish between the differing intents.

And your rhetoric here fails to meet your own standards, by the way. Apparently you’re “ok” with banning known criminals from accessing firearms, even though the right to bear them supposedly shall not be “infringed”.

This is an obvious infringement; just one we both happen to agree with.

Just like a poll tax.

They’re quite different in that I see the constitutional basis for an unimpeded right to vote.

I don’t see the same constitutional basis for unimpeded access to semiautomatic rifles with high-cap detachable magazines. Unsurprising, as those things didn’t exist for the framers to even mention them explicitly.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you want to disagree, cite an actual incongruence between my words and the words of the Supreme Court.

I keep asking you to provide where the court has explicitly protected your access to semiautomatic rifles and you keep failing to provide a direct citation that is free of your own explanatory embellishments.

I can’t prove a negative in this case, sir.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Are you an internet dictator?

 

[starshiptrooper]

The term you are looking for is ‘logical inferences’. You are apparently incapable of accepting the fact that courts routinely make decisions that affect how the law applies everywhere and at all times unless otherwise noted. This is your problem, not mine.

 

[Vonsalza]

The term you are looking for is ‘logical inferences’.

The law says what it says per the judiciary and absolutely nothing more.

When you make a “logical inference” to fill a gap, you do so at peril.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry, you quoted the primary purpose of the constitution right, it wasn’t an elaboration on potential tyranny.

Actually it does imply a potential tyranny. It says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”. It doesn’t say “the state”.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Fine then, explain how the militia is supposed to be effective (that was the standard explicitly stated by the Court) without access to ordinary military equipment.

 

[JonNC]

If the free exercise of the right gives you the power to readily and unacceptably impose on the lives of others, then that right must be subject to some degree of judicial purview; as we see with pedestrian frequency.

Again, as long as I am not imposing on the lives of others, meaning, interfering with their rights, it is no one’s business. I could have 100 guns and not impose on others. In fact, the vast majority of multiple gun owners dont break the law

 

[JonNC]

More false equivalency and slippery slope… sigh The intent is not the same. A ban intends to ban, a permit intends to limit. Anyone with an accurate dictionary can distinguish between the differing intents.

It is neither a false equivalency nor a slippery slope. It is called incrementalism, and has been the practice of opponents of the second amendment for decades.

And your rhetoric here fails to meet your own standards, by the way. Apparently you’re “ok” with banning known criminals from accessing firearms, even though the right to bear them supposedly shall not be “infringed”.

Of course I am in favor of taking rights away from those who abuse those rights. Those who are poor, on the other hand, have broken no laws by being poor.

They’re quite different in that I see the constitutional basis for an unimpeded right to vote.

I don’t see the same constitutional basis for unimpeded access to semiautomatic rifles with high-cap detachable magazines. Unsurprising, as those things didn’t exist for the framers to even mention them explicitly.

Because you don’t or choose not to see the right doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It is, thank goodness.
But the fact is the intention is the same; to prevent some from accessing their rights without a good reason

 

[JonNC]

I keep asking you to provide where the court has explicitly protected your access to semiautomatic rifles and you keep failing to provide a direct citation that is free of your own explanatory embellishments.

I can’t prove a negative in this case, sir.

I’d like you to provide where the Courts allows for the restriction of rights solely on income status.

 

[Vonsalza]

Again, as long as I am not imposing on the lives of others…

Again, it isn’t that simple.

Using an extreme example to better convey the general idea, this is exactly why people can’t buy nuclear material. It doesn’t matter if you “promise to be good”. The destructive potential of the one guy who behaves badly is simply too great a risk to allow into public consumption.

On a lower scale, this is exactly the problem the assault-style weapons. The one guy who wants to behave badly has too much destructive potential.

“But he could just use his (insert other object), Vons!”

A (insert other object) at least has other uses presumably important to the function of wider, everyday modern society. Killing a bunch of people was probably not (insert other object)'s designed purpose, unlike assault-style weapons.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I keep asking you to provide where the court has explicitly protected your access to semiautomatic rifles and you keep failing to provide a direct citation that is free of your own explanatory embellishments.

I can’t prove a negative in this case, sir.

I’d like you to provide where the Courts allows for the restriction of rights solely on income status.

They’ve already done the same thing with fully automatic weapons, Jon. All you need is the cash and a clean history.

 

[Bon_Croix]

If and when the crap hits the fan in the U.S., you are going to be looking for the protection of the militias. History does repeat itself. The problem w/ the Constitution is the “Supremacy Clause”–it leads to abuse of power.

Hence, the militia rights.

 

[JonNC]

Again, as long as I am not imposing on the lives of others…

Again, it isn’t that simple.

Using an extreme example to better convey the general idea, this is exactly why people can’t buy nuclear material. It doesn’t matter if you “promise to be good”. The destructive potential of the one guy who behaves badly is simply too great a risk to allow into public consumption.

On a lower scale, this is exactly the problem the assault-style weapons. The one guy who wants to behave badly has too much destructive potential.

I am all in favor of restricting assault style weapons. I am not in favor of restricting civilian semi-automatic firearms.
I am absolutely adamantly opposed to targeting a group or class of people other than criminals who have been convicted.

A (insert other object) at least has other uses presumably important to the function of wider, everyday modern society. Killing a bunch of people was probably not (insert other object)'s designed purpose, unlike assault-style weapons.

No one is defending those who kill others. I just don’t believe in holding a whole class of people for the actions of a small few.