Are there any limits to the 2nd amendment?

[Kalahari]

There isn't a link, other than period language.

Surely in the vastness of the internet and the thousands of libraries across this great country there is a quote of this so-called "intention." So, let's see it, or at least point me to where I can see this.

I disagree, numerous private citizens in this country just after the revolution owned Cannons, which was the equivalent of modern artillery or tanks. In fact you will find no law from that period outlawing any type of projectile or explosive, which leads me to believe the founders of this country were fine with it.

Okay, fine, so we can all have nukes? Would you really be okay with that?

 

[EddieCoyle]

There's no recreational value in a nuke, unlike a tank or artillery piece. They're also quite expensive - to the point where most countries can't afford them.

 

[Kalahari]

So what if they're expensive? That's not a reason to outlaw them. And what if I gain recreational value from dropping nukes in the ocean? What about bombs? Should we be allowed other major ordnance such as MOABs? JDAMs? I mean Jesus Christ, it's one thing to allow a machine gun or a semi-automatic, but when you give ordinary citizens the power to destroy entire buildings rapidly and repeatedly, don't you think that crosses some type of line? What the hell would stop someone from getting a Howitzer and just bombing the shit out of Boston? The White House? Wall Street?

Sorry, but I have to draw the line. That type of weaponry can't be used in self-defense, and firearms are more than enough to counter a professional military power, as history has shown.

 

[EddieCoyle]

What the hell would stop someone from getting a Howitzer and just bombing the shit out of Boston? The White House? Wall Street?

The same thing that stops you from taking your rifle into a mall and lighting it up.

If someone wants to blow something up, laws are not going to stop them.

 

[Kalahari]

Except that I have zero access to howitzers, JDAMs and MOABs, because of laws. And there's quite a difference between being able to kill "a couple dozen" at a mall and hundreds or thousands in a city. Especially if you're talking about artillery that can kill from miles and miles away.

 

[z0mbi]

Then shouldn't criminals have zero access to handguns?

 

[EddieCoyle]

You have access to a rental van, fertilizer and diesel fuel though. Your argument is the same as "More guns = More crime".

 

[Kalahari]

Again, scale. We're talking about obliterating entire city blocks versus lighting up a room of people (and probably missing). We're talking about the kind of attack that could be 9/11 all over again, except able to be perpetuated by anyone and everyone at any given time, with little to no ability to respond in the appropriate manner in any short period of time.

And what stops me from lighting up a mall with a firearm is my sense of decency, morality, and will to live. Not everyone has that. The difference is I can defend myself against a mall intruder. I can't defend myself against a 155mm HE shell landing on my house or in my office.

 

[zzrider]

I disagree, numerous private citizens in this country just after the revolution owned Cannons, which was the equivalent of modern artillery or tanks. In fact you will find no law from that period outlawing any type of projectile or explosive, which leads me to believe the founders of this country were fine with it.

Yep, and as I mentioned earlier, from the Revolution through the War of 1812, private citizens owned armed warships - privateers - which were given official sanction by the government via Letters of Marque to both protect from and engage in piracy.

Sailing ships represented the absolute state-of-the-art in terms of sophisticated crew-served weapons systems in their time. And the government had no problem at all with private ownership.

It's a disgrace that this country has fallen so far, to the point where I can't even buy a frickin' Glock pistol in the state where the American Revolution started.

 

[clinotus]

So what if they're expensive? That's not a reason to outlaw them. And what if I gain recreational value from dropping nukes in the ocean? What about bombs? Should we be allowed other major ordnance such as MOABs? JDAMs? I mean Jesus Christ, it's one thing to allow a machine gun or a semi-automatic, but when you give ordinary citizens the power to destroy entire buildings rapidly and repeatedly, don't you think that crosses some type of line? What the hell would stop someone from getting a Howitzer and just bombing the shit out of Boston? The White House? Wall Street?

Sorry, but I have to draw the line. That type of weaponry can't be used in self-defense, and firearms are more than enough to counter a professional military power, as history has shown.

Its a rich argument and a dangerous one at that, the right of the people to possess weapons is not to be infringed as it is what allows the people to hunt for food, self defend home and hearth, defend their state and their nation.

So then, how does one defend his state from a neighboring state, or invading nation with the simple arms that a soldier would carry? Or the same arms one would use for fowl?

The answer is steeped in period history of the time and has remained just as complex. The missing portion of this discussion and most of these discussions are the scope of just why we have the second amendment, it wasnt part of the natural language of the Constitution of the time, it was pushed into the bill of rights by those who sought not to give up the very new liberties they fought for.

So...despite feeling that a line somewhere should be crossed in the sand, and it would, its not the reality of the situation. The reason the second is such a hot topic today, is one of the reasons it was such a hot topic when they first wrote it, or rather pushed it in. The government cannot set the limits of its own fear by limiting its citizens ability to thwart it.

Even so, after the ratification and all things being considered, we find ourselves back in the fray when we look to words attributed to Washington from a speech to Congress in which he stated, "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.''

or he said,

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

Depends on your view of Federalism.

 

[Ripach]

So what if they're expensive? That's not a reason to outlaw them. And what if I gain recreational value from dropping nukes in the ocean? What about bombs? Should we be allowed other major ordnance such as MOABs? JDAMs? I mean Jesus Christ, it's one thing to allow a machine gun or a semi-automatic, but when you give ordinary citizens the power to destroy entire buildings rapidly and repeatedly, don't you think that crosses some type of line? What the hell would stop someone from getting a Howitzer and just bombing the shit out of Boston? The White House? Wall Street?
.

What separates the average soldier from the "ordinary citizens"? For eight years of my life at different times I had access to some pretty bad ass stuff, including Tanks and Howitzers. What stopped me from using them against the populous? On more then one occasion I was the sole guard on a platoon of M-109 Cannons and Ammo on the cape. What stopped me from shelling Bourne? I guess the "ordinary citizens" were just lucky I'm better behaved then they are.

 

[Kalahari]

Yep, and as I mentioned earlier, from the Revolution through the War of 1812, private citizens owned armed warships - privateers - which were given official sanction by the government via Letters of Marque to both protect from and engage in piracy.

That's completely different than allowing anyone and everyone to own munitions, ordnance, and so on that is capable of rendering entire cities rubble.

It's a disgrace that this country has fallen so far, to the point where I can't even buy a frickin' Glock pistol in the state where the American Revolution started.

No dispute here.

What separates the average soldier from the "ordinary citizens"?

Not much.

What stopped me from using them against the populous?

As I stated earlier, you, like me and most of this country, have morals, decency, and a will to live. Not everyone does. Legally allowing those types of people, such as those who willingly blow themselves into millions of pieces, the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in minutes is ludicrous.

In fact you will find no law from that period outlawing any type of projectile or explosive, which leads me to believe the founders of this country were fine with it.

And to address this - you may be right, they might've been okay with it, but they didn't make it a right.

 

[HTRN]

Kalahari,
With respect, you mention munitions (ammo,) ordnance (a collections of weapons, vehicles and maintenance gear) as somehow different than the greater encompassing term of "arms."

I argue that the former two are quite exactly "arms" and as such ARE protected by the 2A.

The 2A was written as to not be overly specific such that when technology evolved, the citizen would not be limited by the government as to what types of arms one could possess in order to protect him from a tyrannical government.

We have laws, such that if you do manage to mass murder, show negligence that affects others etc. you will be tried by a court of your peers and served justice.

by your "argument" ALL box cutters should be made limited and registered to persons proving need as it pertains to a function of their job.

Hi, my name is John, I work in receiving at ABC co. and need a box cutter permit with no restrictions. Okay John, you can get the permit, BUT it is limited to work only. This is because someone who had the WILL used one of these to do harm in the past.

Is this what we need?

or..

Do we need more personal accountability, less restrictions to "evil" things and existing laws enforced appropriately.

 

[zzrider]

That's completely different than allowing anyone and everyone to own munitions, ordnance, and so on that is capable of rendering entire cities rubble.

