Another 2nd Amendment/gun control thread.

[Father Heathen]

For those who support the 2nd Amendment, do you consider the ban on full autos and rocket launchers a violation of the 2nd amendment, or do you consider it a reasonable restriction (I assume most do)? If so, then what criteria do you believe should be used to separate what is and isn't acceptable for civilians to own?

 

[sun rise]

Good questions.

 

[Curious George]

For those who support the 2nd Amendment, do you consider the ban on full autos and rocket launchers a violation of the 2nd amendment, or do you consider it a reasonable restriction (I assume most do)? If so, then what criteria do you believe should be used to separate what is and isn't acceptable for civilians to own?

Yes to rocket launchers, no to fully automatic weapons.

 

[Revoltingest]

My perspective is constitutional originalism, ie, the framers intent is what governs.
Assume that the framers intended citizens to own militarily capable small arms
(which they did at the time). This standard of weapon would be what's protected,
not the technology of the day. So as technology changes, so do the kinds of
small arms which meet that standard.

This is analogous to the First's protection of freedom of speech & the press.
The internet is protected because it functions the same as spoken & printed words
did when the Constitution was written.

Rocket launchers are more akin to cannons, which citizens typically did not own.
So I see no right to own those (fun though it might be).
Full auto is current technology, & is justifiably both legal & highly regulated relative
to less capable small arms.

 

[sayak83]

My perspective is constitutional originalism, ie, the framers intent is what governs.
Assume that the framers intended citizens to own militarily capable small arms
(which they did at the time). This standard of weapon would be what's protected,
not the technology of the day. So as technology changes, so do the kinds of
small arms which meet that standard.

This is analogous to the First's protection of freedom of speech & the press.
The internet is protected because it functions the same as spoken & printed words
did when the Constitution was written.

Rocket launchers are more akin to cannons, which citizens typically did not own.
So I see no right to own those (fun though it might be).
Full auto is current technology, & is justifiably both legal & highly regulated relative
to less capable small arms.

Constitution is not scripture. Framers don't matter. What matters is what the current citizenry want or don't want. Ideally a constitution should undergo mandatory revision and review ever 20-30 years.

 

[Nakosis]

My perspective is constitutional originalism, ie, the framers intent is what governs.
Assume that the framers intended citizens to own militarily capable small arms
(which they did at the time). This standard of weapon would be what's protected,
not the technology of the day. So as technology changes, so do the kinds of
small arms which meet that standard.

This is analogous to the First's protection of freedom of speech & the press.
The internet is protected because it functions the same as spoken & printed words
did when the Constitution was written.

Rocket launchers are more akin to cannons, which citizens typically did not own.
So I see no right to own those (fun though it might be).
Full auto is current technology, & is justifiably both legal & highly regulated relative
to less capable small arms.

To honor the intent of the founders.

However, this would make it easier to get into the hands of those of ill intent.

Is honoring the intent worth the cost of any potential lives lost by the abuse of this right?

 

[suncowiam]

My perspective is constitutional originalism, ie, the framers intent is what governs.
Assume that the framers intended citizens to own militarily capable small arms
(which they did at the time). This standard of weapon would be what's protected,
not the technology of the day. So as technology changes, so do the kinds of
small arms which meet that standard.

This is analogous to the First's protection of freedom of speech & the press.
The internet is protected because it functions the same as spoken & printed words
did when the Constitution was written.

Rocket launchers are more akin to cannons, which citizens typically did not own.
So I see no right to own those (fun though it might be).
Full auto is current technology, & is justifiably both legal & highly regulated relative
to less capable small arms.

That is just an interpretation.

My interpretation is that the intent is simply to prevent a corrupt government. That's it. Plain and simple.

But then it's just an interpretation, just like yours.

Why stop ourselves at small arms? What an arbitrary notion to assert that only having small arms can prevent the corruption of the government? Sure, it worked before, but does it take Einstein to suggest that modern times require much more? It makes little sense that one device can solve this complex problem. The holy grail to the solution of a corrupt government is simply guns? What a farce.

 

[Nakosis]

Constitution is not scripture. Framers don't matter. What matters is what the current citizenry want or don't want. Ideally a constitution should undergo mandatory revision and review ever 20-30 years.

If a majority of folks felt is was a right for them to possess fully automatic weapons would you be accepting of this outcome?

 

[Revoltingest]

Constitution is not scripture.

Of course not.
But it is the fundamental law of the land here.
And government must obey it.

Framers don't matter.

It does if one enforces the law based upon intent behind it.
This is a fundamental practice in the Supreme Court & lesser federal courts.
(They sometimes violate it though.)

There are strict constructionists, who say that only the text
within the Constitution matters, but this is a minority view.

What matters is what the current citizenry want or don't want.

And they have this power thru their elected legislators, who
can change the Constitution by amendment or convention.
This is slow & difficult, but that protects us from most rash
passions of the moment (not from the 18th though).

