Right to Arms in the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And of course these arms must be powerful enough so they we may ensure the very SECURITY OF THE STATE. Think about that for a minute. Not just powerful enough to defend yourself from a knife-wielding burglar, but powerful enough to be seen in the defense of the VERY SECURITY of the state. That is, weaponry that would be expected to match an actor that poses a threat to the very life of the nation. [/quote]

Sloth, my computer is a bit slow with page loading so, I may have missed why if all arms are allowed are there exceptions with speech i.e yelling fire.

162

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
For those that subscribe to the theory that the Second Amendment codifies the right of citizens to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, what arms are citizens entitled to as a matter of right?

All of them?
[/quote]

Yes, all of them. And that’s why it needs to be amended rather than being squinted at just right, with ones head cocked just so, while reading it from behind through a reflection in a mirror.

No, we shouldn’t be able to own personal nuclear weapons and doomsday viruses. But let’s do it right instead of pretending the text doesn’t say what it says. [/quote]

I don’t have a problem with this on its face, but are you including states too? States can’t restrict any arms? Or states can but the federal government cannot?
[/quote]

The states seem incapable of restricting the “right” to a marriage, a right absent from the constitution. Seems to me a logically consistent individual would have to say no to your question.[/quote]

But that is a conclusion based on judge-made precedent, not in the scope of what we’re looking at here - which is true original intent (or one version it, any way).

I’ll get to my point re: states. We see the discussion here and most everyone is in agreement that certain weapons existing and being carried in civil society is a terrible idea. The Framers had a fix for this - they left the states alone. The Second Amendment - whatever its restrictions, whether protecting an individual or collective right, whatever - didn’t apply to the states.

And for good reason. States are charged with worrying about things like civil society, public safety, crime, all that stuff. The Framers designed a system that allowed states to do whatever they wanted with arms, and that way, for domestic purposes, states could balance rights of ownership against public dangers and developing technology. The feds couldn’t disarm people in the states (thus emedding the protection against tyrannical government aspect) but states sure could and could balance giving rights to citizens to stay ready for the militia with keeping safe in the streets.

So, if you adhere to original intent - truly, original intent - of course there’d be no nuclear vests owned by private individuals walking up and down the streets
states would make sure of it.

163

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
For those that subscribe to the theory that the Second Amendment codifies the right of citizens to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, what arms are citizens entitled to as a matter of right?

All of them?
[/quote]

Yes, all of them. And that’s why it needs to be amended rather than being squinted at just right, with ones head cocked just so, while reading it from behind through a reflection in a mirror.

No, we shouldn’t be able to own personal nuclear weapons and doomsday viruses. But let’s do it right instead of pretending the text doesn’t say what it says. [/quote]

I don’t have a problem with this on its face, but are you including states too? States can’t restrict any arms? Or states can but the federal government cannot?
[/quote]

The states seem incapable of restricting the “right” to a marriage, a right absent from the constitution. Seems to me a logically consistent individual would have to say no to your question.[/quote]

But that is a conclusion based on judge-made precedent, not in the scope of what we’re looking at here - which is true original intent (or one version it, any way).

I’ll get to my point re: states. We see the discussion here and most everyone is in agreement that certain weapons existing and being carried in civil society is a terrible idea. The Framers had a fix for this - they left the states alone. The Second Amendment - whatever its restrictions, whether protecting an individual or collective right, whatever - didn’t apply to the states.

And for good reason. States are charged with worrying about things like civil society, public safety, crime, all that stuff. The Framers designed a system that allowed states to do whatever they wanted with arms, and that way, for domestic purposes, states could balance rights of ownership against public dangers and developing technology. The feds couldn’t disarm people in the states (thus emedding the protection against tyrannical government aspect) but states sure could and could balance giving rights to citizens to stay ready for the militia with keeping safe in the streets.