No it's not. A ship equipped with cannon could quite effectively shell a coastal city to rubble. Until, of course, somebody else came out and sank it. Which would be the equivalent outcome of your neighbor shelling the neighboring town with the howitzer in his back yard - eventually, somebody is going to get pissed, and come shoot him.

 

[Kalahari]

The 2A was written as to not be overly specific such that when technology evolved, the citizen would not be limited by the government as to what types of arms one could possess in order to protect him from a tyrannical government.

Okay, can you point to evidence of this? My readings of primary-source documents including the Federalist Papers never indicated such. I'd just like to see where the Founding Fathers wrote this down, otherwise I'm not sure how you can justify such a claim.

We have laws, such that if you do manage to mass murder, show negligence that affects others etc. you will be tried by a court of your peers and served justice.

Yes, but our punishments are roughly proportional to their crimes, and unfortunately there is no punishment that can even remotely be as harmful/punishing/etc. as the crime of murdering thousands of innocents.

by your "argument" ALL box cutters should be made limited and registered to persons proving need as it pertains to a function of their job.

No, because they aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment, and so I don't think the analogy fits.

No it's not. A ship equipped with cannon could quite effectively shell a coastal city to rubble. Until, of course, somebody else came out and sank it.

Oh, sure, because that's feasible in an amount of time such that the offender won't be able to continue rampaging the country. Handheld firearms are different because you're only defending yourself against a personal attacker. How in the hell are you supposed to defend yourself against incoming artillery? Is it really worth potentially risking the lives of, literally, tens of millions of people just so you can have a battleship in the scenario where a government becomes tyrannical, even when history has shown us time and time again that small arms and willpower are more than enough to defeat superpowers like our own military (even assuming our military would willingly fight against us).


You're quite literally going to such an extreme that you'd allow nuclear warheads to be owned completely legally by anyone. A line is drawn when the person literally has the potential to kill any possible counter-attackers with one munition. It absolutely blows my mind that people are willing to allow one individual the possible death of millions and millions of people in the name of "well, we might need to fight Big Brother some day."

 

[mikem317]

You asked a few questions in the body of your post, but I'll answer the question posed in the title.

The limit of the second amendment exists for only a few subsets of people: Namely those who have forfeited their right by committing an act of aggression against another and have been summarily convicted of said crime through due process. Mentally unfit individuals, children and conscientious objectors may be the others.

 

[mikem317]

So what if they're expensive? That's not a reason to outlaw them. And what if I gain recreational value from dropping nukes in the ocean? What about bombs? Should we be allowed other major ordnance such as MOABs? JDAMs? I mean Jesus Christ, it's one thing to allow a machine gun or a semi-automatic, but when you give ordinary citizens the power to destroy entire buildings rapidly and repeatedly, don't you think that crosses some type of line? What the hell would stop someone from getting a Howitzer and just bombing the shit out of Boston? The White House? Wall Street?

Sorry, but I have to draw the line. That type of weaponry can't be used in self-defense, and firearms are more than enough to counter a professional military power, as history has shown.

Except that I have zero access to howitzers, JDAMs and MOABs, because of laws. And there's quite a difference between being able to kill "a couple dozen" at a mall and hundreds or thousands in a city. Especially if you're talking about artillery that can kill from miles and miles away.

Okay, fine, so we can all have nukes? Would you really be okay with that?

I think you may be conflating offensive and defensive weaponry and trying to apply these concepts incorrectly through an interventionist lens. Nuclear weapons and alike are not defensive weapons. Surely, smaller arms, like pistols and rifles are deserving of legal protection.

In fact, the Constitution provides only for a naval force, so aircraft carriers, battleships and submarines can and ought to be deployed by our federal government, for defense of the states in the union.

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.

 

[drgrant]

I always thought the "line" was man portable weapons/arms. EG if a soldier could move it around, or say one or two guys could move it around, it's legal.

The thing is though- at the end of it all prohibition is really still just wishful thinking. For example, I don't think that storing tons of high explosives in your house is a good idea, but the phone book of regulations that bans that sort of thing, didn't bother, stop or delay someone like Timothy McVeigh.

