Are there any limits to the 2nd amendment?

[Bill Nance]

I'm writing this post in hopes of getting some serious replies. (Smartasses feel free, but please preface your comment with: "I'm being a smartass")

As an AR owner, I'm as sick of the question: "why do you need a weapon like that?" as anyone else.

My standard answer is: "I don't have to justify my needs to you, it's my fundamental human right," that is, the right of self defense.

But, for instance, I was asked, by a gun owner, what was the possible purpose of a Barret .50 was. (with the obvious followup being why shouldn't it be banned) All I could say was that what the Hell, if someone wanted to spend a few grand on that weapon, what was the harm?

I can see the restrictions on nuclear weapons. I can even see restrictions on explosives. But beyond that, I don't see it. Full-Auto? -go for it. Put the ones that abuse away forever, but leave the rest of us the F**** alone.

So what do you folks say? (not what you'd LIKE to say) to this kind of argument? I'd like to have something better than "You can never trust government to be benign" which has always been my default argument against gun control.

Is there something more convincing? (especially to the young/naive) or am i just hoping for the impossible?

I can argue 2nd Amendment til I'm blue in the face. But what other logical,/historical argument can i make to otherwise skeptical folks that gun control is a bad idea? I believe that there ARE other arguments, but I haven't heard/read them clearly stated. Any suggestions? I'm all ears, because I have a lot of people I'd like to convince. I honestly believe that the facts are on our side. That the history of tyranny is so rampant that no government, even ours, can ever be trusted with absolute, un-rivaled power.

But I also know that this view is not necessarily shared by many in our society. How do we convince these people? Any thoughts? I'm all ears.

 

[scouter-rick]

I am not sure that I am offering an answer to all of your questions. However, I was asked with respect to my AR by a family member why I wanted a gun that was designed for military and cops and to give one good reason for it.

First I told them that the design was the same basic design of other semi auto rifles and that there was no magic to the gun. But i also stated that the benefits to going with a design like this were:

-Proven reliability
-Ease of maintenance
-Availability of spares
-Durability
-Accuracy


As to your query about why one would want a .50.

I wonder, why must some have a Ferrari or Lambourgini, after all they are only cars and a Ford would do the job just as well to get you to work and to the store. If Caliber is more the issue then I would pose the question why some have an F-350 when they almost never put anything in the back and are not in the construction trade.

-Rick

 

[Starvin]

I am not sure that I am offering an answer to all of your questions. However, I was asked with respect to my AR by a family member why I wanted a gun that was designed for military and cops and to give one good reason for it.

First I told them that the design was the same basic design of other semi auto rifles and that there was no magic to the gun. But i also stated that the benefits to going with a design like this were:

-Proven reliability
-Ease of maintenance
-Availability of spares
-Durability
-Accuracy


As to your query about why one would want a .50.

I wonder, why must some have a Ferrari or Lambourgini, after all they are only cars and a Ford would do the job just as well to get you to work and to the store. If Caliber is more the issue then I would pose the question why some have an F-350 when they almost never put anything in the back and are not in the construction trade.

-Rick

straight-forward logic. Like it!

 

[Ripach]

I used to believe in reasonable restrictions, I couldn't see why anybody "needed" certain types of firearms. I couldn't see what the harm was in waiting periods or permitting. Then I grew up. I saw the restrictions for what they truly are, incremental steps towards banning everything. I actually read the Constitution and began to develop a mind set of what I think the founders of this country were thinking. I now feel that I should be able to park an Abrams tank in my driveway with a full tank of diesel and a 120 mm round in the pipe, and nobody should be able to say boo about it. That was, and should have remained the point of the RTKBA.
The ability to defend ourselves from tyranny is virtually lost, the founders of this country devised such a great system that it lulled the populous into a false sense that our system is infallible, and tyranny cannot exist here. This makes it extremely difficult to convince most folks that the need for protection from government exists. I wish I had some argument to strengthen your case, but alas I am in the same boat, banging my head on the same wall. If basic logic doesn't work, I can't think of anything else that will.
-Rick

 

[EddieCoyle]

Here's how I reply:

Why is it that people ask me to justify my hobby with a "need"? Would you ever ask a numismatist why he "needs" so many coins, or the fat lady down the street why she "needs" so many creepy dolls?

 

[Blitz1]

Here's how I reply:

Why is it that people ask me to justify my hobby with a "need"? Would you ever ask a numismatist why he "needs" so many coins, or the fat lady down the street why she "needs" so many cats?

