US 2nd Amendment - What weapons should and shouldn't be permissible?

a reply to: Wayfarer

That's exactly what you're asking for.

"Shall not be infringed."

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Wayfarer
....
The 2nd amendment was written at a time when men were using gunpowder and slugs...it took time to reload every single bullet. You could maybe get 3 shots off per MINUTE.

And the regular army enemy soldiers they had to fight had the EXACT same weapons and rate of fire. The arms were equivalent (including cannon).

Your point is what??
Is it that the equivalency is no longer there since we cannot have the same weapons as a potential enemy?

I thought Scalia gave a ruling on that. In 2008....In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

The court had dissenters, however, it's pretty clear Scalia validated certain parts of the second amendment in relation to 'individual rights' having a specific meaning as being codified in other areas, but it's also pretty clear that ruling is for handguns, and presumably the term handgun have a specific meaning as opposed to other weaponry, and certainly not other weaponry being the popular choice for individuals et al, whereas handguns are.
So, in one way, Scalia's ruling has changed the second amendment by his clarification, in that the individuals rights are limited to, in this case, handguns...which makes sense.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Not just govt. tyranny.

The tyranny of the mob, as well.

We've all seen it, riots both here and abroad, where the tyranny of the mob has run amok.

The gun, of whatever sort, isn't the primary weapon against it, it is, at best, the tool of last resort. The vast majority of us would much prefer that any problem be solved long before that tool is resorted to. I certainly would.

Locks on the windows and doors, as necessary. Walking with purpose so as not to be perceived as a possible prey item. Many things that we do, almost without thinking.

But I've had instances, one, in my life where I was certainly glad I had that "last resort" tool at hand. Didn't use it, thank God, as its mere presence sent the guy packing.

As long as there are people out there who think that what's mine is, in fact, theirs, I want to have at hand, tools that help me in my ongoing disagreement with such folk. Anything that hinders that, is not something I'm going to be on board with...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No. You're just ignorant. They are unalienable God given rights. Anything granted by man can be taken away. It's the entire basis for the foundation of America.

Erm, the Second Amendment is, you know, the Second Amendment. Written by men for men, after the original Constitution was drafted.
As for the tyranny bit, Snopes has this to say about it, and if we're citing articles on Vox then there's this.

Perhaps you think the 2nd amendment grants this right? No.

You are aware the the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights gives the government the power grant NOTHING. It does, however, lay out the PROTECTIONS the government must follow to protect the innate rights that every citizen acquires upon birth. The amendments state what the government CANNOT do to rights every citizen is born with though.

It is an important distinction that many people fail to grasp.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Except I'm not asking for a debate on Gun Control, I'm asking what weapons do you think should or shouldn't be allowed, and why.

Any weapon available to the US military or police should be available to civilians.

The second amendment was created to protect citizens again tyranny and oppression. Therefore any weapon that the government could potentially use against its citizens should also be available to the same citizens to even the playing field.

Yes, that includes grenades, rockets/missiles, and whatever else floats your boat or sinks it. As long as you can afford it.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
All rights are God given. Laws are made by man to limit our rights.

When the Constitution was written there weren't any amendments. The colonies were refusing to sign it because they were afraid it would be amended later to limit citizens options to rebel against a tyrannical government. Consequently the first ten amendments were added to REITERATE those rights. Some didnt want the amendments because it looked like the government was granting rights and setting precedent but that was addressed in the 9th amendment. The Bill of Rights was written specifically to give an avenue to overthrow a tyrannical government:

1. Freedom of press, religion, speech, and assembly - We can assemble and discuss how bad our government is legally
2. Right of Arms - Garuntees our right to have the tools to take on a tyrannical government
3. No quartering of soldiers - Keeps the soldiers of a tyrannical government out of your house
4. No warrentless search and seizure - The government cant come in and check up on you without evidence of a crime first.
5. Right to silence - we dont have to explain a thing to anybody if we dont want to
6. Right to a speedy trial - Either take it to court or release, you cant hold people indefinitely. This used to be a frequent political move that tyrants used to disarm opposition.
7. Right to a jury of peers - Prevents a tyrannical justice dept. working in concert with the executive branch.
8. Bans cruel or unusual punishment - Intended to prevent putting away political opponents for a long time over petty crimes, a favorite move by tyrants.
9. Unlisted rights exist - Your rights exist forever until a law is passed to limit them.
10. Laws not covered by the federal government are to be set by the States

This was crafted to enable a person or group of people to coordinate an overthrow of a tyrannical government. It is illegal to attempt a coup, but avenue to do it is protected. The Constitution wasn't ratified UNTIL the Bill of Rights was there first. THEN the 13 colonies signed it.

Also worth noting: Most of the world had already banned firearms for private citizens before the Constitution was ratified. The new USA was unique in that it REINSTATED the unalienable right is to never be infringed. The founders wanted the people to have the power, not the government.

Taking on a tyrannical government doesn't necessarily mean taking on the U.S. military. I dont think citizens need missles or tanks but we do need fighting rifles. I think the world would become a very bad place if the U.S. Government operates without that important power check.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Except I'm not asking for a debate on Gun Control, I'm asking what weapons do you think should or shouldn't be allowed, and why.

