How far does it go?

Bikenut · Mar 5, 2015

utbagpiper said:
The only WMD available at the time of the founders/framers. So the one place I can look to discern original intent in terms of the bounds of the 2nd amendment.

Incorrect. Corpses were the only biological weapon available. Warships, cannon, and explosives were available WMDs of the day.

utbagpiper said:
You are doing a fine job of sparking some very interesting discussion. And for that I thank you. It is your continued asking for citations when we all know there are none to directly address this point that strikes me as a bit obtuse. All we can do is argue linguistics, original intent, logic, and rights theory.

My continued and unanswered requests for cites and/or links is to get to facts instead of opinions or beliefs.

utbagpiper said:
Only if the limits violate what the 2nd amendment protects. If the 2nd amendment doesn't protect WMDs, then a ban on private possession of WMDs doesn't violate the 2nd.

The question is what does the 2nd amendment protect. Three of us--who often disagree with each other rather strenuously--have all provided very similar final answers, using at least 3, maybe 4, different tracks to get there. We don't believe the 2nd amendment protects WMDs.

Yes... that is the question asked in the OP. Where is that line drawn? Does the government violate the 2nd Amendment if it limits what arms the people are allowed to have? So far there have been opinions and beliefs offered as answers.

utbagpiper said:
Rather than coming back again and again to the whole "government" and "allowed" thing, see if there are holes in the arguments that have been put forth that WMDs are not protected.

Is WalkingWolf's linguistic argument in error?

Is Marshaul's right's theory argument in error? What about his practical inability to "use" argument?

Is my original intent argument in error?

Nope... attempting to put me on the defensive to disprove what was said won't work. You guys said it... you guys defend it.

utbagpiper said:
The point of government is to set and enforce rules. That is what governments do, it is why we have them. It is why some folks hate them. Most of us recognize a need to punish those who violate the rights of others. What we believe the limits of the 2nd amendment are, will set what kind of rules we will tolerate, or even demand.

If you want to make an anarchist, anti-government argument, you'd normally have several folks jumping right in with you. But when it comes to owning WMDs, I suspect even some of the well known anarchists might have to find the one area where they can see a reason for government limits on conduct.

Charles

And so with that last bit are you defending the government limiting what arms the people are allowed to have?

Oh... and kindly do not cleverly wordsmith in an attempt to imply a diminishing or demeaning slant to my postings with references to making an anarchist anti government argument when I am most certainly not doing any such thing.

J_dazzle23 · Mar 5, 2015

utbagpiper said:
No need to wonder as WalkingWolf has done a splendid job of explaining the meaning of "bare arms".

If we focus only on the "shall not be infringed" we lose sight of the meaning of "keep and bare." If, as WalkingWolf explains, the protections of the 2nd extend only to those arms that can be "borne" against a tyrannical government (or invaders or domestic insurrection), then bans on possession of ownership for weapons that cannot be "borne" is no more relevant than would be bans on purple goldfish. If purple goldfish are not arms that can be borne against government, they are not covered by the 2nd amendment no matter how much we focus on "shall not be infringed."

Ditto for WMDs.

Charles

Good point, but I am back to other weapons like biological and chemical- which are or could be a bit of a grey area. What about an EMP emitter?

these could theoretically be used against a tyrannical gov.

But there is a much higher risk to citizens than...perhaps, an M1 Abrams tank.

Seems like there is grey here. And you know of course, im playing devils advocate here. But it's worthwhile discussion.

Bikenut · Mar 5, 2015

utbagpiper said:
No need to wonder as WalkingWolf has done a splendid job of explaining the meaning of "bare arms".

If we focus only on the "shall not be infringed" we lose sight of the meaning of "keep and bare." If, as WalkingWolf explains, the protections of the 2nd extend only to those arms that can be "borne" against a tyrannical government (or invaders or domestic insurrection), then bans on possession of ownership for weapons that cannot be "borne" is no more relevant than would be bans on purple goldfish. If purple goldfish are not arms that can be borne against government, they are not covered by the 2nd amendment no matter how much we focus on "shall not be infringed."