Prohibition, to a large degree, will always be a "feel good" endeavor on the best of days. You might stop a few small pests with it but anyone who is intent on doing something really bad through their violation of law is not going to be deterred. The only real deterrents to these people is cost, logistics, etc.


-Mike

 

[mikem317]

Right. Prohibition (of anything) tends to artificially inflate the cost of the prohibited item, allows the state to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate individuals caught in possession or selling said prohibited item, and since the demand for the banned thing usually doesn't go away (surprise!), black market entrepreneurs become market suppliers and can result in a rise in crime

We've seen this with the discontinued war on alcohol and currently in the war on drugs. In Massachusetts, we're seeing it with the war against private gun ownership.

 

[Kalahari]

I think you may be conflating offensive and defensive weaponry and trying to apply these concepts incorrectly through an interventionist lens. Nuclear weapons and alike are not defensive weapons. Surely, smaller arms, like pistols and rifles are deserving of legal protection.

EddieCoyle said that the only reason he wouldn't allow nukes is because they don't have any "recreational use," whatever legal justification that warrants. And when it comes down to it, there's hardly a difference between nukes and the strongest non-nuclear bombs. And I'd hardly call tanks "defensive."

The only real deterrents to these people is cost, logistics, etc.

Well, right, and legislation can be a huge logistics obstacle. We have that here in Massachusetts with the most basic of "weaponry"...

In Massachusetts, we're seeing it with the war against private gun ownership.

It only results in an increase in crime because it is made a crime. That's like saying murder rates would go down if we legalized murder. If we allowed freer access to guns, I'm not so sure the same criminals wouldn't commit crimes with firearms. The difference is that individual rights wouldn't be violated and some people would actually have the chance to defend themselves. I don't think it just simply cuts crime in and of itself.

 

[mikem317]

EddieCoyle said that the only reason he wouldn't allow nukes is because they don't have any "recreational use," whatever legal justification that warrants. And when it comes down to it, there's hardly a difference between nukes and the strongest non-nuclear bombs. And I'd hardly call tanks "defensive."

Topics like this lend themselves nicely to "thread creep". I don't know what "recreational use" means, or if that's the prevailing jurisprudential methodology (I don't believe it is). By "strongest non-nuclear bombs" I believe you're referencing the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb? It wouldn't have the pyschological effect nor radioactive costs associated with it's nuclear brethern. I have no problem with such weaponry being used exclusively by the national army, insofar that they are used defensively and for non-interventionist wars.

At any rate, I thought this thread was about something else.

It only results in an increase in crime because it is made a crime. That's like saying murder rates would go down if we legalized murder. If we allowed freer access to guns, I'm not so sure the same criminals wouldn't commit crimes with firearms. The difference is that individual rights wouldn't be violated and some people would actually have the chance to defend themselves. I don't think it just simply cuts crime in and of itself.

I agree. I hinted to this in my previous post.

 

[Kalahari]

By "strongest non-nuclear bombs" I believe you're referencing the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb? It wouldn't have the pyschological effect nor radioactive costs associated with it's nuclear brethern. I have no problem with such weaponry being used exclusively by the national army, insofar that they are used defensively and for non-interventionist wars.

Right, and neither do I, but we're talking about whether such weaponry is covered under the 2nd Amendment. I don't consider MOABs to be "arms" in the sense of the 2nd Amendment and I'm still waiting on a link or a book or something to show that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to mean that ordinary citizens ought to have the same arsenals as modern militaries.

I'm not so sure you and I are arguing, unless you think ordinary citizens ought to be allowed freedom to keep and bear MOABs/nukes/tanks/so on.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

On a serious note I'm wondering how the 2nd Amendment factors into one that is not a Federal citizen ?

IE does a State Citizen / National have the same RTKBA that a 14th Amendment citizen does ?

anyone care to research this question ?

 

[mikem317]

Right, and neither do I, but we're talking about whether such weaponry is covered under the 2nd Amendment. I don't consider MOABs to be "arms" in the sense of the 2nd Amendment and I'm still waiting on a link or a book or something to show that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to mean that ordinary citizens ought to have the same arsenals as modern militaries.