Fixed it for ya

 

[Bill Nance]

I am not sure that I am offering an answer to all of your questions. However, I was asked with respect to my AR by a family member why I wanted a gun that was designed for military and cops and to give one good reason for it.

First I told them that the design was the same basic design of other semi auto rifles and that there was no magic to the gun. But i also stated that the benefits to going with a design like this were:

-Proven reliability
-Ease of maintenance
-Availability of spares
-Durability
-Accuracy


As to your query about why one would want a .50.

I wonder, why must some have a Ferrari or Lambourgini, after all they are only cars and a Ford would do the job just as well to get you to work and to the store. If Caliber is more the issue then I would pose the question why some have an F-350 when they almost never put anything in the back and are not in the construction trade.

-Rick

A solid answer! Thanx! And I agree. If I have to justify my AR, you have to justify any vehicle that goes over 70 MPH.

I know the rejoinder, though, which is: "But XX is only good for killing people!" (insert horrified look). You know, and I know, that this is the reaction of a gun-phobe/hoplophobe.

It seems like there should be a clear answer to this beyond keeping government tyranny at bay or self defense (I can hear Obama/Pelosi saying "hey you can still have your wheel-gun!") But I can't seem to nail down anything specific. I can make several clear arguments why private arms are necessary to a free people but it seems (and I may be dead wrong on this) that there shouold be cogent arguments which dissuade the irrational fear.

Don't mean to belabor the point, but it's frustrating!!

 

[zzrider]

Privateers and Letters of Marque give a perfect historical context for the individual citizen having the right to own damn near any weapon they want, or for that matter, "an Abrams with a full tank of diesel and a 120 mm round in the pipe", long as they respect the rule of law.

Privateers were privately-owned warships, and the Government would issue Letters of Marque to contract these private vessels to protect against foreign piracy. Clearly, our government used to have no problem at all with private ownership of armed warships, and would even so go far as to give them official sanction.

I think alot of people these days are afraid to state the truth of the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Somehow, we need to get people to understand this, and stop thinking it's a bad thing.

edit: about the Privateer thing - note that at the time, an armed sailing ship exemplified the most advanced weapons system available. Why was it OK for Americans to own state-of-the-art, crew-served weapon systems only 200 years ago, yet today it's impossible for citizen to legally own even a simple rifle that happens to be full-auto? What happened?

 

[mark056]

From a purely pragmatic point of view the reason that someone may want an AR or a .50 Barrett rifle is that they enjoy shooting them. This is no different that owning a sportscar or a boat. It is purely a recreational activity, nothing more. Others may like collecting firearms much in the way that some people collect coins, stamps, or vintage Tupperware.

There are many things in life we really don't need or even use, but they are nice to have. It's called pride of ownership.

Mark L.

 

[Pete85]

The only restriction on weapons: If a neglegent discharge destroys the whole neighborhood then there is purpose for restricting that type of weapon. Other than that, there should be no other bans on types of weapons.

I stand by the belief that if everyone had a gun, no one would ever use one - since using one would in effect be suicide.

 

[BOBKATT]

The wording of the 2A uses the word "arms" which directly refers to weapons to be used in defense of home and state. These are not sporting devices. The ammendment clearly provides citizens to keep and bear the same weapons that the millitary and police equip their soldiers with. Plain and simple. If it means anything less than the ammendment is without use or justification for being added to the BOR.

 

[BOBKATT]

From a purely pragmatic point of view the reason that someone may want an AR or a .50 Barrett rifle is that they enjoy shooting them. This is no different that owning a sportscar or a boat. It is purely a recreational activity, nothing more. Others may like collecting firearms much in the way that some people collect coins, stamps, or vintage Tupperware.

There are many things in life we really don't need or even use, but they are nice to have. It's called pride of ownership.

Mark L.

Exactly. And another point of view that people need to come to terms with as being a completely practical and just use is for citizens to reserve the right and capability to protect themselves from our own government.

 

[Bill Nance]

I used to believe in reasonable restrictions, I couldn't see why anybody "needed" certain types of firearms. I couldn't see what the harm was in waiting periods or permitting. Then I grew up. I saw the restrictions for what they truly are, incremental steps towards banning everything. I actually read the Constitution and began to develop a mind set of what I think the founders of this country were thinking. I now feel that I should be able to park an Abrams tank in my driveway with a full tank of diesel and a 120 mm round in the pipe, and nobody should be able to say boo about it. That was, and should have remained the point of the RTKBA.
The ability to defend ourselves from tyranny is virtually lost, the founders of this country devised such a great system that it lulled the populous into a false sense that our system is infallible, and tyranny cannot exist here. This makes it extremely difficult to convince most folks that the need for protection from government exists. I wish I had some argument to strengthen your case, but alas I am in the same boat, banging my head on the same wall. If basic logic doesn't work, I can't think of anything else that will.
-Rick

Ripach, you nailed it, and yes, my head is bleeding from banging against this same wall.

