dadoalex, You are so rabidly anti-gun it is actually pretty funny. Anyone that carries a weapon is a premeditated murderer? Really? I'm not sure how you expect to be taken seriously. "If you can't stop them with ten..." I think you are misguided.... there are many shootings, even those with trained law enforcement officers that involve lots of rounds an no hits, or no "stopping" hits. Tell police they are trained and if they can't stop someone with ten rounds...blah, blah, blah... see what kind of reaction you get. Ten rounds or 100 it's my choice, just like it's your choice to not defend yourself.
How can any ban be enacted when the powers of government are exactingly defined and thus limited? Why is it your assumption that government powers expand with time but rights are fixed and static? I note you quoted but ignored the part of my post rebutting your theories on the constitutionality of gun control: "In 2008 the reasoning / support for upholding a wide swath of gun control was invalidated by the US Supreme Court (the "militia right" and "state's right" and the general, "collective right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment). This pretty much makes infirm every lower federal and state court decision handed down over the last 70 or so years that "consistently found that reasonable regulation of the types and numbers of weapons a person can own is constitutional" . . . Especially those that rest their decision exclusively on those invalidated interpretations. Your premise can not be applied without a discussion of the specific regulation / restriction and an understanding of the reasoning used to declare it constitutional."
We are stuck with citing the 2nd Amendment as the guarantee of gun rights and with that comes the baggage of the intent of the Amendment; the "why" it was demanded that the pre-existing right to arms be held immune from the powers granted to the federal government. So, Courts have examined the 'object' of the Amendment. That object was primarily to ensure the continuation of the general militia concept so that both the states and he federal government would have a ready pool of properly equipped citizens to call up at a moments notice to aid the civil authority. This is where we get the primary protection sphere of the Amendment. The 2nd Amendment protects the types of arms that are useful to a militia and that can be effectively used by an organized force in the types of engagements that militia are expected to face if called. US v Miller articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that the Supreme Court uses to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type: In common use at the time and/or that constitute the ordinary military equipment / are usually employed in civilized warfare and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens. If the type of arm meets any one of these criteria the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession must be repelled. I certainly endorse the Federalist's arguments against adding a bill of rights, even if only to demonstrate and explain the rights theory the framers embraced. I also endorse the Anti-Federalist's argument about why a bill of rights was necessary. While the Federalists "lost" that argument about adding a bill of rights, the 9th and 10th Amendments stand as testaments to the universal acceptance of Federalist thought about conferred powers and retained rights. Above all I am an adherent of the principles of conferred powers and retained rights. I believe the Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers the people once possessed but then, in a very limited fashion, surrendered specific powers to permit the federal government to perform specific duties. Among those duties is to declare war, raise, support and control the military forces. I therefore believe there is no claimable right to own weapons like missiles or rockets or aerial bombs or WMDs because we have surrendered those interests to the federal government and at that point, preemption and supremacy takes over. As a direct example of this principle one could look to Article I, Sec 8 cl 11 . . . Privateers could no longer act on their own, they needed the permission of Congress so I think the principle behind that grant / reservation of power over civilians owning / operating weapons of war (perhaps the most devastating of the day) can be extended to government's ability to restrict civilian ownership of modern weapons of open and indiscriminate warfare. So, even if someone thinks they should have the right to own a weapon of open and indiscriminate warfare, I think the government, under challenge, could sustain a power to restrict possession and use by civilians and that would be Constitutionally legitimate. So, simply put, what we the people have conferred to government we can not claim as a right. The corollary to conferred powers is retained rights. The interests that we the people have NOT surrendered to government but retained, government can not claim any power over.
