Are you happy with the Heller ruling

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

Explain the term "strawman", if you would, please?

You notice that I did not state the individuals should not be permitted to own fully automatic firearms.

I do have the opinion that owning a fully automatic rifle should have some a strong training requirement, where owning a semi-automatic handgun or long gun should have no requirement, except maybe a strong urging from retailer to purchaser to get training.


But the main point of my post was that to state that ANY regulation is "bad", is flawed. I think that regulations should be enacted only when a strong and compelling argument, based on solid evidence, can be made for it. In other words, very rare.

Click to expand...

I've been looking for a good grounds to stand on with this subject, and I like the way you think.

imported post

There is no compelling evidence to require training for full auto weapons. Any reasons given could easily be applied to any other weapon. The only difference is a 'happy switch'.

I'm happ y with the ruling. I was expecting 6-3 but meh. It covered everything I expected it to, and pulled off a Schrödinger's cat by simultainously throwing incorporation and machine guns under the bus, and not throwing them under the bus at the same time.

I think there is a very good opening for incorporation, and especially for removal of 922(o). Machine guns are actually more common than most people think (Estimates run anywhere between 100k-300k, and that's only the legal ones), and the only reason your AR-15 doesn't have a happy switch is because it was cost-prohibitive due to government regulations, and now is impossible due to govt. regulations.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

Well, there is a problem with that position...

If the court held that any form of regulation of arms was unconstitutional, then that means that Muhammed Aknar the Friendly Islamic Jihadist would be permitted to own and discharge a tactical nuclear weapon at will, and it would be perfectly legal to do so.

Click to expand...

That's an immigration problem, not a 2A problem. We should simply not allow people into the country who are likely to commit crime or acts of terrorism. If we had sane immigration law, 9/11 would have never happened.

Extreme? Yes. But so is the position that the 1st Amendment, in stating "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...", makes it unconstitutional to prevent one form selling state secrets, or to publish them in a public forum.

Click to expand...

That's already defined in the Constitution as 'treason' which is punishable by death. Again, that seems to be more of an immigration problem than anything else with so many Arabs, Chinese, Israelis, and Russians sending secrets back home.

Private individuals should not own nuclear weapons, and fully automatic rifles should require a level of training to be owned. There are reasonable and compelling arguments for these positions, due to the level of force and destruction that these weapons have..

Click to expand...

You make it sound as if anybody could just walk into Wal-Mart and purchase a nuclear warhead and an ICBM or two. It would take multiple millions, if not billions of dollars, to manufacture or purchase those kind of things (not to mention raise a few red flags with the ATF.)

The only people wealthy enough to afford that are businessmen or corporations who aren't likely to use them for evil purposes (there are easier ways to kill people than with a 6 billion dollar bomb.) If Warren Buffet or Blackwater USA wants to collect nukes, more power to them, I say.

There was no 'training' requirement in the past for people to own Maxim guns or cannons or any other destructive devices, so I do not see the need for there to be any restrictions on select-fire weapons now.

imported post

owning a fully automatic rifle should have some a strong training requirement,

Click to expand...

The only training requirement that anyone really needs for a fully automatic rifle is trained on how much that sucker costs to shoot fully automatic.

Other than that just be sure you are in a place where you can't hit anything.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

Explain the term "strawman", if you would, please?

Click to expand...

A strawman is a logical fallacy where you setup a caricature of the other person's argument that is easy to defeat or make to look foolish.

No one involved in this case or even this discussion (prior to you) said the second amendment was about blowing up nuclear bombs. Hence, you're using it as an extreme example (that few if any support) to bolster your argument. Strawman.

Wikipedia entry on Straw Man

imported post

bobernet wrote:

Phoenixphire wrote:

Explain the term "strawman", if you would, please?

Click to expand...

A strawman is a logical fallacy where you setup a caricature of the other person's argument that is easy to defeat or make to look foolish.

No one involved in this case or even this discussion (prior to you) said the second amendment was about blowing up nuclear bombs. Hence, you're using it as an extreme example (that few if any support) to bolster your argument. Strawman.

Wikipedia entry on Straw Man

Click to expand...

The argument that the Second Amendment is an unlimited right to "keep and bear arms" is flawed.

A nuclear weapon is a form of arms. Therefore, by a literal interpretation of the text, the right of "the people", individuals, to own a nuclear weapon, "keep and bear arms", should not be regulated, or "infringed".

The argument may be a "strawman"; however, the real issue is the assertion that intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution states there should be absolutely NO regulation of arms. That is the true "logical fallacy".