I'm not sure I'm with you on the Abrams, but I honestly, when I think of it rationally, can only make one argument against it, which Pete made:

If a neglegent discharge destroys the whole neighborhood then there is purpose for restricting that type of weapon.

At least that's a rational argument.

I think everyone not a felon should be able to own full-auto and can't logically separate why that is substantially different from a 40mm grenade launcher even though it makes me a little queasy to think of AG Guns selling 203's -Call it a brain cloud

I don't fear government, I don't even necessarily distrust it. I just want to have the ability to RESIST it, if it becomes necessary. That, to me is the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's also the argument that finally got my father, (Nonexistent God rest his soul) an honest-to-God dyed-in-the-wool radical socialist, to embrace the 2nd Amendment. I just told him that if there was no personal right, then only the FBI would have guns...changed his tune in about 15 minutes, I kid you not.

 

[Negotiator]

I was at a dinner party a month or so back with my wife and the husband of the hostess knows I am an active shooter, and he does not like guns. So, over dinner with about 10 people round the table, he asked me, in a rather loud voice, how many guns I had at home? He also exclaimed that he couldn't see why anyone would want a gun at home, so dangerous, and if they did, why have more than one? I don't care for this guy at all - I was only there for the wife's sake, so I thought it okay to play with his head a bit.

So, I looked at him for a few seconds then asked him how many golf clubs he had in his garage ( he's huge big golfing nut / country club type).

I could see that rocked him a bit and so pushed forward...so, how many clubs do you have? What's that got to do with anything, he asked me...so I explained ( I'm not a golfer...). A golf club, as I understand it, has only one real use and that is to impart kinetic energy to a projectile that is being aimed at a distant target - the hole - on the green.

Fair statement? Yes, he agreed.

Would you, I asked, use a putter to drive the ball down the fairway? He laughed out loud and told me that would be ridiculous! That's why they have clubs called drivers, he blustered. So, I asked, having got the ball down the fairway, would you use the driver again to knock the ball further toward the green? Of course not, he exclaimed! We have different irons to use, depending on the range... oh it's all very complicated, he stated in a very patronizing way...

So, I asked, your golf bag has to have many clubs as they are all designed for slightly different purposes - and you could not imagine playing a competitive round of golf with just a putter, a driver or one of the irons? Triumphant at my obvious understanding of the game of golf, he magnanimously agreed with me.

The trap had snapped shut on him without him even realising...

So. leaning across the table , in a low voice I asked him with a polite smile on my face " So, given the number of clubs you have for your hobby, what the f*** does it have to do with you how many guns I have in my safe?"

It's so unfair at times being a psychologist

 

[zzrider]

Good story negotiator.

Similar parallel arguments come up with respect to motorcycles. I don't need a motorcycle with 190hp that can do a 9-second 1/4 mile and tops out at an electronically-limited 185 mph. Hell, I don't even have a desire to ride it to that level of performance. The fact that I want it and I don't hurt anybody else with it is the only "justification" I need.

The problem with applying the hobby argument in defense of gun ownership is this: most other hobbies don't center around objects that are designed to kill people. How would you have responded to your golfer adversary if he had countered with the argument that his golf club collection could not likely be used to kill large numbers of people in a shopping mall or school?

Just playing devil's advocate here - I'm looking for arguments myself in how to deal rationally with anti-gun people, and hopefully influence opinion in a positive direction.

 

[clinotus]

You should only be limited to your budget.

However there will be exceptions likely dependent on how close you are to your neighbors.

Live on your own stretch of road? No problem. But if you rip up the asphalt in front of my house moving your tank every other weekend, and I have to pay to fix that road via higher taxes, well we move to defcon 3 and I start shelling your property.

Love, peace, munitions over the fence and hairgrease.

 

[BCEagleAce]

Interesting topic... as a recent gun owner and Class A holder, combined with a very "liberal" education focused on history and poly sci, I have had a bit of a conversion on this topic.

I received part of my education at a notoriously liberal college located in the Boston area. I've always considered myself more conservative or libertarian, but it was hard not to be influenced in my younger impressionable years by the moonbat liberals. I also once believed in gun ownership rights, but that they should be curbed or limited with respect to "assault" or high powered weapons.