I'm not so sure you and I are arguing, unless you think ordinary citizens ought to be allowed freedom to keep and bear MOABs/nukes/tanks/so on.

Maybe the jurisprudential interpretation can be found in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Boldface text is my emphasis.

Therefore, ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.

 

[Kalahari]

Okay. Do well-regulated militia require nukes, MOABs, and tanks to remain efficient? Tough question.. Also, read here, from Wikipedia:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

Printz v. United States (1997) (opinion by Scalia) (Thomas, concurring)

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[mikem317]

I don't know if they're "efficient". If I knew how to calculate this, I guess we could determine if these "arms" would fulfill this important requirement and are therefore deserving of Constitutional protection for private ownership.

Right. Miller actually was a weird case. I think he died half way through and the other plaintiff dropped out. Therefore it wasn't a rather 'thorough examination'.

In Printz the reason why the shotgun was not considered 'ordinary military equipment' is because of insufficient evidence presented by the plaintiffs in Miller. Ironically, IIRC, two of the seated justices were former Marines. Shotguns were indeed in common use at the time by the American military which should satisfy the 'ordinary' requirement. The rest they say is history.

 

[Ray-500]

Okay. Do well-regulated militia require nukes, MOABs, and tanks to remain efficient? Tough question.. Also, read here, from Wikipedia:

Question....why would you believe anything you see on Wikpedia?

 

[Ray-500]

I think you may be conflating offensive and defensive weaponry and trying to apply these concepts incorrectly through an interventionist lens. Nuclear weapons and alike are not defensive weapons. Surely, smaller arms, like pistols and rifles are deserving of legal protection.

In fact, the Constitution provides only for a naval force, so aircraft carriers, battleships and submarines can and ought to be deployed by our federal government, for defense of the states in the union.

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.

Really? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not defensive? How many lives, on both sides, (speaking of troops) were saved by those two instances? How much longer would hostilities have gone on? An end was put to a conflict. There was a clear-cut "winner". Can we say the same today? Does not "politeness" and "political correctness" only prolong a conflict? IMHO, no conflict of any type is ever resolved with "talk". Can anyone give me an example of "diplomacy" ending a conflict without the "weaker" of the parties suffering dire consequences? Anywhere in history?

IMHO, "peace" is NOT the absence of war. It is the result of a clear-cut winner in a conflict. How that relates to the citizenry is another matter.

 

[Eye5600]

On a serious note I'm wondering how the 2nd Amendment factors into one that is not a Federal citizen ?

IE does a State Citizen / National have the same RTKBA that a 14th Amendment citizen does ?

anyone care to research this question ?

Lawyers argue all the time about whether the clauses of the Constitution restrict the states or only the federal government. I forget the term that is used. They discuss this sort of thing all the time on the Volokh Conspiracy (a blog). Some of the law profs there are very pro gun rights, so the topic comes up when there is something cooking in the courts.

Many states, including Connecticut, have a RTKBA clause in the state constitution.

 

[mikem317]

Really? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not defensive? How many lives, on both sides, (speaking of troops) were saved by those two instances? How much longer would hostilities have gone on? An end was put to a conflict. There was a clear-cut "winner". Can we say the same today? Does not "politeness" and "political correctness" only prolong a conflict? IMHO, no conflict of any type is ever resolved with "talk". Can anyone give me an example of "diplomacy" ending a conflict without the "weaker" of the parties suffering dire consequences? Anywhere in history?

IMHO, "peace" is NOT the absence of war. It is the result of a clear-cut winner in a conflict. How that relates to the citizenry is another matter.

No. The nuclear engagement of Niroshima and Nagasaki were clearly offensive maneuvers (IMHO).

And there's no winners in war. Just losers. And if you believe that you can totally discount diplomacy, then you're doing it at your own peril. Many conflicts have been averted through diplomatic means. Armed engagement is obviously an option, but it should be relegated as the "ultimate" option. Diplomacy gets priority.