So, if you adhere to original intent - truly, original intent - of course there’d be no nuclear vests owned by private individuals walking up and down the streets
states would make sure of it.[/quote]

Don’t get me wrong, I would say the individual state has more (perhaps much more) authority than the feds with this issue. I’m looking at it more from from federal action. And on the national level I’m NOT opposed to amending the 2nd, following a debate about the reality of science and technology and its usefulness in developing large scale killing tools.

However, this idea has been chipped away at and chipped away at. Local officials share a prayer together? A football coach prays with his small town team? A state defines state recognized marriage between a man and a woman? Etc. etc. The local must be beaten and reforged into the national.

Heck let’s look at the “bringing a shotgun to court” scenario. The man has no right to bring it in since the custodians have asked him not to bring it in. No different than a business. Here, again, rights end where the rights of others start. The court is not the shotgun wielding person’s property. It is our property, entrusted to others for its operation. It doesn’t need bizarre arguments about the 2nd for a local courthouse to say “hey, leave your guns outside.”

164

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, here’s the actual test. Is a large magazine fully automatic rifle, “arms?” We all said yes, since we don’t want to be silly. [/quote]

It is one of many things that fall under the category of arms: six-shooters, shotguns, MANPADS, pipe bombs, nuclear weapons.

Which of these things are protected under the 2A?

All of them? Where does it say this? [/quote]

You just said they all were Arms. Therefore, all are protected.
[/quote]

No.

There is no declared textual extension of 2A protection to every or every conceivable arm. This is not my opinion. If you disagree, quote it, keeping in mind that I have a good handle on what words mean in English.

Furthermore, this absolutism is ahistorical (as well as illogical), because unqualified Constitutional rights have been limited throughout American history – from contempt of court up to the Brandenburg test, infringement upon the right to bear arms on federal property (the ahistorical fringe absolutism you’re peddling would force the ludicrous spectacle of no infringement upon the right to bear arms
in a courtroom
for your brother’s sentencing, to which event you would be permitted to bring a backpack nuclear device), commercial speech unprotectedness
the list is long. This is clear to Scalia, to me, and to everyone in this thread who does not object to the Brandenburg test, e.g.

165

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.

166

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No.

There is no declared textual extension of 2A protection to every or every conceivable arm. This is not my opinion. If you disagree, quote it, keeping in mind that I have a good handle on what words mean in English.[/quote]

Every conceivable arms is an arm
Therefore, it is included in the all encompassing term “arms.”

False. My rights still end where others begin. The court house is not my property an is property commonly held. Just as I can ask people to disarm before entering my house or business, we can ask them to disarm before entering commonly held property, through its custodians.

As for simply owning a nuke, oh well. I don’t pretend plain passages say entirely different things because I don’t like the implications. Sorry. I couldn’t sleep at night. Frankly, the founders just didn’t have enough foresight. Doesn’t change what their words meant nor that we’re SUPPOSEDLY bound by it. Have the 2nd changed through the constitutional process. It’d be done and amended in a heartbeat. No more private nukes.

167

Not to mention that your argument would have us believe the founders were actually giving the federal government the power to restrict us to dull butter-knives. And only that much just in case they need us/the militia again some day. "Butter-knife can be used as an ‘arms,’ therefore 2nd amendment has been kept intact. I mean, hey, they didn’t say “all” when using the all-encompassing term “arms.”

168

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No.

There is no declared textual extension of 2A protection to every or every conceivable arm. This is not my opinion. If you disagree, quote it, keeping in mind that I have a good handle on what words mean in English.[/quote]

Every conceivable arms is an arm
Therefore, it is included in the all encompassing term “arms.” [/quote]

Nope. Nothing about every conceivable arm there. A right to handguns, which are arms, is a right to arms. Handgun – arm. Handguns – plural – arms. Right to handgun – right to arms. The truth of this claim is logically necessary per the definition of handgun.