Any weapon available to the US military or police should be available to civilians.

The second amendment was created to protect citizens again tyranny and oppression. Therefore any weapon that the government could potentially use against its citizens should also be available to the same citizens to even the playing field.

Yes, that includes grenades, rockets/missiles, and whatever else floats your boat or sinks it. As long as you can afford it.

No limit whatsoever, including nukes, biological/chemical weapons, etc? I would imagine the capability for someone crazy to rack up an obscene bodycount become a lot more likely when you bring things like that into the mix. Not judging your opinion, would just like clarification.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You are missing my point again. 'God-given'? That's a ridiculous statement to make - it was an amendment to the US Constitution. Man-given therefore.

Every right protected by the constitution assumes that the right existed prior to the writing of the document. No amendment in the Bill of Rights grants any right.

a reply to: luthier

We're saying the same thing. It's not something that is granted by a person that can be taken away.

These are innate rights. Their removal is inherently unjust.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


I think we do. I was just getting specific. Using our dialogue to expand.

These rights are foundational for a just social contract where authority is given to a group to protect these rights and in turn they must respect the guidelines around their authority.

If they overstep those guidelines our system was designed for several resets. One is voting in the case of minor over steps. Like mini rebellions the other was the right to bare arms in case of a total ceasing of power in an unjust way.

Could there be another way I don't know to be honest. There are some other more modern systems of government that have other options but that is up for debate.

Simply taking away a control over authority with no thought except a reaction to public safety is dangerous and how subversive asymmetrical warfare can be fought against citizens. If the second is to be controller there better be good discussion for how to replace a safeguard against tyranny.

in·fringe·ment
inˈfrinjmənt/
noun
noun: infringement; plural noun: infringements

1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
"copyright infringement"
2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.
"the infringement of the right to privacy"


Limiting is prohibited.

I keep hearing opinion on the 2nd amendments wording, but not on the actual question posed in the OP. To reiterate, there are other threads already active having this discussion. Lets focus on the weapons themselves and the reasoning behind limits or no limits.

I'm primarily curious as to the justification for a 'zero limitation' mindset since its one I'm having the most difficulty wrapping my mind around. Could someone who believes that US citizens should have free access to the totality of military grade hardware explain the trade-off in freedom vs the empowerment of the citizenry to more easily kill massive amounts of people should they 'snap' and go on a killing spree? Is freedom worth something as hyperbolic (and unrealistic) as nukes for everyone?

a reply to: Wayfarer

What is your suggesting to keeping the safeguard the 2nd represents for the social contract?

Serious question.

You can't simply take away the safeguard and assume authority won't take advantage of it.

I see people talk about muskets and such as the difference but that is a total lack of understanding of the philosophy behind our society.

Basically I see people saying roll over we have no power anyway. I don't see any theories of how we could have the safeguard the 2nd represents in another way that may be more modern.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If the second is to be controller there better be good discussion for how to replace a safeguard against tyranny.

Unfortunately the take the guns crowd won't even mention that aspect.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer

What is your suggesting to keeping the safeguard the 2nd represents for the social contract?

Serious question.

You can't simply take away the safeguard and assume authority won't take advantage of it.

I see people talk about muskets and such as the difference but that is a total lack of understanding of the philosophy behind our society.

Basically I see people saying roll over we have no power anyway. I don't see any theories of how we could have the safeguard the 2nd represents in another way that may be more modern.

Well, without diving too deep into it, I am inclined to think the very act of having an army comprised of sons, daughters, fathers and mothers of the people would be very unlikely to follow orders to kill their own family/loved ones. Second, that the government derives its power from the governed, and without the population funding it, would cease to exist in anything but name only. Lastly, if the government wanted us all dead, I think we are fairly well past the point of no return where the technology has eclipsed the ability of the population to fight back, and that attempting to solve that thought experiment is relatively futile.

Granted, I think there are more valid reasons for Gun ownership besides solely being defense against tyranny. I just can't really understand the concept of increasing the availability of lethality by orders of magnitude (to match what the most ardent supporters believe is a completely unrestricted access to any weapons whatsoever). To follow that line of thinking out to the most extreme extent, I think if every person in the country had a button that would detonate a nuke or pervasive biological weapon, that we would probably all measure our lives in minutes.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer

What is your suggesting to keeping the safeguard the 2nd represents for the social contract?

Serious question.

You can't simply take away the safeguard and assume authority won't take advantage of it.

I see people talk about muskets and such as the difference but that is a total lack of understanding of the philosophy behind our society.

Basically I see people saying roll over we have no power anyway. I don't see any theories of how we could have the safeguard the 2nd represents in another way that may be more modern.

Well, without diving too deep into it, I am inclined to think the very act of having an army comprised of sons, daughters, fathers and mothers of the people would be very unlikely to follow orders to kill their own family/loved ones. Second, that the government derives its power from the governed, and without the population funding it, would cease to exist in anything but name only. Lastly, if the government wanted us all dead, I think we are fairly well past the point of no return where the technology has eclipsed the ability of the population to fight back, and that attempting to solve that thought experiment is relatively futile.