Ditto for WMDs.

Charles

I would like to see cites and/or links to anything that says the word "bear" is a qualifier for the word "keep" in the 2nd Amendment. Or that the word "keep" is a qualifier for the word "bear".

utbagpiper · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
I am not experiencing any angst Charles..where is the mistake of which you speak?

The mistake is your assumption that "the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for "we the people" to have "arms" in sufficient quantity and power to counter the "arms" an out of control government has" and that requires us to have exactly the same arms as "the government [has] and [could] ... use .... against the populace?"

The mistake is in thinking that you having a WMD is a counter against the government using a WMD against you.

Bikenut said:
Are you saying that there are some arms (WMDs) that the government can limit the people's possession of (keeping) in order for the government to be the only one to have those WMDs because it won't do any good for the people to have the same WMDs since the government wouldn't be worried the people have the same WMDs?

Let me be less convoluted. I do not believe the 2nd amendment protects, nor was intended to protect, any individual right to own WMDs. I think original intent is clear. I think WalkingWolf has done a fine job providing a linguistical analysis of the black letter language of the 2nd amendment itself. And I think Marshaul has done a decent job of explaining how rights theory also prevents personal ownership of WMDs.

Bikenut said:
My question was whether the government limiting what arms the people are allowed to have violates the 2nd Amendment. I've already given my answer in an earlier post pointing out that if the government is doing the allowing (and therefor also the not allowing) then the government is violating the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd Amendment since the 2nd Amendment is a law that makes government control/regulation of the right to keep and bear arms illegal.

You continue to focus on the "shall not be infringed" while ignoring the "keep and bare". Try responding directly to WalkingWolf with why you think his analysis is incorrect.

Charles

WalkingWolf · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
I would like to see cites and/or links to anything that says the word "bear" is a qualifier for the word "keep" in the 2nd Amendment.

"AND" not keep or bear arms.

utbagpiper · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
I would like to see cites and/or links to anything that says the word "bear" is a qualifier for the word "keep" in the 2nd Amendment.

I can't provide them other than the black letter language that links them with the conjunction "and", which I freely acknowledge can be read as two rights, both protected.

Sorry.

I'd be thrilled to see what limits, if any, the founders may have imagined. The only thing I can come back is the infected corpse.

Can you find me anything to suggest that the 2nd amendment was ever used, or intended to be used against public health and sanitation laws that governed how the remains of those who died from infectious disease were to be handled? The founders/framers would certainly have been aware of using such remains as part of siege warfare throughout Europe. Was any contemporary public health law every challenged on the basis of keeping the WMDs of the day readily on hand? Original intent.

At the practical level, recognize that neither the courts nor the general public is ever going to consent to legalizing private ownership of WMDs. At this point, machine guns, claymore mines, and silencers are a real stretch.

It would be a very poor lawyer who went before the Supreme Court arguing in favor of our right to OC handguns without permits who could not draw a line between that, and having a vial of sarin gas in his back pocket. A really good lawyer, would draw a clear easy line between those two, which line did not explicitly include machine guns and tanks, but that did not preclude them either.

Charles

Bikenut · Mar 5, 2015

utbagpiper said:
The mistake is your assumption that "the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for "we the people" to have "arms" in sufficient quantity and power to counter the "arms" an out of control government has" and that requires us to have exactly the same arms as "the government [has] and [could] ... use .... against the populace?"

If the intent of the 2nd Amendment isn't for the people to have arms in sufficient quantity and power to counter the arms an out of control government has ... then exactly what is the intent of the 2nd Amendment?

utbagpiper said:
The mistake is in thinking that you having a WMD is a counter against the government using a WMD against you.

