The "bearing arms" debate...

[oldandslow]

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

[BucEyedPea]

arms has already been defined — it means weapons

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't really understand why the ardent 2nd Am defenders AREN'T arguing a right to "tanks, bazookas, tomahawk missles, or nukes" as the OP said.
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is what they quote.

And especially those who say the whole purpose of the 2nd Am is to defend against tyrannical govt--If that is the main purpose, shouldn't you have a right to the same weapons as the govt/military?

Why is no one arguing about the right to shoulder-mounted rocket launchers?
And if you're not, aren't you admitting that heavy restrictions on available arms are legal and acceptable?

[BucEyedPea]

What's wrong with having some of those things?

[Buzz_TinBalls]

old/slow you are completely missing the point of the USC. The point of it is to protect your individual from the collective, not the other way around.

I grant the collective it's nukes. But, if at any point, I feel the need for equal footing.. ya. I have the right to grab my own under directive of our USC.

[verbaljitsu]

arms has always had a distinct meaning from ordnance.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by verbaljitsu

arms has always had a distinct meaning from ordnance.

Your source or a link?

Definition of ordnance includes weapons and ammunition. It's just more general referring to military supplies.

Definition of ORDNANCE
military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordnance

I think if you study the debates on this, and the original Constitution before the BoRs amended it, this would go beyond hand weapons. It was to deal with a standing arming and new federal congress regarding their powers over the MILITIA, which was not that trusted:

1) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress... (in calling up the militia)
2)Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 as it pertains to the Commander in Chief. (in calling up the militia)

The Second Amendment was intended to put some restriction on these powers should they be misused or abused as in called up against the people arbitrarily. Remember, these men distrusted govt and standing armies as they just got rid of one through the use or arms.

Example:
The Continental army placed cannon on Dorchester Heights without which they'd have had no chance to dislodge the British from Boston Harbor. They used painted logs to look like they had even more cannon than they did. It's a great story about how Colonel Henry Knox got such artillery there. Projectile weapons are a necessity against a large standing army. Remember, the people at that time also feared a large standing army too. This is why the 2nd Amendment was added.

This post applies this:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

[mlyonsd]

To me the debate should be what is causing these mass killings, not what knee jerk reactions elected officials take to trick the public into thinking they are addressing the problem.

The problem isn't guns. Its wacko people with self esteem issues.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

To me the debate should be what is causing these mass killings, not what knee jerk reactions elected officials take to trick the public into thinking they are addressing the problem.

The problem isn't guns. Its wacko people with self esteem issues.

The problem is wacko's on drugs that induce psychotic episodes of violence and suicide.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

The problem is wacko's on drugs that induce psychotic episodes of violence and suicide.

It makes me wonder why there are so many suicides in the military. Is it the prescription meds?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

It makes me wonder why there are so many suicides in the military. Is it the prescription meds?

To my knowledge prescription meds are used but I don't know if they're all due to that. Or if there is mental trauma from war first and then they get them. I read amphetamines have been given to pilots in the SF before their bombing raids. I read that terrorist camps use to to de-sensitize them to killing themselves and others.

I'd have to research it more.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

It makes me wonder why there are so many suicides in the military. Is it the prescription meds?

I did a google and found this:

Medicating the military
Use of psychiatric drugs has spiked; concerns surface about suicide, other dangers

At least one in six service members is on some form of psychiatric drug.

And many troops are taking more than one kind, mixing several pills in daily “cocktails” — for example, an antidepressant with an antipsychotic to prevent nightmares, plus an anti-epileptic to reduce headaches — despite minimal clinical research testing such combinations.

The drugs come with serious side effects: They can impair motor skills, reduce reaction times and generally make a war fighter less effective. Some double the risk for suicide, prompting doctors — and Congress — to question whether these drugs are connected to the rising rate of military suicides.

“It’s really a large-scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people’s cognition and behavior,” said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist.

A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars.

More here including other links to meds and suicides:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...drugs_031710w/

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

To me the debate should be what is causing these mass killings, not what knee jerk reactions elected officials take to trick the public into thinking they are addressing the problem.

The problem isn't guns. Its wacko people with self esteem issues.

Exactly right. The fact is, there are going to be crazy murderers in the world, and they're going to kill people. With guns, bombs, poison, whatever. It's a miniscule percentage of people though. You have more of a chance of dying on your way to work on the highway than getting shot in a random mass shooting.

I also don't understand the argument that asshats like Piers Morgan always bring up, which is "Why would ANYONE need an assault rifle?!?! The only thing they're good for is mass murders!!!" Yeah Piers...what if 4 guys break into your home with handguns? Or pipes or knives? Would you rather have a little peashooter or an assault rifle? There's perfectly legitimate scenarios where having a gun like that would make you safer. But they act like they can't even fathom a scenario where you might need a weapon like that. They're ****ing idiots. Guns are always going to exist. Criminals will still be able to get them illegally. But now law abiding citizens like you and I won't be able to get them to defend ourselves from said criminals. I just don't get it. Taking a few events, which were horrible tragedies, and using them to push the agenda of ****ing over the 2nd amendment is just absurdity.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by lcarus

Exactly right. The fact is, there are going to be crazy murderers in the world, and they're going to kill people. With guns, bombs, poison, whatever. It's a miniscule percentage of people though. You have more of a chance of dying on your way to work on the highway than getting shot in a random mass shooting.

I also don't understand the argument that asshats like Piers Morgan always bring up, which is "Why would ANYONE need an assault rifle?!?! The only thing they're good for is mass murders!!!" Yeah Piers...what if 4 guys break into your home with handguns? Or pipes or knives? Would you rather have a little peashooter or an assault rifle? There's perfectly legitimate scenarios where having a gun like that would make you safer. But they act like they can't even fathom a scenario where you might need a weapon like that. They're ****ing idiots. Guns are always going to exist. Criminals will still be able to get them illegally. But now law abiding citizens like you and I won't be able to get them to defend ourselves from said criminals. I just don't get it. Taking a few events, which were horrible tragedies, and using them to push the agenda of ****ing over the 2nd amendment is just absurdity.

A) How often do you read stories about that happening?

B) How often do you read stories where someone shot an intruder with an AR-15?

C) Since when is a .45 a peashooter?

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by lcarus

Exactly right. The fact is, there are going to be crazy murderers in the world, and they're going to kill people. With guns, bombs, poison, whatever. It's a miniscule percentage of people though. You have more of a chance of dying on your way to work on the highway than getting shot in a random mass shooting.

I also don't understand the argument that asshats like Piers Morgan always bring up, which is "Why would ANYONE need an assault rifle?!?! The only thing they're good for is mass murders!!!" Yeah Piers...what if 4 guys break into your home with handguns? Or pipes or knives? Would you rather have a little peashooter or an assault rifle? There's perfectly legitimate scenarios where having a gun like that would make you safer. But they act like they can't even fathom a scenario where you might need a weapon like that. They're ****ing idiots. Guns are always going to exist. Criminals will still be able to get them illegally. But now law abiding citizens like you and I won't be able to get them to defend ourselves from said criminals. I just don't get it. Taking a few events, which were horrible tragedies, and using them to push the agenda of ****ing over the 2nd amendment is just absurdity.

IMO the biggest problem with using a rifle for home defense is over penetration. You shoot an intruder with a high powered rifle and you can blast a hole right through him, the wall behind him, the window across the street and grandma blue hair doing her dishes in the kitchen.
Better choices for home defense are a shotgun or handgun.