Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[AFK]

I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X.  You haven't taken anything away from him.  He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it.  No infringement.

The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you".  It says you can have them.

So, yeah, it's infringement.

And you still can.  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.

I see.  So now you want to ban the sale of legal items?  There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.

That part of the Constitution didn't stop us from banning DDT.  There is precedent for banning legal items for public safety.

That part of the constitution ALLOWED the US to ban DDT.  But we aren't talking about pesticides, we're talking about firearms which are legal to own, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.  I cannot even own DDT, and no amendment says I can (amendment X doesn't applym as banning DDT is a power granted under commerce) in the face of federal law.  Ergo, I cannot buy it.

So commerce can somehow allow for the banning of one product and not another?  That's kind of dicey logic I think.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.

There were?  Link?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397

American history since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock shows that the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual common-law right since the very beginning — the right recognized and protected, not created, by the Second Amendment. The right always came with a civic duty, to use those arms to defend and protect the community when called to serve in the militia.
It has also always come with regulations: The colonies kept registries of gun owners and their weapons. Western towns like Dodge City in the 19th century required visiting cowboys to leave their weapons with the sheriff. Sensible regulation does not constitute the "infringement" the Second Amendment forbids, no matter what the National Rifle Association says.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY

That's an op-ed.  Also, the cowboy days were a little after the founders.  And the colonies predated the constitution.  Nothing there talks about the period we're describing, which is the era immediately following the creation of the US constitution.

Also, the bolded part kind of wrecks your argument.

Ah, but it doesn't.  The right recognized, but not created....which means that right existed in those earlier days above when there were gun regulations, which seems to suggest that it was never conceived that the right to bear arms and gun regulations were mutually exclusive ideas.  It seems like it has been an accepted concept for quite some time, until the 2nd Amendment became twisted into a religion.

Doesn't matter.  The fact is, the 2nd amendment is worded to allow arms of all types.  What preceded it is irrelevant. 

And to me, the whole constitution is a religion.  You can't pick and choose what parts you like, or it isn't a constitution, it's a hobby. 

The simple fact is, the 2nd amendment is as written.  You can argue yourself in circles all day, and it's still there, barring an amendment or constitutional convention.  The amendment isn't going to happen, not in this world.  A constitutional convention?  Go ahead, if you can get enough governors on board...But remember that in a constitutional convention, EVERYTHING is up for grabs, and you'd have Rick Warren and Pat Robertson ahead of you in line for the changes THEY'D like to see.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X.  You haven't taken anything away from him.  He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it.  No infringement.

The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you".  It says you can have them.

So, yeah, it's infringement.

And you still can.  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.

I see.  So now you want to ban the sale of legal items?  There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.

That part of the Constitution didn't stop us from banning DDT.  There is precedent for banning legal items for public safety.

That part of the constitution ALLOWED the US to ban DDT.  But we aren't talking about pesticides, we're talking about firearms which are legal to own, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.  I cannot even own DDT, and no amendment says I can (amendment X doesn't applym as banning DDT is a power granted under commerce) in the face of federal law.  Ergo, I cannot buy it.

So commerce can somehow allow for the banning of one product and not another?  That's kind of dicey logic I think.

Items that are not specifically protected can be regulated.  Therefore, the US government cannot ban or regulate newspapers, guns, etc.  At least not constitutionally.  And if you're on board with doing it unconstitutionally, then I suggest you get in contact with Alberto Gonzales.  I hear he has experience in those matters.

[AFK]

Eh, it's worded to allow arms, I see nothing that speaks at all to types.  There are no words there that state, or even imply, that the MARKET must be unfettered.  What is to be unfettered is the ability of citizens to buy and bear arms.  And a ban on certain types of weapons does not decrease the ability to buy guns, at all.  It is only changing the market place, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to the market place.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Eh, it's worded to allow arms, I see nothing that speaks at all to types.  There are no words there that state, or even imply, that the MARKET must be unfettered.  What is to be unfettered is the ability of citizens to buy and bear arms.  And a ban on certain types of weapons does not decrease the ability to buy guns, at all.  It is only changing the market place, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to the market place.