The Constitution was not designed to be a "absolutist" document, but rather a living idea. The abilty to amend it, the Cases and Contraversies Clause, the establishment of the seperation of powers; all of these were put in place to ensure that our nation could change and evolve as neccessary.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is not the literal text, but the idea that the text conveys. That each individual citizen has the right to arm himself in order to defend his home, his family, and his fellow man. That he has the right to gather with his fellow man to defend against the common threats, and if neccessary, against tyranny, oppression, and injustice.

We should be careful of cheaping our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, by simply standing and screaming about the specific text used. Words can be changed, amendments amended. It is extremely important that we come to understand that our rights are not contained in the text. Our rights are in the idea, and changing a few words can never take those rights away.



On a previous point, the attempt to state that a terrorist with a nuclear weapon is an immigration problem is also flawed. First, how would one determine who the people are that are "likely to commit crime or acts of terrorism"? Secondly, it doesn't have to be a foreign individual who commits the act of terrorism. Timothy McVey is an example. What if he had used the theoretical legal, constitutionally protected tactical nuke?

imported post

So let me see if I got this right.

We got an individual right, strict scrutiny, AND a decision that speciFically spells out that the second amendment is not on a lower tier than the rest of the BOR, yet some are still not happy?

From what I read, the NFA is not entirely safe, and they practically begged for a case from one of the states so they could give us 14A incorporation as well.

imported post

They didn't say that we have strict scrutiny, only that the DC ban wouldn't be valid under any scrutiny.

imported post

Well guys and gals, you have to ask the question, does the Constitution in the 2nd Amendment grant the right to Bear Arms or it it merely protecting the unalienable right to do so? Remember, what the DI states: "All men have been created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable (not inalienable) rights..."

Since when does any court, Supreme or not, determine what our rights are? Now, if you are a 14th Amendment US citizen then you have no unalienable rights because you have volunteered to be a slave and the slave cannot question its master.

Remember that government is our servant, not the other way around. I have said this elsewhere, as others have. "No one will get my firearms unless they pry them from my cold dead fingers."

Seems to me this country is full of nothing but sheople. When is America going to wake up and stop being slaves to a corrupt system. The 2nd Amendment protection was put in the Constitution so the people could keep a tyrannical government from taking over. Problem is it has already happened without one shot being fired because most are fast asleep. Either that or they are too interested in their toys, beer and television to pay attention.

I could go on, but I'll stop my rant here.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

On a previous point, the attempt to state that a terrorist with a nuclear weapon is an immigration problem is also flawed. First, how would one determine who the people are that are "likely to commit crime or acts of terrorism"? Secondly, it doesn't have to be a foreign individual who commits the act of terrorism. Timothy McVey is an example. What if he had used the theoretical legal, constitutionally protected tactical nuke?

Click to expand...

1. It's very easy to determine who might commit acts of crime or terrorism.

Who bombed the U.S.S. Cole?
Who bombed the Khobar Towers?
Who bombed the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?
Who killed people the Munich Olympics?
Who put car bombs in the parking lot of the WTC in the 90s?
Who bombed the London Underground?
Who hijacked four planes and crashed two into the WTC, one in the Pentagon, and one in Pennsylvania?

2. Timothy McVeigh (who may have worked indirectly with foreigner Ramzi Yousef for the OKC bombing) would not have enough money to afford a nuke, not on his GI Bill anyway. Nuclear weapons are very expensive and the high cost prohibits 99.99% of people from ownership of such devices. The only people who could afford it are multibillionaires like Gates and Buffet, or megacorporations like Wal-Mart or Ford. There are easier and cheaper ways to kill people than by using nuclear weapons.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

bobernet wrote:

Phoenixphire wrote:

Explain the term "strawman", if you would, please?

Click to expand...

A strawman is a logical fallacy where you setup a caricature of the other person's argument that is easy to defeat or make to look foolish.

No one involved in this case or even this discussion (prior to you) said the second amendment was about blowing up nuclear bombs. Hence, you're using it as an extreme example (that few if any support) to bolster your argument. Strawman.

Wikipedia entry on Straw Man

Click to expand...

The argument that the Second Amendment is an unlimited right to "keep and bear arms" is flawed.

A nuclear weapon is a form of arms. Therefore, by a literal interpretation of the text, the right of "the people", individuals, to own a nuclear weapon, "keep and bear arms", should not be regulated, or "infringed".

The argument may be a "strawman"; however, the real issue is the assertion that intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution states there should be absolutely NO regulation of arms. That is the true "logical fallacy".