Granted, I think there are more valid reasons for Gun ownership besides solely being defense against tyranny. I just can't really understand the concept of increasing the availability of lethality by orders of magnitude (to match what the most ardent supporters believe is a completely unrestricted access to any weapons whatsoever). To follow that line of thinking out to the most extreme extent, I think if every person in the country had a button that would detonate a nuke or pervasive biological weapon, that we would probably all measure our lives in minutes.

So no you don't have an answer..

You should read the work of John Locke who inspired the structure of our society.

In the past like in nazi Germany, mousalini, stalin, mao, etc your theory of the army being powerful enough to resist on its own didn't work.

If there is a battle where citizens are actually fighting the army with guerilla warfare there is a far better chance of converting the soldiers minds than if we simply line up and let them take their orders and do what is directed.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be similar to the Swiss. We have a mandatory regional guard similar to a police force non federal and then after service there are limits on ammunition etc for personal use.

Buy again this is not my suggestion jut the type of replacement necessary to keep the social contract in order.

a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

God has nothing to do with something a man wrote!

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer

What is your suggesting to keeping the safeguard the 2nd represents for the social contract?

Serious question.

You can't simply take away the safeguard and assume authority won't take advantage of it.

I see people talk about muskets and such as the difference but that is a total lack of understanding of the philosophy behind our society.

Basically I see people saying roll over we have no power anyway. I don't see any theories of how we could have the safeguard the 2nd represents in another way that may be more modern.

Well, without diving too deep into it, I am inclined to think the very act of having an army comprised of sons, daughters, fathers and mothers of the people would be very unlikely to follow orders to kill their own family/loved ones. Second, that the government derives its power from the governed, and without the population funding it, would cease to exist in anything but name only. Lastly, if the government wanted us all dead, I think we are fairly well past the point of no return where the technology has eclipsed the ability of the population to fight back, and that attempting to solve that thought experiment is relatively futile.

Granted, I think there are more valid reasons for Gun ownership besides solely being defense against tyranny. I just can't really understand the concept of increasing the availability of lethality by orders of magnitude (to match what the most ardent supporters believe is a completely unrestricted access to any weapons whatsoever). To follow that line of thinking out to the most extreme extent, I think if every person in the country had a button that would detonate a nuke or pervasive biological weapon, that we would probably all measure our lives in minutes.

So no you don't have an answer..

Because my answer isn't to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your only way of viewing the scenario is we have to be able to match firepower to firepower then you should have specified that in your query. Its not my fault for your question being worded incorrectly from your assumptive meaning.

If your only criteria is to empower the citizenry to withstand the full might of the US armed forces then you would have to make the citizenry into an equivalent of the armed forces. Since that wasn't the question you asked I'm not sure how you can posit such a response in good faith.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer

What is your suggesting to keeping the safeguard the 2nd represents for the social contract?

Serious question.

You can't simply take away the safeguard and assume authority won't take advantage of it.

I see people talk about muskets and such as the difference but that is a total lack of understanding of the philosophy behind our society.

Basically I see people saying roll over we have no power anyway. I don't see any theories of how we could have the safeguard the 2nd represents in another way that may be more modern.

Well, without diving too deep into it, I am inclined to think the very act of having an army comprised of sons, daughters, fathers and mothers of the people would be very unlikely to follow orders to kill their own family/loved ones. Second, that the government derives its power from the governed, and without the population funding it, would cease to exist in anything but name only. Lastly, if the government wanted us all dead, I think we are fairly well past the point of no return where the technology has eclipsed the ability of the population to fight back, and that attempting to solve that thought experiment is relatively futile.

Granted, I think there are more valid reasons for Gun ownership besides solely being defense against tyranny. I just can't really understand the concept of increasing the availability of lethality by orders of magnitude (to match what the most ardent supporters believe is a completely unrestricted access to any weapons whatsoever). To follow that line of thinking out to the most extreme extent, I think if every person in the country had a button that would detonate a nuke or pervasive biological weapon, that we would probably all measure our lives in minutes.

So no you don't have an answer..

Because my answer isn't to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your only way of viewing the scenario is we have to be able to match firepower to firepower then you should have specified that in your query. Its not my fault for your question being worded incorrectly from your assumptive meaning.

If your only criteria is to empower the citizenry to withstand the full might of the US armed forces then you would have to make the citizenry into an equivalent of the armed forces. Since that wasn't the question you asked I'm not sure how you can posit such a response in good faith.

It doesn't have to be necessarily fire power against fire power. And in fact guerilla warfare doesn't do that. It has to be something that hasn't already been proven by history to not work.

I think a lot of you people don't read much philosophy or history and udderstand the structure of our government and why.

Having those local militias was a mutual destruction safeguard, the expectation is it most likely wouldn't be needed simply because the knowledge it exists deters a tyrant from simply lining people up and putting them in camps.