Right to Arms in the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let me make this even clearer. There’s two rational reasons to stand up and shout fire.

  1. You want people to think they’re in physical danger so they can then remove themselves from said danger.
  2. You want people to think they’re in danger simply to alter their behavior when in reality there is no fire danger.

1 is a warning. 2 is fraudulent and coercive.

Edit: This is from the audience. As someone else noted, an actor may use, even shout, “fire!” during some scene while in a theater. So “fire!” is limited to when it actually infringes upon others.

[/quote]

2 is only true if there is a response from the audience.

Edit

  1. No one cares, just ignores me, and nothing happens.
102

[quote]pushharder wrote:

None of this refutes a single thing I said in my post on the previous page in reply to smh. I’m not saying you were attempting to refute, however.

Bottom line, and you know it, is that we as a society would at this point in time never tolerate a special tax on an “automatic weapon,” i.e., our keyboard/internet connection, before exercising our speech (or religion or press) rights.

One MUST take the fork in the road that the 2nd is “different” from the other enumerated rights and as such government is encouraged to restrict this particular right in ways it cannot with the others.[/quote]

Correct, though I wasn’t particularly refuting, I do think that is true, as I do of each amendment. They are all unique. You and I do differ on this, but as I’ve said before, the 2nd is unique, IMHO, because it does involve a weapon, so regulating weapons differs from censorship of speech. In the same context, the issue of requiring warrants sets the 4th Amendment apart from others, and so on and so forth.

103

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Law against “fire” in a crowded theater is a law proscribing the free exercise of some speech, some circumstances. Carry that out and you will see that even you don’t believe unqualified BOR protections are ipso facto protected from restriction.[/quote]

I mean, doesn’t the fire example already deal with one individual infringing upon the rights of the rest of the audience? The point is that one individual fraudulently alters the behavior of others. But what if there truly was a fire? Surely it’s not illegal to call out “fire” when there actually is one. But the first circumstance, where there is no fire, seems like a straight up case of actively infringing upon the rights of others (the rest of the audience, the theater owner, etc.).

I don’t see how applies to owning, carrying arms. Maybe firing over people’s heads. Pointing the weapon at them so there is a reasonable expectation of a threat.[/quote]

It applies because it proves without question or controversy that a textually-unqualified Constitutional right – in this case, the right to free speech – is not ipso facto unrestrictable or illimitable. It isn’t an analogy, and no analogical correspondence is necessary. It is simply irrefutable evidence of the fact that a textually-unqualified Constitutional right is not ipso facto unrestrictable or illimitable. Were the previous sentence untrue, no law could proscribe any kind of speech whatsoever, under any circumstances, by any speaker – ever. My post a couple slots above goes into more detail.[/quote]

Speech is not being punished!!! The damage done by such speech is! If there is no damage, then “fire” can be screamed all day long in a crowded theater.[/quote]

No. Investigate before you opine. The Brandenburg test requires intent, likelihood, and temporal imminence (i.e., not advocating for something at some later, indefinite time). These are necessary and sufficient, and, anyway, what we’re talking about is not a punishment after the fact but law proscribing a certain kind of speech…which directly contravenes an unqualified absolutist reading of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The speech and speaker are themselves restricted irrespective of “damage” – i.e., not protected by the First Amendment. Again: The speech and speaker are themselves restricted irrespective of “damage” – i.e., not protected by the First Amendment. It is a limitation on free speech, according, again, to the SCOTUS, authoritative commentators, the meaning of words in the English language, and reason. So, too, with true threats (the threats themselves, not their being carried out), which, per Watts, constitute proscribed speech – that is, restriction on a Constitutional right – on justifications already given (and exactly applicable, mutatis mutandis, to nuclear weapons and the 2A).

104

I thought you were working smh? :slight_smile:

So…, can a well regulated militia have nuclear weapons?