See, that's the beauty of how amendment IX supports the other amendments.  Amendment II says arms, it doesn't place any limitations on the arms, so amendment IX clarifies it to mean "any arms".

So, we're back to either you want to do things constitutionally, or you don't.

[AFK]

No, we're back to where I think you're wrong about your interpretation as regards to whether or not gun regulations constitutes as "infringement".  Given that gun regulations were an accepted concept in those days, I find it very hard to agree with your interpretation.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, we're back to where I think you're wrong about your interpretation as regards to whether or not gun regulations constitutes as "infringement".  Given that gun regulations were an accepted concept in those days, I find it very hard to agree with your interpretation.

You failed to prove that either:

1.  Gun regulations were an accepted concept immediately after the 2nd amendment was formed ("those days"), and

2.  That the 2nd amendment is bound by "accepted concepts". 

And your argument about simply not allowing the sale of arms is constitutionally identical to saying that you can say anything you like, but that no form of media that says bad things about the government will be allowed.

[AFK]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-21/opinions/35950233_1_gun-control-gun-laws-suicide-rates
[/size]

4. Gun regulations are incompatible with America's gun heritage.
When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.
In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. (Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)
On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western town had stricter gun laws than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying.

[AFK]

Was any of that infringement?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Was any of that infringement?

The 2nd amendment was in place in 1619?

And again, the Wild West was 100 years later.

[AFK]

Was any of that infringement?

The 2nd amendment was in place in 1619?

And again, the Wild West was 100 years later.

Uh, the 19th century is the 1800s, the Constitution was ratified in the waning years of the 1700s.  So, everyone decided to just take a couple decade break from gun regulation?  Really?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Was any of that infringement?

The 2nd amendment was in place in 1619?

And again, the Wild West was 100 years later.

Uh, the 19th century is the 1800s, the Constitution was ratified in the waning years of the 1700s.  So, everyone decided to just take a couple decade break from gun regulation?  Really?

Does the 2nd amendment grant the government the power to regulate the arms that are involved?

If not, I refer you to amendment X.

After all, the constitution isn't a list of rights, it's a list of powers the government has...If the power involved isn't on the list, it doesn't exist (as spelled out in amendments IX and X).

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Mass is rather interesting and admittedly kneejerk in its weapons laws. A few east asian weapons are banned but yet katana are not. Double edged blades of any sort are unless they are unsharpened. I have an unsharpened double edged sword. However sharpened blades are banned if i believe they are larger than your palm. Shuriken are illegal. Its interesting and kinda ducked up but i dont feel that the ability to restrict certain types of weapons is inherently against the second amendment so long as that there is some sort of rationale that can be simply referenced. I think that part of the problems that i have with the second amendment being invoked by either side is that the framers could not possibly conceive of how weapons in the twenty first century would be like and that the framers intended the constitution to change with the needs of the people. The framers arent gods and they certainly arent absolute authorities on freedom since they were slave owners who didnt let a lot of people vote. That said i dont think that amendments should ever be used to ban things. Amendments are great because they are thou shalt be able to instead of thou shalt nots. Except for one. And that one was repealed by another amendment.

[AFK]

Precedent, both in terms of the history of gun regulation in this country and in terms of products being banned for public safety, says yes.  But it isn't that it is granted in the 2nd, it's that gun regulation is not forbidden by the 2nd. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Precedent, both in terms of the history of gun regulation in this country and in terms of products being banned for public safety, says yes.  But it isn't that it is granted in the 2nd, it's that gun regulation is not forbidden by the 2nd.

You still aren't seeming to grasp the whole "list of granted powers" thing.

Again, I refer you to amendments IX and X.