No. Your house or business is not the state and is not constricted by the Bill of Rights. The state and its property are. The amendment doesn’t read, "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except in courthouses, or except in certain circumstances, or except when you’re on federal property with other people. It reads, “shall not be infringed.” Full stop. If you have an absolute right to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed by the state under any circumstance, the state cannot infringe upon your right to bear arms. Ever – not in its courthouses, not in its public schools. Ever. This is the ludicrous implication of what I will repeat is a fringe and ahistorical absolutism.

169

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No. Your house or business is not the state and is not constricted by the Bill of Rights. The state and its property are.[/quote]

The state is the collective I’s. And ‘it’s property’ is our collective property operated by officials representing us. So if my local folks don’t want guns in our local courthouse we reach an agreement about the rules as to how OUR property is to be run. We vote. And we vote for officials who ask people to disarm before coming into OUR property.

170

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not to mention that your argument would have us believe the founders were actually giving the federal government the power to restrict us to dull butter-knives.[/quote]

Uh, no, because reasonable interpretation of the text, spirit, and intent cannot include restriction of arms only to butter-knives.

Do you think the limitability entailed by the Brandenburg test (hereafter BT) “gives the federal government the power to restrict us to [using only the word “potato” in spoken communication]”? No, you don’t – because, though the BT unarguably limits certain kinds of an unqualifiedly protected conduct (speech, simpliciter), reasonable interpretation of spirit and intent protect the right.

172

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No. Your house or business is not the state and is not constricted by the Bill of Rights. The state and its property are.[/quote]

The state is the collective I’s.[/quote]

And this “collective I’s” is explicitly prohibited from infringing upon the right of the people to bear arms. Full stop.

[quote]
And ‘it’s property’ is our collective property operated by officials representing us.[/quote]

And these “officials representing us” are explicitly prohibited from infringing upon the right of the people to bear arms. Full stop.

[quote]
So if my local folks don’t want guns in our local courthouse we reach an agreement about the rules as to how OUR property is to be run.[/quote]

No, because these “local folks,” qua the government they collectively constitute, are explicitly prohibited from infringing upon the right of the people to bear arms. Full stop.

[quote]
We vote. And we vote for officials who ask people to disarm before coming into OUR property. [/quote]

No, because these “officials” are explicitly prohibited from infringing upon the right of the people to bear arms. Full stop.

173

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Nope. Nothing about every conceivable arm there.[/quote]

Yep, since Arms is all encompassing term for weaponry employed in warfare.
And since this is related to the need for the private citizen to pick up his arms and take his part in the militia/militias against an actor or actors powerful enough to threaten the very security of the state, common sense and reason is enough to tell you they weren’t talking about “something good enough for home defense.” Nope, says it right there. They expected weapons that wouldn’t be shocking to see in warfare. Yep, right there. Plain English.

What right to a handguns? What right to any gun? According to you there is no such thing. There is only a right to “arms.” Which to you, and your interpretation, can simply mean the right to a registered and dull butter-knife kept in a child-proof safe. Bull-puckey (spelling?)!

174

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Uh, no, because reasonable interpretation of the text, spirit, and intent cannot include restriction of arms only to butter-knives.[/quote]

If only we were sticking to reasonable interpretation of plainly stated text. If only. You just argued that because it does not say “all” the government has been empowered to to pick and choose the arms it will allow. A dull butter-knife is an “arms.” Therefore, the second is adhered too even in the case of the dull butter knife as sole legal arms. But because it “arms” and not “arm” you can have two dull-butter knives! You’re argument turned the 2nd amendment of the BoR into a federally enumerated power to disarm its citizenry
right, save the dull butter-knife registered under that citizen’s name.

175

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What right to a handguns? What right to any gun? According to you there is no such thing. There is only a right to “arms.” Which to you, and your interpretation, can simply mean the right to a registered and dull butter-knife kept in a child-proof safe. Bull-puckey (spelling?)!
[/quote]

No, it can’t simply mean that. See above. But anyway: if the state were to limit private gun ownership to only handguns, then people would have a right to handguns. Handguns are arms, and a right to handguns is a right to arms. People who have a right to handguns have a right to arms. They don’t have a right to all arms, but they have a right to arms. This is unarguable – a handgun is an arm, handguns are arms. A right to handguns is a right to arms, unarguably, necessarily.