106

Again, in the context of the late 1700s, I still have a real hard time believing the framers actually meant to allow a central government, one many Americans vehemently opposed the creation of, to determine what, if any, speech could be restricted and/or what if any arms could be restricted.

It does not jive with the revolutionary history I have read or common sense for that matter.

107

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

None of this refutes a single thing I said in my post on the previous page in reply to smh. I’m not saying you were attempting to refute, however.

Bottom line, and you know it, is that we as a society would at this point in time never tolerate a special tax on an “automatic weapon,” i.e., our keyboard/internet connection, before exercising our speech (or religion or press) rights.

One MUST take the fork in the road that the 2nd is “different” from the other enumerated rights and as such government is encouraged to restrict this particular right in ways it cannot with the others.[/quote]

Correct, though I wasn’t particularly refuting, I do think that is true, as I do of each amendment. They are all unique. You and I do differ on this, but as I’ve said before, the 2nd is unique, IMHO, because it does involve a weapon, so regulating weapons differs from censorship of speech. In the same context, the issue of requiring warrants sets the 4th Amendment apart from others, and so on and so forth.
[/quote]

Yes, agreed, they are (all of them) unique. Notice that I haven’t argued that we must restrict 2A rights because we restrict 1A rights.

But limitations on 1A rights – and I honestly can’t believe I’ve had to explain that such limitations do actually exist – give the lie to the nonsense that rights enumerated in the Constitution without qualification are, by that very fact, illimitable. This is exactly what’s being peddled when – as always – somebody regurgitates “shall not be infringed” in a debate about the 2A, as if the case is closed because unqualified Constitutional rights are, by that fact, absolute. Were this true, no legal proscription of any kind of speech – incitement of imminent lawless action, true threats, commercial speech – could stand. Ever. At all. Under any circumstances.

108

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I thought you were working smh? :slight_smile:

So…, can a well regulated militia have nuclear weapons? [/quote]

Haha.

Had a meeting about some legal stuff for work. Didn’t last long – either a good sign or a bad one, not sure.

If the question is whether it’s legal for the government to bar a militia from having nuclear weapons, the answer is clearly yes. The 2A can clearly be restricted, and this restriction is as reasonable as any.

109

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

None of this refutes a single thing I said in my post on the previous page in reply to smh. I’m not saying you were attempting to refute, however.

Bottom line, and you know it, is that we as a society would at this point in time never tolerate a special tax on an “automatic weapon,” i.e., our keyboard/internet connection, before exercising our speech (or religion or press) rights.

One MUST take the fork in the road that the 2nd is “different” from the other enumerated rights and as such government is encouraged to restrict this particular right in ways it cannot with the others.[/quote]

Correct, though I wasn’t particularly refuting, I do think that is true, as I do of each amendment. They are all unique. You and I do differ on this, but as I’ve said before, the 2nd is unique, IMHO, because it does involve a weapon, so regulating weapons differs from censorship of speech. In the same context, the issue of requiring warrants sets the 4th Amendment apart from others, and so on and so forth.
[/quote]

Yes, agreed, they are (all of them) unique. Notice that I haven’t argued that we must restrict 2A rights because we restrict 1A rights.

But limitations on 1A rights – and I honestly can’t believe I’ve had to explain that such limitations do actually exist – give the lie to the nonsense that rights enumerated in the Constitution without qualification are, by that very fact, illimitable. This is exactly what’s being peddled when – as always – somebody regurgitates “shall not be infringed” in a debate about the 2A, as if the case is closed because unqualified Constitutional rights are, by that fact, absolute. Were this true, no legal proscription of any kind of speech – incitement of imminent lawless action, true threats, commercial speech – could stand. Ever. At all. Under any circumstances.[/quote]

What does the phrase “shall not be infringed” mean then? Why even add it?

110

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I thought you were working smh? :slight_smile:

So…, can a well regulated militia have nuclear weapons? [/quote]

Haha.

Had a meeting about some legal stuff for work. Didn’t last long – either a good sign or a bad one, not sure.

If the question is whether it’s legal for the government to bar a militia from having nuclear weapons, the answer is clearly yes. The 2A can clearly be restricted, and this restriction is as reasonable as any.[/quote]

I just don’t understand how you can read the 2nd and come to the conclusion the federal government can restrict arms. Even if you argue there is no individual right to arms it makes no difference.

Maybe it’s because the government taught me to read (public school), IDK…

111

I’d like to here your (smh) and TBs take on the paper I posted if you have the time.

112

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because that doesn’t explain how it doesn’t apply. You don’t like nuclear armed individuals or militiamen, fine, neither do I, but that doesn’t change the wording and intent of the second.[/quote]

Doesn’t apply, as in “is impossible/absurd/stupid/fatuous.” Which is why I said we should revisit the Second Amendment. [/quote]

Okay, then we’ve already agreed on that then…

[quote]

[quote]
Once again, a weapon in a courtroom is not in keeping with the keeping and bearing of arms necessary to the security of a free state. Bearing arms in a court room, per your example, has exactly ZERO to do with the rights guaranteed and intent of the second. [/quote]

No. Already answered. I don’t have time to repeat myself. Operative clause, Heller and all that. If the prefatory clause suddenly alters the literal meaning of the text that follows it, then we can finish this discussion here and now, because the 2A entails no necessary individual right.[/quote]

So a militia can have a nuclear weapon then, right?[/quote]

Why would a civil supplement to the regular armed forces be permitted access to weapons that could potentially bring about great power war and human extinction? Because your reading of a document written in the 18th century says so?

113

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . "

Oxford English Dictionary: Militia - A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.[/quote]

In the US the militia preceded the regular army.[/quote]

I’m well aware. It doesn’t change the definition, even the 18th century one the founding fathers would have been familiar with. The force structure has drastically changed since the late 18th century.

114

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Every single arm they can procure. Every one of them. If they can find the uranium, figure out fission or fusion or whatever, build a missile system, etc… then they can have a nuclear weapon.

That’s how the second reads to me. [/quote]

The state is by definition an organized human community that has successfully claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Law and order depend upon this. You are staunchly opposed to the Iran nuclear deal but don’t bat an eye at the prospect of private nuclear forces? To what end? Do you understand the calamitous international outcomes such a laissaz faire attitude toward nuclear proliferation would inspire? [/quote]

Lol, read this and the other thread. I do not support private nuclear forces… [/quote]

My apologies if I misread the above. I just am having difficulty understanding your argument. Rough parity with a nuclear oppressor and deterrence vis-a-vis it requires the oppressed to have access to nuclear weapons?

115

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Curious: Those of you advocating “limits;” Where and how does that line get drawn? Nuclear weapons is a rather extreme example, but what about other, less extreme weaponry?[/quote]

I imagine that Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), which the US Army defines as: “Handguns, shoulder-fired weapons, light automatic weapons up to and including 12.7mm machine guns, recoilless rifles up to and including 106mm, mortars up to and including 81mm, man-portable rocket launchers, rifle-/shoulder-fired grenade launchers, and individually operated weapons that are portable or can be fired without special mounts or firing devices and that have potential use in civil disturbances and are vulnerable to theft” would seem in line with what some here are arguing for.

116

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I thought you were working smh? :slight_smile:

So…, can a well regulated militia have nuclear weapons? [/quote]

Haha.

Had a meeting about some legal stuff for work. Didn’t last long – either a good sign or a bad one, not sure.

If the question is whether it’s legal for the government to bar a militia from having nuclear weapons, the answer is clearly yes. The 2A can clearly be restricted, and this restriction is as reasonable as any.[/quote]

I just don’t understand how you can read the 2nd and come to the conclusion the federal government can restrict arms. Even if you argue there is no individual right to arms it makes no difference.
[/quote]

The Amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear all conceivable forms of arms.” It says “arms.” This is a general, vague pronouncement (as these rights are – which is why we need a SCOTUS to interpret and apply intent, spirit, and letter in a world of specifics, penumbra, and change). It explicitly protects neither any particular sort of weapon nor the totality of all extant and conceivable weapons – just as the 1A does not explicitly protect every form of speech under every conceivable circumstance. If either did, it would say exactly as much (and neither does). Thus, it requires interpretation. The right is subject to reasonable limitation, as are the rights named in the First.

117

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’d like to here your (smh) and TBs take on the paper I posted if you have the time. [/quote]

I’ll try to get to it.

118

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because that doesn’t explain how it doesn’t apply. You don’t like nuclear armed individuals or militiamen, fine, neither do I, but that doesn’t change the wording and intent of the second.[/quote]

Doesn’t apply, as in “is impossible/absurd/stupid/fatuous.” Which is why I said we should revisit the Second Amendment. [/quote]

Okay, then we’ve already agreed on that then…

[quote]

[quote]
Once again, a weapon in a courtroom is not in keeping with the keeping and bearing of arms necessary to the security of a free state. Bearing arms in a court room, per your example, has exactly ZERO to do with the rights guaranteed and intent of the second. [/quote]

No. Already answered. I don’t have time to repeat myself. Operative clause, Heller and all that. If the prefatory clause suddenly alters the literal meaning of the text that follows it, then we can finish this discussion here and now, because the 2A entails no necessary individual right.[/quote]

So a militia can have a nuclear weapon then, right?[/quote]

Why would a civil supplement to the regular armed forces be permitted access to weapons that could potentially bring about great power war and human extinction? Because your reading of a document written in the 18th century says so?[/quote]

Militia’s aren’t just civil supplements to the regular armed forces. That is too simplistic a view and, ya, because the Constitution says so…

What the fuck does that even mean, “Because your reading of a document written in the 18th century says so?” So, what, do we not get jury trials now because my reading of a document written in the 18th century say we do.

Words either matter or they do not. “shall not be infringed”. Either individuals have a right to keep and bear all arms un-infringed or militia’s do.

119

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I thought you were working smh? :slight_smile:

So…, can a well regulated militia have nuclear weapons? [/quote]

Haha.

Had a meeting about some legal stuff for work. Didn’t last long – either a good sign or a bad one, not sure.

If the question is whether it’s legal for the government to bar a militia from having nuclear weapons, the answer is clearly yes. The 2A can clearly be restricted, and this restriction is as reasonable as any.[/quote]

I just don’t understand how you can read the 2nd and come to the conclusion the federal government can restrict arms. Even if you argue there is no individual right to arms it makes no difference.
[/quote]

The Amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear all conceivable forms of arms.” It says “arms.” This is a general, vague pronouncement (as these rights are – which is why we need a SCOTUS to interpret and apply intent, spirit, and letter in a world of specifics, penumbra, and change). It explicitly protects neither any particular sort of weapon nor the totality of all extant and conceivable weapons – just as the 1A does not explicitly protect every form of speech under every conceivable circumstance. If either did, it would say exactly as much (and neither does). Thus, it requires interpretation. The right is subject to reasonable limitation, as are the rights named in the First.[/quote]

I think the phrase “shall not be infringed” does protect the individual or militia’s right to keep and bear all conceivable arms. Why add the phrase “shall not be infringed” otherwise?

Do you really think the founders having just defeated an oppressive government would have written the Bill of Rights in such as way as to give a centralized government the authority to determine what is a “reasonable limitation”? I do not.

120

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The Amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear all conceivable forms of arms.” It says “arms.”[/quote]

Well it says “arms,” not “some arms.” It doesn’t “federally approved arms subject to revision.” It doesn’t say “rifles.” And it could very easily simply have said “rifles.” Had they simply said this, rifles, we would understand they were excluding artillery (for instance). But, again, they didn’t. Not “rifles.” Not “some arms.” Not “federally approved arms.” Etc. Flat out, no caveats, arms.