Now that I'm a gun owner, I have changed my mind completely and I think that many of the analogies used already on this thread applied (sports cars, fancy watches, designer whatever). Nobody needs these things either, but nobody would ever limit your rights to buy them.

As for your question about historical context for the Second Amendment, this is where I am somewhat knowledgeable given my history and poly sci education. What I think you are looking for is what was behind the writing of the Second Amendment. First, it is important to note that the 2nd was proposed by James Madison. In Federalist Paper 46, Madison put forth his argument of having an armed citizenry SPECIFICALLY as a check against tyranny... he wrote:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence also wrote about gun rights. In 1787 to William Stephens Smith, Jefferson wrote:

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

He also advocated firearm possession as a form of exercise. Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

He also compared the right to bear arms as equivalent to freedom of speech, religion in property. Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

So, it seems that both founding fathers advocated very unequivocally for the right to bear arms. The "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment also seems to directly challenge the anti-guns lobby claim that the 2nd Amendment only speaks to the ability of the National Guard to be armed. In fact, the historical context of the 2nd Amendment promotes just the opposite. That is to say that an armed citizenry is ESSENTIAL to preserving their rights because the government can't necessarily be required or trusted to protect them magnanimously.

 

[Bill Nance]

Good story negotiator.

Similar parallel arguments come up with respect to motorcycles. I don't need a motorcycle with 190hp that can do a 9-second 1/4 mile and tops out at an electronically-limited 185 mph. Hell, I don't even have a desire to ride it to that level of performance. The fact that I want it and I don't hurt anybody else with it is the only "justification" I need.

The problem with applying the hobby argument in defense of gun ownership is this: most other hobbies don't center around objects that are designed to kill people. How would you have responded to your golfer adversary if he had countered with the argument that his golf club collection could not likely be used to kill large numbers of people in a shopping mall or school?

Just playing devil's advocate here - I'm looking for arguments myself in how to deal rationally with anti-gun people, and hopefully influence opinion in a positive direction.

Nailed it. That's the wall I run into. -And the "You're irrationally afraid of an inanimate object" argument doesn't work. Been there done that

 

[doobie]

It is the Right of a Free Person to own whatever property they wish, without regulation so long as they never initiate force upon another.

it is the right of a slave to have their property rights controlled and regulated by a third party.

 

[GrendelKhan]

If I think I'm speaking to someone who's just looking for an argument, I don't attempt to have a conversation, and just have fun with them:
"I need an AR to kill anyone who tries to take away my AR."
It's fun to watch their expressions.

If I think I'm speaking to someone who actually cares about their country, I ask them what their understanding of history is under tyrannical governments, how governments change over time, and what they think of recent events, and if they think there is ANY chance of this country going down the shitter. I then explain that I think the purpose of the 2A is to protect us from that. I try to explain the 2A to them as best I can. And if they're still listening: Run out to it's logical conclusion, the real purpose of any firearm, including the Barrett .50, is for killing those that may come to kill us good Americans in some possible future, after certain particular horrible changes. Some percentage of those people change the subject, by saying that there is nothing that I could do in that situation, or that they think that I or they are incapable of shooting someone. They may or may not be right about the details of some possible horrible future, but it's irrelevant. If they're still listening I inform them that guns can be fun and even protect you from harm in the interim (while we wait for the end of times) and invite them to the range.

One of those people is taking his Basic Safety Class on the 18th. You can't convince everyone, but there are some who can see the light.

 

[Bill Nance]

It is the Right of a Free Person to own whatever property they wish, without regulation so long as they never initiate force upon another.

it is the right of a slave to have their property rights controlled and regulated by a third party.

We're agreed on that, but most folks have difficulty with that concept.

 

[mark056]

The problem with applying the hobby argument in defense of gun ownership is this: most other hobbies don't center around objects that are designed to kill people. How would you have responded to your golfer adversary if he had countered with the argument that his golf club collection could not likely be used to kill large numbers of people in a shopping mall or school?

Not all guns are designed to kill people. There have been many homicides committed by people wielding golf clubs and automobiles haven proven their lethality in taking out large numbers of people at malls.

Some really cogent arguments have been presented.

Mark L.

 

[BOBKATT]

How would you have responded to your golfer adversary if he had countered with the argument that his golf club collection could not likely be used to kill large numbers of people in a shopping mall or school?