Ideally a constitution should undergo mandatory revision and review ever 20-30 years.

We haven't been following your schedule.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is just an interpretation.

Aye, as I so explained.
Remember that we have very different values.
I don't call yours a "farce".

 

[BSM1]

Constitution is not scripture. Framers don't matter. What matters is what the current citizenry want or don't want. Ideally a constitution should undergo mandatory revision and review ever 20-30 years.

Hold the phone! At one time the "current citizenry" wanted segregated schools and water fountains. The Constitutions is our guarantee of individual rights; you can't pick and chose those rights to suit your fancy. If you don't like an amendment work through the legal process to get it change. In the mean time, keep your hands off'n my shootin' iron.

 

[Father Heathen]

Good questions.

I ask because I've noticed that, after the recent school shooting that involved an AR15 or similar rifle, a lot of 2nd Amendment supporters flipped out and dug their heels in anytime anyone so much as questioned the accessibility of such guns. They react to the suggestion of further restrictions or requirements as if it were a push for a complete ban and seizure; like there's no middle ground. I support the 2nd Amendment.
I grew up around guns (although I own none myself). Nothing wrong with guns for hunting, sporting, and self defense. However, the laws as they stand now are clearly not working, what with this mass shooting epidemic we have going on. It's easier for a kid to get an 'assault rifle' than it is for them to get a beer. When the 2nd Amendment was written, muskets were pretty much it, and they couldn't have taken into account the evolution of the firearm.
We require training, testing, and licencing for automobiles, but not for guns, and this wouldn't be denying anyone their right to bear arms. It would only ensure that they were stable and responsible enough to exercise said right. Unfettered access is to the 2nd Amendment is what yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is to the 1st Amendment.
I try to be realistic and pragmatic. Even if I didn't support the 2nd amendment, I know that a ban wouldn't work. It would be a logistical nightmare, the black market would be flooded, you would have Ruby Ridge style incidents all over the place, and just a very nasty political mess in general.
As for the idea that citizens need guns to protect itself from a tyrannical government, aside from being out gunned by the police/military, most people who preach this are ironically the ones most likely to vote a despot into power, so I don't have much confidence in that.

 

[Revoltingest]

To honor the intent of the founders.

However, this would make it easier to get into the hands of those of ill intent.

It's why we amend it, eg, the 13th Amendment.
Now what matters is the intent behind this amendment.

Consider an example of how it works.....
The 18th Amendment's intent was to ban drinking alcohol.
The 21st Amendment's intent was to repeal the 18th.
Thus, the intent behind the 18th is entirely superseded by the intent behind the 21st.

Is honoring the intent worth the cost of any potential lives lost by the abuse of this right?

Voiding the 2nd Amendment would also result in loss of life.
But cost v benefit analysis aside, the worst thing we could do
is give government the power to ignore the Constitution when
public opinion demands it. Anything could happen....not all good.
I prefer the slower more deliberate process of amendment.

 

[suncowiam]

Aye, as I so explained.
Remember that we have very different values.
I don't call yours a "farce".

If you derived my assertion of farce as derogatory then my apologies. But I used it to show a sense of sham, sense of pretense, send of masquerade, sense of charade which are other common definitions or synonyms of the word farce.

That interpretation of the second amendment, I considered to be a farce by definition and not by intent to demean. It doesn't necessarily have to be defined as yours. It is that interpretation itself not necessarily having to be owned by others.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Shad]

Rocket launchers are more akin to cannons, which citizens typically did not own.
So I see no right to own those (fun though it might be).
Full auto is current technology, & is justifiably both legal & highly regulated relative
to less capable small arms.

I need to find the source but American merchant ships were armed with cannons without being drafted as military ships as part of a national navy. It was either the war of 1812 or Tripoli. I do not remember which.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....sham, sense of pretense, send of masquerade, sense of charade which are other common definitions or synonyms of the word farce.

Those are better than "farce"?

I hope that makes sense.

I detect that we have different values & opinions on how to read the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I need to find the source but American merchant ships were armed with cannons without being drafted as military ships as part of a national navy. It was either the war of 1812 or Tripoli. I do not remember which.

Well, there you go.....private ships can have larger weapons.
This actually makes sense in the Malacan Straits.
But I'd regulate them even more strictly than full auto weapons.

 

[Father Heathen]

Full auto is current technology, & is justifiably both legal & highly regulated relative to less capable small arms.

Would you consider it unreasonable to place similar restrictions on the AR15 and similar rifles for the same reasons?

 

[suncowiam]

I detect that we have different values & opinions on how to read the law.

Obviously... Which makes the point of us interpreting the law arbitrary which was really the point of my first comment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you consider it unreasonable to place similar restrictions on the AR15 and similar rifles for the same reasons?

I'd place greater restrictions on the AR15 than a single shot 22LR target rifle.
It should be a sliding scale based upon potential for carnage.