Posted on 01/20/2008 5:31:20 PM PST by Copernicus
I'm saying a line needs to be drawn as to what kind of 'arms' are protected by the 2nd amendment and which are not. You seem to be rejecting the responsibility of having to draw a line by rejecting my examples as rediculous.
That sounds good to me. And I think the solicitor would probably be ok with that depending on what the criteria was.
They do, actually, and have set a precedent for it in several cases - but only in a manner such as this.
If you agree that some people should have that right revoked (criminals) and that there are some arms that should not be allowed (anti-aircraft missiles), then you acknowledge that there needs to be a line drawn, a rulebook written, that constitutionally determines what type of arms are covered by the 2nd amendment and who is allowed to have them.
Simple enough, I think.
Depends on where you want to draw the line. The US military has tactical nuke units, too.
Wrong, they don't exist because you can't make a firearm without enough metal in it to trigger a metal detector. Just can't be done. . All sorts of real things that are banned exist. This does not because it is simply a figment of the media's imagination that you have apparently confused for reality.
The quintessential "undetectable" pistol is the Glock 17 - the one that started all this "undetectable" BS. I have one, and I assure you there is PLENTY of metal in there to set the metal detector off - we're talking over a pound of steel. The slide alone - all metal - weighs way more than my keys, which regularly set off the detector.
it seems entirely possible to make one
What the hell do you know about making guns out of non-metallic components? Maybe someday, but not now: if it were possible, they would be manufactured and for sale ... maybe not to the general public in this country, but in some country and definitely to the US military.
Here is your answer, stolen from a another thread:
“The power of the sword is in the hands of Congress? My friends and countrymen, it is not so; for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the Militia? They are not ourselves as politicians and lawmakers. They are those who have elected us into our positions and entrusted us with the power of preserving and carrying out their wishes. Congress has no power to disarm the Militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the Federal or State governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe
Why should they, or "Assault Weapons" be banned?
The funny thing is that this idea only started around 1968. If he's too dangerous to be a citizen, he's too dangerous to be walking around free. Exile, keep him in prison or execute him.
“The funny thing is that this idea only started around 1968. If he’s too dangerous to be a citizen, he’s too dangerous to be walking around free. Exile, keep him in prison or execute him.’
Thats an interesting point and one I tend to agree with. It used to be that 70-80% of felonies were committed by people with prior felony convictions.
It's very simple. The Constitution is not a self-modifying document. It requires an amendment to modify it. The Founders intended for there to be no limitations on what arms the law-abiding may keep and bear.
The Founders would also not have believed that prisoners have a right to be armed. Whether "once a prisoner, always a prisoner" should apply may be a proper subject for Congress.
What arms I may possess is NOT a proper subject for Congress. Is there some reason why you believe that the people have no obligation to amend the Constitution in order to grant the power you describe? What exactly is the problem with expecting the government to operate within the bounds set for it?
I might agree that the government "should" be able to regulate 100 megaton nuclear weapons. But that opinion changes not one word of the Constitution. And I'm not going to agree to an amendment which accomplishes that if you intend to outlaw "unusually lethal" handguns or rifles.
You can't have what you want so you insist that you need not get my agreement to have it.
If they have the power to enforce unConstitutional laws for five seconds then they have the power to enforce unConstitutional laws for five hundred years. You should not join those who point to erroneous Court decisions as an indicator of the proper interpretation of the Constitution.
Sorry, thought we were discussing reality. The court has has made unconstitutional decisions intentioanlly to lessen the damage of previously even more unconstitutional decisions. I can’t recall the specific case but do remember the classroom discussion on it. It was one of those situations where it didn’t really have a choice.
You didn’t read what I said, and you are more interested in argument than a discussion. I’m sure someone else can give you the former.
Fantasy is not a good basis for establishing good Constitutional social policy.
Undoing a wrong may be painful, but trying to lessen the pain by undoing it with another wrong instead of a right is, well, wrong.
Yes, I'm rankled.
There is a viable argument for restrictions involving strict scrutiny or specific ajudication.
The SG is plainly arguing for intermediate scrutiny and judicial deferrment.
There is a strict scrutiny argument for banning personal WMDs.
There is NOT a strict scrutiny argument for banning personal M16s.
Understand the difference.
You can store an M16 “safely”* and use it “responsibly”**. Therefore you cannot ban it under the 2ndA.
You cannot store a nuke “safely”* and use it “responsibly”**. Therefore, under strict scrutiny, it can be banned.
* - If an M16 “goes off” when stored, there’s a hole or 30 in the ceiling. If a nuke “goes off” when stored, a city disappears.
** - An M16 can be used, with reasonable assurance, without harming innocents/noncombatants. Using a nuke will, with reasonable assurance, severely harm a great many innocents/noncombatants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.