Interesting.... since every government that wanted to become oppressive first disarmed it's population of small arms. If small arms are such a threat to an out of control government wouldn't a population that has the same arms that government has be even more of a deterrent?

utbagpiper said:
Let me be less convoluted. I do not believe the 2nd amendment protects, nor was intended to protect, any individual right to own WMDs. I think original intent is clear. I think WalkingWolf has done a fine job providing a linguistical analysis of the black letter language of the 2nd amendment itself. And I think Marshaul has done a decent job of explaining how rights theory also prevents personal ownership of WMDs.

Bold added by me...

Allow me to reiterate. I am not asking what you believe. While I respect your beliefs those beliefs are not a factual answer to my question.

utbagpiper said:
You continue to focus on the "shall not be infringed" while ignoring the "keep and bare". Try responding directly to WalkingWolf with why you think his analysis is incorrect.

Charles

I am not ignoring the "keep and bear"...... I still do not see anything about the word "bear" being a qualifier as to what arms the people can "keep" nor do I see anything about the word "keep" being a qualifier as to what arms the people can bear.

Bikenut · Mar 5, 2015

WalkingWolf said:
Originally Posted by Bikenut

I would like to see cites and/or links to anything that says the word "bear" is a qualifier for the word "keep" in the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

"AND" not keep or bear arms.

utbagpiper said:
I can't provide them other than the black letter language that links them with the conjunction "and", which I freely acknowledge can be read as two rights, both protected.

So the 2nd Amendment wording of....

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html#sthash.Dg1JBu5k.dpuf

Bold added by me...
....does not mean the right to keep arms shall not be infringed AND the right to bear arms shall not be infringed .... but it means the right to keep only the arms that the people can bear shall not be infringed?

If that is what you are saying please provide cites and/or links for that.... if that is not what you are saying then I am unclear as to what you are saying.

utbagpiper · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
If the intent of the 2nd Amendment isn't for the people to have arms in sufficient quantity and power to counter the arms an out of control government has ... then exactly what is the intent of the 2nd Amendment?

That is the right that all here would agree on.

Bikenut said:
Interesting.... since every government that wanted to become oppressive first disarmed it's population of small arms. If small arms are such a threat to an out of control government wouldn't a population that has the same arms that government has be even more of a deterrent?

Nope.

And that is a key point you are missing that several of us have made.

Explain to me how you having a WMD works against an out of control government. Are you going to nuke government forces? Gas them? Release a biological agent against them? How do you do so without inflicting as much or more damage on your own innocent neighbors as you do on the government troops?

If an item cannot be used against an out of control government without violating the rights of your fellow, innocent citizens, does that affect your view of whether the item is protected by the 2nd amendment?

Bikenut said:
Allow me to reiterate. I am not asking what you believe. While I respect your beliefs those beliefs are not a factual answer to my question.

What would you accept as "factual"? A quote from Washington about what arms are protected? He was a government official you know. Maybe from Franklin? A linguistically analysis of the 2nd amendment different than WalkingWolf has provided? Do you want God's finger to come down and inscribe tablets?

What is you are looking for, exactly?

Bikenut said:
I am not ignoring the "keep and bear"...... I still do not see anything about the word "bear" being a qualifier as to what arms the people can "keep" nor do I see anything about the word "keep" being a qualifier as to what arms the people can bear.

Can you concede that the black letter language can be read as protecting a single right, consisting of two parts, rather than two individual rights? Whether you agree with that reading or not, can you entertain the notion that such a reading may be correct?

Charles

WalkingWolf · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
So the 2nd Amendment wording of....

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html#sthash.Dg1JBu5k.dpuf

Bold added by me...
....does not mean the right to keep arms shall not be infringed AND the right to bear arms shall not be infringed .... but it means the right to keep only the arms that the people can bear shall not be infringed?

If that is what you are saying please provide cites and/or links for that.... if that is not what you are saying then I am unclear as to what you are saying.

How many times shall we go over this, the sole purpose of the second is in that first part of the second amendment. It is not about hunting, it is not about self defense from people, it is not about shooting guns in the air on New Years or the 4th of July, and it most certainly is NOT ABOUT COLLECTING, ESPECIALLY COLLECTING OF ARMS THAT KILL AND MAIM INDISCRIMINATELY.

It is about that part in red, keeping is integral to bearing arms, one cannot bear them unless they have them. WMD's have absolutely no use for the first part of the second amendment, and the keeping of them violates the rights of THE PEOPLE.

If you want a nuke, I guess you are just out of luck, because I doubt anybody with common sense will side with you. As UB has said you are intentionally being obtuse.

utbagpiper · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
....does not mean the right to keep arms shall not be infringed AND the right to bear arms shall not be infringed .... but it means the right to keep only the arms that the people can bear shall not be infringed?

That seems to be exactly what WalkingWolf is arguing. If an arm cannot be borne against a government it fails to meet the intent of the 2nd amendment and is not protected thereby.

Bikenut said:
If that is what you are saying please provide cites and/or links for that.... if that is not what you are saying then I am unclear as to what you are saying.

What cites would satisfy you? You've made clear court rulings are suspect. So too then must be musing by anyone else in government including most of the founding fathers.

Do you have citations to back up your reading that the 2nd protects all arms, without regard to whether they can be borne?

What citations can you provide as to the overall meaning of the 2nd amendment, including the introductory clause?

The framers were very succinct. They did not provide explanations for anything else. Certainly that whole "Well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" must mean something. The SCOTUS has recently ruled that militia membership or service is not required for an individual to enjoy RKBA. Which is good and I trust we'd all agree.

But what does it mean? Any citations?

Charles

Bikenut · Mar 5, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Explain to me how you having a WMD works against an out of control government. Are you going to nuke government forces? Gas them? Release a biological agent against them? How do you do so without inflicting as much or more damage on your own innocent neighbors as you do on the government troops?

If an item cannot be used against an out of control government without violating the rights of your fellow, innocent citizens, does that affect your view of whether the item is protected by the 2nd amendment?

A better thing would be to explain how not having an item that the government is using to violate the rights of your fellow innocent citizens somehow makes it better for the citizens that are left under the control of the government that used items the citizens didn't have.

utbagpiper said:
What would you accept as "factual"? A quote from Washington about what arms are protected? He was a government official you know. Maybe from Franklin? A linguistically analysis of the 2nd amendment different than WalkingWolf has provided? Do you want God's finger to come down and inscribe tablets?

What is you are looking for, exactly?

Something better than "I believe" or "I think" would be nice.

utbagpiper said:
Can you concede that the black letter language can be read as protecting a single right, consisting of two parts, rather than two individual rights? Whether you agree with that reading or not, can you entertain the notion that such a reading may be correct?

Charles

Can you concede that the black letter language can be read as protecting two separate individual rights? Whether you agree with that reading or not can you entertain the notion that such a reading may be correct?

Bikenut · Mar 5, 2015

Originally Posted by Bikenut

So the 2nd Amendment wording of....

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amen....Dg1JBu5k.dpuf

Bold added by me...
....does not mean the right to keep arms shall not be infringed AND the right to bear arms shall not be infringed .... but it means the right to keep only the arms that the people can bear shall not be infringed?

If that is what you are saying please provide cites and/or links for that.... if that is not what you are saying then I am unclear as to what you are saying.

WalkingWolf said:
How many times shall we go over this, the sole purpose of the second is in that first part of the second amendment. It is not about hunting, it is not about self defense from people, it is not about shooting guns in the air on New Years or the 4th of July, and it most certainly is NOT ABOUT COLLECTING, ESPECIALLY COLLECTING OF ARMS THAT KILL AND MAIM INDISCRIMINATELY.

Cites and links please?

WalkingWolf said:
It is about that part in red, keeping is integral to bearing arms, one cannot bear them unless they have them. WMD's have absolutely no use for the first part of the second amendment, and the keeping of them violates the rights of THE PEOPLE.

Cites and links please?

WalkingWolf said:
If you want a nuke, I guess you are just out of luck, because I doubt anybody with common sense will side with you. As UB has said you are intentionally being obtuse.

If your argument has merit then please provide cites and/or links without indulging in saying that I want a nuke... something I've never said... in order to diminish and demean what I have been saying. And there isn't any need to resort to insults either.

Kindly present cites and/or links to back up what you are saying. And understand that my asking is not a personal affront to you... it is a quest to get to a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment based on facts... not opinion.

WalkingWolf · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
Cites and links please?

Cites and links please?

If your argument has merit then please provide cites and/or links without indulging in saying that I want a nuke... something I've never said... in order to diminish and demean what I have been saying. And there isn't any need to resort to insults either.

Kindly present cites and/or links to back up what you are saying. And understand that my asking is not a personal affront to you... it is a quest to get to a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment based on facts... not opinion.

The second amendment has been cited over and over again, you are being obtuse...

As far as second and nukes, there has been no idiots that I know of to have filed a case for there to be citations from case law.

SovereigntyOrDeath · Mar 5, 2015

utbagpiper said:
But you having or not having WMDs has no practical effect on whether the government engages in scorched earth.

I meant if they launch, I will launch.

utbagpiper said:
Your having a WMD, does dramatically increase the risk of the earth getting scorched unintentionally.

So you are saying the government is more responsible than me? Let's start by comparing balanced check books as a first test.

utbagpiper said:
WMDs are the unique corner case where if we could eliminate them, we'd be better off. Since we can't, the more we can limit them the better off we are. Half a dozen mostly rational nations have managed to avoid using WMDs preemptively or having one detonated unintentionally. Our possession has given evil, but rational nations motivation not to preemptively use theirs.

There are those who are not so rational in terms of avoiding certain death. There are those who want to die a glorious death. They won't be deterred. But the more widespread WMDs are, the higher the risk they get them.

Charles

I agree all would be better off without them, however, if they have them, I should be able to have them. To the original question of the OP.

SovereigntyOrDeath · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
There is a difference between being secure from government interference with our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and demanding or expecting that other citizens give up their rights in order for us to "be safe" from them.

Agreed. I should not need to give up my right to open carry because people who see me OC get scared.

Bikenut · Mar 5, 2015

WalkingWolf said:
The second amendment has been cited over and over again, you are being obtuse...

As far as second and nukes, there has been no idiots that I know of to have filed a case for there to be citations from case law.

Condescension is unbecoming to a discussion about rights.

Please cite and/or link to where the word "bear" is a qualifier for the word "keep" in the 2nd Amendment "keep and bear". If you can't do that then your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is opinion.

Nothing wrong with having that opinion but without something to show that the only arms the 2nd Amendment protects are the arms that the people can bear it is still just opinion.

SovereigntyOrDeath · Mar 5, 2015

WalkingWolf said:
COLLECTING OF ARMS THAT KILL AND MAIM INDISCRIMINATELY.

WMD's have absolutely no use for the first part of the second amendment, and the keeping of them violates the rights of THE PEOPLE.

So why does the government have them?

They then are violating the rights of THE PEOPLE.

Why is the government researching biologicals that if released can be WMD's. Aren't bio and chem weapons banned?

The conversation should be reversed. If we can't own a weapon, then the government can't own the weapon. Simple solution.

WalkingWolf · Mar 5, 2015

Bikenut said:
Condescension is unbecoming to a discussion about rights.

Please cite and/or link to where the word "bear" is a qualifier for the word "keep" in the 2nd Amendment "keep and bear". If you can't do that then your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is opinion.

Nothing wrong with having that opinion but without something to show that the only arms the 2nd Amendment protects are the arms that the people can bear it is still just opinion.

Do you know of a court case with both an attorney and a client stupid enough to bring a case with regards to the second amendment and nukes?

Citations if you would please?

SovereigntyOrDeath · Mar 5, 2015

Does anyone else find it obtuse (word of the day) that the governments of the world banned mustard gas but not nukes?

How far does it go?

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member