So, a people that has a right to handguns has a right to arms. If they can keep and bear them, they have a right to keep and bear arms. This is not deniable, given the meaning of the words involved.

[A right only to handguns would not be Constitutional, per the spirit and intent of the BOR. The above is merely proof that your interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment is deficient in that it violates the logically necessary progression I’ve written above – and therefore does not stand as an argument for an absolute right to all conceivable arms.]

176

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.[/quote]

The salient points remain - nuclear weapons cannot be treated as an improved version of previous weapons systems and you are wrong to assert as much. They fundamentally change conflict dyads and have profound systemic and strategic implications.

177

Does “the right of the people to keep and bear arms
” not seem to imply a right that already existed? Look back at restrictions on arms at the time the amendment was passed(federal restrictions, since that is the level of government effected by the Constitution at the time). By doing that, we can figure out what can be restricted today without further amendments. Let’s say that there were no federal regulations on arms at the time
in order to regulate any arms today, an amendment would be needed.

178

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Uh, no, because reasonable interpretation of the text, spirit, and intent cannot include restriction of arms only to butter-knives.[/quote]

If only we were sticking to reasonable interpretation of plainly stated text. If only. You just argued that because it does not say “all” the government has been empowered to to pick and choose the arms it will allow
[/quote]


in accordance with
 (I’ve already typed it all out, many times). This deals with all the butter-knife nonsense. As does:

[quote]
Do you think the limitability entailed by the Brandenburg test (hereafter BT) “gives the federal government the power to restrict us to [using only the word “potato” in spoken communication]”? No, you don’t – because, though the BT unarguably limits certain kinds of an unqualifiedly protected conduct (speech, simpliciter), reasonable interpretation of spirit and intent protect the right.[/quote]

179

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[A right only to handguns would not be Constitutional, per the spirit and intent of the BOR. The above is merely proof that your interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment is deficient in that it violates the logically necessary progression I’ve written above – and therefore does not stand as an argument for an absolute right to all conceivable arms.][/quote]

My interpretation is correct and brave. Brave, because while I dislike the fact that it allows for the nuclear backpack, it does. Face it, own up to it. They meant ARMS, period, full stop. It’s ok to admit they were ignorant of nuclear weapons. It’s ok to admit that the constitution is flawed. Instead of this pretending its shortcomings only SEEM to exist because we just aren’t reading plain text while crossing our eyes, standing on our heads, all the while trying to mentally solve thermodynamics problems. You desire an outcome, and you’ll be damned if you won’t interpret with every ounce of interpretation in you in order to turn the 2nd into a federally enumerated power. Amend the damn thing if you want it changed. Is there nobody brave enough anymore? Do we all sit here waiting for “their judges” to retire or die of old age so we get “our interpretation in.” Amend it. The most extreme examples would be squashed in a heartbeat. Then we can actually have a damn national debate about what is left. “Instead of /wink /wink, if you just read it like this
Yeah, you see it too now, right? /wink /wink.”

180

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists is not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

P.S., a uniform doesn’t convey strategic insights. I’ve heard hard-boiled special operators advocate that the US should have undertaken a “pincer invasion” of Iran after Saddam was deposed via Iraq and Afghanistan. Qualified civilian policymakers can and should question military strategy. After all, the military is civilian led and war is merely the continuation of politics by other means. Don’t confuse that with civilians interjecting when it comes to the operational or tactical level, however.[/quote]

I really don’t care what you have to say on the topic until you have done something, anything, in the field other than sit in a classroom.

That’s not me being a dick either. I wouldn’t take a non-practicing Ph.D’s word on taxes over even a practicing senior accountant because that senior knows how stuff actually works in the real world.