HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Y'know, we already HAVE l...

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:00 AM

Y'know, we already HAVE limits on RKBA now.

The Second Amendment hasn't ever, in practice, been enforced as an absolute.

You can't legally own a bomber(unless the bombs are removed, at least).

You can't legally have a functioning nuclear missile in a silo in your backyard.

You can't legally own a loaded cannon, either.

And you can't put land mines on your property.



How, exactly, would regulating the ownership of Bushmasters or the magazines used in Bushmasters or similar weapons be any different from THOSE restrictions...laws that, to my knowledge, no sane gun owner objects to?

18 replies, 1406 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Y'know, we already HAVE limits on RKBA now. (Original post)
Ken Burch Jan 2013 OP
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #1
Ken Burch Jan 2013 #2
Straw Man Jan 2013 #4
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #5
MichaelHarris Jan 2013 #10
MichaelHarris Jan 2013 #11
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #12
MichaelHarris Jan 2013 #13
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #16
Straw Man Jan 2013 #3
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #6
geckosfeet Jan 2013 #7
rl6214 Jan 2013 #8
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #9
iiibbb Jan 2013 #14
jmg257 Jan 2013 #15
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #17
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #18

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:09 AM

1. So, just to be clear ...

 

... in your mind -- a nuclear missile and a semi-automatic rifle are the same thing?

Allow me to explain -- a nuclear missile has very few home defence applications. They're just too hard on the furniture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:13 AM

2. My point is, they are both "arms".

And the Second Amendment doesn't make "home defence applications" part of its criteria. The Amendment's language doesn't speak to practicality OR safety.

If this country treated the Second Amendment, in practice, as the absolute right of each person to have whatever form of weaponry she or he wished to have, you'd have the legal right to own all the things that I listed in the OP.

The fact that legal restrictions DO exist on the types of weapons you're allowed to own means that the NRA's entire absolutist argument is already discredited by practice and historical precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:33 AM

4. Absolutist?

I don't hear the NRA calling for the repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:36 AM

5. Apparently ...

 

... you are unfamiliar with District of Columbia vs Heller

Here is the relevant section of the opinion -- highlighted

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

No one will argue that the RKBA can not be limited. All rights can be limited; yelling "Fire" in a crowded building is a common example of a 1A restriction. However, the Heller Decision dictates that firearm "in common use at the time" are protected under the 2A and given that the weapon you seem to revile most -- the semi-automatic, detachable magazine sport rifle, is one of the most popular firearms in the US today then if follows that it is in common use and is protected under the 2A.

Nuclear weapons -- while cool -- aren't in common use among civilian gun owners at this time. Sometime in the future, they might be easier to make and we'll see. One of these might be cool for hunting deer



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #5)


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:16 AM

11. I like to bold this part

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Buy all you want, we'll just make sure they are banned everywhere you wanna take it. Schools sensitive places, sure people are there-banned

Malls and stores, sensitive places, people are there-banned

See, we just work with private businesses to keep dumb-asses out with guns and let the Supreme Court ban them from the public sensitive places. Sure you can stroke it in your bedroom but take it to the mall, not gonna happen if we can get it deemed a "sensitive place"

Thank you Scalia!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichaelHarris (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:24 AM

12. Yeah, good luck with that.

George Wallace and G.W. Bush like the way you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:25 AM

13. thanks

and be sure and thank Scalia and the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:26 AM

16. Not necessarily.

It can be validly argued that "arms" in the usage of the period meant what we might be more likely today to refer to as "small arms." There is, of course, already precedence for regulating small arms (we severely restrict access to fully automatic weapons, for instance).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:18 AM

3. Um...

... maybe because we don't have a history of government-chartered competition for civilian users of nuclear missiles?

http://www.odcmp.com/NM.htm





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:49 AM

7. Building a target range for nuclear missles takes up too much space

and the nuclear fallout is very difficult to contain.

You could just as easily use the words "infringe on the right to bear" in place of the words "regulating the ownership" in this context. The effect would be absolutely the same.

And that's really what your after. Isn't it?

Come on. Come clean. It's not so hard for people to see.

Once you start to be honest about the discussion we can move forward with it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:59 AM

8. Those other items are not used commonly everyday in the shooting world

 

Most every law passed or attempted allowed weapons commonly used in the shooting world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:08 AM

9. We have limits on free speech now, too.

You can't send death threats to public officials.

You can't make violent threats against people on the street.

You can't sexually harass your employees or co-workers.

You can't incite a riot.


Can we extend this to criticism of the government? It harms the dignity of the state and interferes with its smooth operation. No sane citizen would object to that, assuming that I can define everybody who disagrees with my position as insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:49 AM

14. Moot

 

It's not there there is a line, it's where to draw the line... especially a line that's already been there a while. So now the debate is about moving the line and at what point does the movement of that line actually infringe our rights.

There are people who think certain current proposals as well as new laws go too far. There are some that object to the justification for moving the line as well because it is difficult to show that the proposals will change the outcomes of the events that supposedly justify the gun control proposals.

There is a real mosaic of ideas out there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:20 AM

15. YES! You figured out the chink in the armour! Why didn't anyone think of this sooner??

Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

But seriously, the difference in regulating "Bushmasters" is that they are almost exactly the type of arms the people's militias would most likely carry IF the constitution still held real sway in that arena. In fact, "Colts" & "FNs" would be more likely. Uniform & effective martial arms and their accoutrments, along with organizing and disciplining, is what keeps the Militia well-regulated.


Doesn't mean they can't be regulated, as they have been in the past and are under consideration to be once again (and are in States), just means 'the limits' you mention are irrelevant to the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:57 AM

17. In reply...

KB: You can't legally own a bomber(unless the bombs are removed, at least).

You can own a bomber and, after a rather lengthy ATF process, you can own the bombs. You may need to talk to the State Departments about getting a munitions license to arm the bomber with the bombs but depending on the amount of money you're interested in wasting that can probably be accomplished

KB: You can't legally have a functioning nuclear missile in a silo in your backyard.

Sure you can. (Might be a bit large to be called a 'yard'.) Of course how you determined that it is functioning without actually having the missile to go with, I'm not sure.

KB: You can't legally own a loaded cannon, either.

Sure you can. I can list a few places where you can rent and shoot one if you'd like.

KB: And you can't put land mines on your property.

I give you this one since while you can own active mines, you'll likely go to prison is anyone is injured or killed by one.


Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution empowers the federal government to raise and support armies.

An army is an organization competent to defend a region. The implements you list are all weapons appropriate to and, arguably, useful ONLY for the defense of a region. Whereas the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) rather clearly implies that, since federal government is empowered to raise and support armies that weapons useful only for tasks with which the army is charged, would not be among those protected by the individual RKBA noted in the 2nd Amendment. These would include those weapons you listed along with various unit manned and crew served weapons, for example an aircraft carrier, M-249 SAW or an M-134 minigun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:08 AM

18. Actually you can own and operate a loaded cannon.

 

Expensive, but you can.

BTW, the pro gun grabbers really need to get a clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread