Skip to main content

View Diary: Assault Weapons Question (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What do deer have to do with it? (3+ / 0-)

    The Constitution does not say, "The hunting of Deer being essential to the survival of Man, Congress shall not restrict the right to bear arms."

    •  Are there any "arms" that the civilian... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino

      ...population of the U.S. should not have the right to own, based on the wording of the 2nd amendment?

      ego sum ergo ego eram

      by glb3 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:17:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plenty. The "militia" is, almost by definition, (0+ / 0-)

        a "light infantry" force, which precludes the ownership of heavy vehicles, area-effect weapons, etc. So, no to the suitcase nukes, tanks, etc.

        There are some people who collect tanks, but they are not doing it under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment for a "militia", they are doing it more as "collectors of unusual vehicles". I think most of them are altered so the main guns don't fire.

        But there's maybe a few dozen such people in the country.

        •  Were "civilians" restricted from... (0+ / 0-)

          ...owning cannons (other than for issues of cost and availability) in the 1700s?

          ego sum ergo ego eram

          by glb3 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:00:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I believe most of the cannons used in (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1

            the Revolutionary War were actually privately owned. The "navy" was originally privateers and armed merchant ships with letters of marque issued to engage enemy ships, on top of the handful of government revenue cutters.

            Merchants were expected to provide their own security, IIRC.

            But nowadays the concept of "militia arms" has come to mean "that which you can easily carry" --I believe that is actually spelled out in similar words in one of the 2nd Amendment laws somewhere but I don't remember which. Certainly in the Miller case a sawed-off shotgun was considered "not protected under the 2nd Amendment" because it wasn't a "militia arm in common use at the time".

            •  Therefore,... (0+ / 0-)

              legal arguements can be successfully made that the 2nd Amendment does not give citizens the right to own any kind of firearm that they want.
              Citizens do not have a "right" to own semi-automatic firearms. Even Scalia figured this one out.

              ego sum ergo ego eram

              by glb3 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:01:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, what is protected are "militia arms (0+ / 0-)

                that reflect common use" and while it has never been spelled out specifically, civilian semi-autos do in fact mimic the "common arms" in use by today's military, lacking only the fully-automatic feature (which, ironically, the military discourages the use of, so if anything they are actively copying the features of civilian semi-autos).

                In the dissenting opinion of Heller, it was acknowledged that the Heller decision could still allow for some regulation of those arms.

                This has been my point all along: the conservatives fixate on the second half of the second amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" while ignoring the first half: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the defense of a free state..."

                If a "militia" is supposed to have "common arms", then what needs to be done is emphasize the entire 2nd Amendment and formalize the militia. In other words, require training, and demonstrate proficiency. Being active in a trained and regulated "militia" would be the only way someone would have access to "militia arms". If they're not in the militia, then they are limited to hunting-style weapons only.

                The provisions for control are already laid out in the 2nd Amendment and all the cases that have gone into interpreting it since then, concluding most recently with Heller and MacDonald vs. State of Illinois.

        •  Canis Aureus: the finest light cavalry in the worl (0+ / 0-)

          d at the time were for the most part three days' travel west of Kentucky, armed with bows and arrows. The war against them, had the US forces not developed repeating rifles, might well have gone the other way.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:13:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "bear arms" would seem to limit it to those one (0+ / 0-)

        can carry.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site