The Constitution was not designed to be a "absolutist" document, but rather a living idea. The abilty to amend it, the Cases and Contraversies Clause, the establishment of the seperation of powers; all of these were put in place to ensure that our nation could change and evolve as neccessary.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is not the literal text, but the idea that the text conveys. That each individual citizen has the right to arm himself in order to defend his home, his family, and his fellow man. That he has the right to gather with his fellow man to defend against the common threats, and if neccessary, against tyranny, oppression, and injustice.

We should be careful of cheaping our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, by simply standing and screaming about the specific text used. Words can be changed, amendments amended. It is extremely important that we come to understand that our rights are not contained in the text. Our rights are in the idea, and changing a few words can never take those rights away.



On a previous point, the attempt to state that a terrorist with a nuclear weapon is an immigration problem is also flawed. First, how would one determine who the people are that are "likely to commit crime or acts of terrorism"? Secondly, it doesn't have to be a foreign individual who commits the act of terrorism. Timothy McVey is an example. What if he had used the theoretical legal, constitutionally protected tactical nuke?

Click to expand...

This ruling clearly defines what keep, bear, and arms means. Wearing a tactical nuclear weapon would be considered "unusual" and "dangerous", if not impossible anywayunder this ruling and defeats the purpose of the amendment and ruling's intent. The ability to deter an enemy, whether it be by rifle, pistol, sword, whatever, is to be worn, or carried and used in good faith and lawfully.

Nuclear devices do not coincide with the amendment, nor the ruling, IMO.

We are a nation of rifleman, not a nation of nuclear scientists.

imported post

Again, I am not debating if citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

I strongly support that right, and believe that there should be very few limitations on that right.

But to state that it is a complete and absolute right, not to have ANY limit whatsoever, is also a poor position.

If one doesn't like the nuclear arms argument, step it down a notch. What about a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile? Should individuals be able to purchase a Stinger on the open market?

Or, what about blocks of plastic explosives? Should Wal-Mart be permitted to sell to the public blocks of C-4?

Or, once a convicted drug trafficker completes his sentence, shouldn't he be able to carry firearms again? He has completed his penalty. If you think he should not be able to carry a firearm, shouldn't he also not be allow to own a pen, or to speak? Why would he only lose his Second Amendment right, but keep his First?

Do you see my point? The Second Amendment is not about the TEXT. It is about the IDEA. Don't get hung up on the words, is what I am trying to say. Instead, emphasis should be on the purpose.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

If one doesn't like the nuclear arms argument, step it down a notch. What about a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Should individuals be able to purchase a Stinger on the open market?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Or, what about blocks of plastic explosives? Should Wal-Mart be permitted to sell to the public blocks of C-4?

Click to expand...

Yes, although it is not an "arm" in the sense the Constitution uses the term. I can already buy high explosives, and the ingredients to manufacture them. Objects are not intrinsically evil or criminal... it is their use by those with ill-intent that is evil and should be punished.

Or, once a convicted drug trafficker completes his sentence, shouldn't he be able to carry firearms again?

Click to expand...

Absolutely 100% Yes. 1000 times yes.

Why would he only lose his Second Amendment right, but keep his First?

Click to expand...

He shouldn't. If he is a danger to society he should still be in prison. If he is safe enough to be released, he's safe enough to speak, vote, and own the means to defend his life. His life is not worth less than yours, or less worthy of defense simply because of a bad choice in his past. Especially given the asinine things that are considered "felonies" these days.

Your logic is what landed thousands of people across the country under the Lautenberg provision that is depriving them of their basic human rights without any due process of law. On nothing but the hearsay of another person with an agenda against them, these people are unable to defend their lives with the tool most appropriate for that end.

Do you see my point?

Click to expand...

I see it perfectly. It's exactly the same point as the Brady Bunch. The only difference is that you draw the line slightly to the right of where they would. They don't generally have a problem with duck hunters owning double-barreled shotguns, or registered competitors in shooting sports having their guns stored at the range and available for their use in legitimate sporting activities. Much the way Australia has gone.

The Second Amendment is not about the TEXT. It is about the IDEA.

Click to expand...

Au contraire - it is very much about the words. That, in fact, has been a cornerstone of Constitutional interpretation for centuries. Words have meanings and words matter. Every word should be given it's due weight and considered in light of it's usage at the time it was written.

You wring your hands over WMDs as if the concept was foreign to the founders. There was quite a bit of privately owned artillery, cannons, ships with anti-ship guns, etc. They didn't see a need to deprive citizens of those things, and neither do I.

A criminal with the means and determination can already get WMDs, and as we've seen since 9/11, it doesn't take a lot of sophisticated weaponry to kill a bunch of people all at once.

Don't get hung up on the words, is what I am trying to say. Instead, emphasis should be on the purpose.

Click to expand...

The two are inseparable. The words they chose are all we have to inform us of the purpose. The words in the Constitution itself, the words they used in discussion and debate. Your method is not about finding the purpose, it's about reconciling the text to your preconceived notions of propriety, acceptability and expediency. The exact same method used by gun control proponents who desire slightly more gun control than you do.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

If one doesn't like the nuclear arms argument, step it down a notch. What about a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile? Should individuals be able to purchase a Stinger on the open market?

Or, what about blocks of plastic explosives? Should Wal-Mart be permitted to sell to the public blocks of C-4?

Or, once a convicted drug trafficker completes his sentence, shouldn't he be able to carry firearms again? He has completed his penalty. If you think he should not be able to carry a firearm, shouldn't he also not be allow to own a pen, or to speak? Why would he only lose his Second Amendment right, but keep his First?

Do you see my point? The Second Amendment is not about the TEXT. It is about the IDEA. Don't get hung up on the words, is what I am trying to say. Instead, emphasis should be on the purpose.

Click to expand...

1. The Swiss government routinely sells surplus machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons to its own citizens with no problems (though they must get an easily obtained license from their canton of residence to purchase.)

2. I work with ex-cons every day. The half-dozen or so I know personally are great people who just made mistakes and should have had their 2A rights restored upon release. Two of them have been robbed and one beat up since their release and had no ability to defend themselves in those incidents. I would have no problem with allowing ex-cons to be armed. Besides, if a man cannot be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't let him out of prison in the first place.

3. I understand the idea of the Second Amendment - resistance against government tyranny. The best way to resist tyranny is to allow private ownership of the same weapons our military uses.

imported post

Removed my post...

Never mind, I wasn't reading the decision at all, i was actually reading Heller's brief- no wonder it sounded so good. Now to rectify my error and read the actual decision. :banghead:

imported post

"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Click to expand...

Translation:you can keep a single shot derringer in your house.

imported post

What I want to know is where the phrase "shall not be infringed" means that reasonable regulation is acceptable. This reasonabe regulation argument is in direct contradiction to the framers intentions. Any regulation regarding the open carry of firearms by law abiding citizens is in the strictest interpretation unconstitutional. Concealed carry is likely a litte bit of a grey area, but would like fall in the same category. We, according to the Supreme Court, have a right to defend ourselves and our homes. This right is not and should never be called into question.

imported post

Although any decision in favor of the American people and our Constitution, is positive to say the least. The ruling itself was a bit disappointing. It really did not weigh in on anything. So I have the right to own a gun in my home to defend me and mine from attack? Great! Thanks for the right my Lord SCOTUS. Oh yes, and go to the range and shoot clay pigeons for recreation.

I can see the Cuban cigars and brandy passed around the hearth, as the big decision is discussed over a copy of “It takes a Village”, to how big a bone would be thrown to the People that turn to God, Guns and apathy to console themselves when their government makes them feel disconnected.

It was a landmark decision made today? We can possibly legally retain our weapons for another presidential term. Yippee! Until we registered ourselves out of existence, one by one, and stamped our foreheads with bar codes to purchase our government approved foam rubber ammunition and have our good citizen report cards encoded on our retinas. Because the safety of our children require “We the People” disregard the true interpretation of the Constitution and give total control to our leaders, because we wouldn’t know how to do without them. Tyrannical Government isn’t in the constitution, mind you, merely in the scribbling of a few rebellious colonists. That part was never actually put into the constitution.

I can only see right and wrong; it is hard to comprehend this grey area that everyone else sees. They might as well have determined, every citizen has the right to hang posters of firearms within their homes. But then that will soon be regulated as well, under the new and improved 1[suP]st[/suP] Amendment. This ruling only brought the road map needed for the legal (What legality?) means to circumvent the Constitution, without a big struggle and questionable constitutionality that will be pushed at full bore now. I don’t think the next decision on the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment will be determined in the Supreme Courts, but in the homes across America. God forbid.

imported post

I'm pleased that the court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, but I'm concerned that it was only a 5-4 decision. Our rights hang by a thread.

imported post

I have one question that the media has not addressed...

Did the phone system melt down in DC with people attempting to get a license?