The car that he drives do the golf course could be used to take out quite a few people, and actually has accidentally happened a few times recently given the wrong combination of crowded sidewalk/shopping area + senior citizen. I'm sure someone could rack up pretty good numbers driving down a parade route or at a festival like the Providence waterfire or something similar. Some of the household products that he probably has could be put together to make a bomb. Does he own a chain saw? You could do a number to a classroom full of people or office full of people with one of those, block the exit and go nuts.

Yes, guns were designed to kill people. But that is a legitimate tool to have around incase someone is trying to kill you.

 

[TomH]

I can sum up my beliefs on the 2nd in two words: No Restrictions.

 

[KMaurer]

There have been some interesting and thoughtful responses to this question so far. Rather than restating what others have said using slightly different words, I'd like to throw in some thoughts from an economist's perspective. Part of the original question asked why someone "needed" a particular firearm. It's useful to note that there really is no objective meaning of the word "need". Someone who claims that they "need" something is simply saying that they really want it, and will do pretty much anything to get it. Likewise, someone who questions why someone "needs" something is almost always expressing their emotional opposition to that persons ability to have it. Do you really need water? In a lot of places people get up in the morning and walk for a hour or so to get to the nearest source of water, then carry what they and their families need for the day back with them. Obviously nobody really needs (in the sense that they can't live without) any firearm, car, truck, or almost anything else the average person might mention, since people lived for tens of thousands of years before those things even existed.

In the same way, categorizing things as "necessities" or "luxuries" is a similar attempt to impose one's subjective opinions of how important something is, or whether other people should have them, under the guise of a supposedly objective distinction. Almost everything that we have today would be considered luxuries in some other parts of the world or in previous times. The only really meaningful questions don't involve whether or how badly someone needs something but, presuming that they want it, how much they're willing to give up in order to get it. If they're willing to pay what it actually costs, then from a libertarian or free-market point of view, there should be nothing to prevent them from getting it. If they're unwilling or unable to pay what it costs, then they're simply out of luck, unless some kindly person freely chooses to pay for it himself and give it to them. Would-be philanthropists should note, however, that giving someone enough money to purchase something, and them letting them decide for themselves whether they really want to buy it, will always make them better off for the same expenditure that could be done by simply giving them the item. Those that choose not to go this route are saying that they're willing to be charitable as long as they get to control the recipients' lives to some degree.

Ken

 

[FunYun]

Scalia delt with this on the Heller case.

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Justice Scalia

Personally, I agree, though I do not like his reference to 'bearable arms'. I think the only reason he went that way is because in reality, the 2nd provides for no limits on weapons. Yes, as far as he 2nd is truly concerned, WMDs are OK. I also realize the founding fathers could not comprehend a weapon so powerful, that it could incinerate anything and everything for miles upon miles, and leave in its wake a poisoned landscape that could extend for hundreds of miles. But, there were still no limits back then on cannons or any other large weapons.

 

[vellnueve]

I received part of my education at a notoriously liberal college located in the Boston area.

As did I. However, I think you'll find that said school is much less liberal than some of the bastions of liberalism across the river. It's just that the liberals make more noise, not that they outnumber the rest of us.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

I would think that the "CAR" helps the governments slaves to get to and from work so that you can have as its in their best interests to allow you to bring in the bacon as If you weren't allowed to do this they wouldn't get their 30-40% of what you make.

So they are willing to take the risk that you wouldn't use it as a weapon against them, After all their statute enforcement officers have the ability to shut your car off at will (newer cars that is) and since a good percentage of the country has cars under 5 years old that's good enough for them.

If the framers of the Constitution and or Bill of Rights wanted there to be limits they would have written them into those documents.

At least that's my take on this issue.

The car that he drives do the golf course could be used to take out quite a few people, and actually has accidentally happened a few times recently given the wrong combination of crowded sidewalk/shopping area + senior citizen. I'm sure someone could rack up pretty good numbers driving down a parade route or at a festival like the Providence waterfire or something similar. Some of the household products that he probably has could be put together to make a bomb. Does he own a chain saw? You could do a number to a classroom full of people or office full of people with one of those, block the exit and go nuts.

Yes, guns were designed to kill people. But that is a legitimate tool to have around in case someone is trying to kill you.

 

[vellnueve]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not a convicted violent or repeat offender, you should be free to own what you wish.

 

[trophygrl]

i don't answer anyone with a snarky 'tude.

if someone asks, i would tell the truth.

we use the AR-15 for hunting coyotes.


we encounter the same problem with our dogs.

"why would you EVER want a dog like that"