I don't examine the Constitution or rely on a possibly agenda driven re-re-re-definition of any word in the Constitution to tell me what my rights are. My rights predate the Constitution and the governmental authority created by it. By the Constitution's structure, no governmental agency has any legitimate import on the extent of my rights, only of laws. This also extends to the courts including SCOTUS . . . As a creation of the Constitution their duty is NOT to determine if a right exists or whether it is popular or whether it is acceptable to society to affirm the right. Their only duty is to decide whether a law enacted is beyond the strictly limited, clearly defined powers delegated to the legislature. And with all the current "assault weapon" BS going on, I find especially repugnant any member of Congress pontificating on the extent of my rights or their assurance that their actions won't harm my rights. Their purview is only the creation of law at the citizen's behest in conformance with the Constitution, not the citizen's rights. Their only legitimate concern regarding my rights is to not exceed the legislative authority granted to them by the Constitution . . . if the SOB's could only stick to that, all our rights would be safe. Well, it is the age old rule of statutory interpretation; expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- the express mention of one thing excludes all others. If it isn't there it isn't a power and there is nothing in the Constitution that grants government a shred of power to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen. "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation." MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Can't get any clearer than that . . . That strikes me as irreconcilably contradictory to the point of being an oxymoron. We must surrender our resistance to invented, illegitimate powers so we can honor the principle of consenting to be governed? The government violating the principles of its establishment and exceeding the powers granted to it is the very condition under which the people are supposed to rescind their consent to be governed, retake the powers originally conferred to government using the means secured by the 2nd Amendment if necessary . . . That's why we must resist allowing government to usurp powers never granted to it over our arms . . . those arms are the means to exercise our original, ultimate.right of self-defense.
The people who made the constitution saw weaponry and its ability rising around them, besides this they knew that technology constantly moved forward. Nuclear weapons perhaps not, but which person do you know who could afford or have the resources to build a nuclear weapon? The concept of the militia I agree with. Perhaps we should have more towns institute a militia of all the men within the town, then have them trained with so called assault weapons, or simply arms. Securing a free state is to protect it from dangers abroad and from your own government. This cannot be done through restriction on gun ownership or any armament. Its unreasonable to believe that our government is perfect or pure or that is is and will remain that way. It is also unreasonable to believe that a militia would be able to appear and fight off a home invader. Not only this but the citizens must be able to keep and bear arms if ever such a militia was formed in the event it was necessary to protect the security of a free state.
Thus it is a right for citizens to be able to buy and own such a weapon, or any weapon. As I said, at Lexington and Concord during the War for Independence men died defending their rights to bear arms, and they used them to gain their independence.
We have differing views "silly on its face" does not make it so. As it happens, I do believe all the things you mentions are weapons and thus qualify as "arms". Next time you can afford to buy a predator drone, a missile, or an AA gun tell me.
"So it takes a little longer to complete your mass murder. What else have you to do on that day?" So you're saying that all gun owners are mass murderers? By your tenet then all women are hookers, all police are Gestapo, all business owners are crooks and scammers, and so on? Do you even realize how insane that sounds?
All good, nothing to disagree with here. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that taking an absolutist position (such as, I have right to possess a nuclear weapon), runs counter to the mission with which we've charged government. At the same time, I agree we must be vigilant against allowing this to become a means for government to invent illegitimate powers, such as has been done by abusing the commerce clause. Agreed.
That is no more absolutist than "I have the right to possess a revolver". The question for a judge, should a litigant claim the right to possess a nuke, is whether said possession potentially enhances the security of the state in question; and it should not be difficult for that judge to conclude that possession of a nuke by an individual achieves the opposite.
If you do not intend to kill someone then why carry a gun? If you do intend then you have admitted premeditation. I note the "why carry if you do not intend" is not answered no matter how many times it's asked.
I try to ignore the nonsensical. When you show me your cruise missile and the anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back of your pickup then we can talk.
For your convenience a copy of the Declaration. I don't find anything in there about "defending their rights to bear arms." When the Constitution was written most states opposed a standing federal army. The 2nd was instituted to ensure a fighting force could be provided without the cost or risk of a standing army. If, as in the Switzerland you guys love to reference so often, possession of these types of weapons were directly related to membership in a "well regulated militia" and the responsibilities implied therein (regular training) you'd have no objection from me. But, most people, especially people who own these weapons, do not and never have served in the regular or national guard or reserves. - - - Updated - - - I have about $220k in ready cash and another $400k in credit lines. Where's the store that I can legally buy my AA gun and have it mounted?
Thats a joke.... for every George Zimmerman, there are several justified self defense shootings regularly. By the way, George Zimmerman has not been found guilty yet, and quite possibly may not. Face it the government is on my side, or they would not issue carry licences.
If your intent is not to kill lots of people very quickly then why own a weapon capable of performing that task? I did not call all gun owners "mass murders." Only those who insist on owning guns whose only reason for existence is mass murder. If you do not like the label then why own the weapon?
Dismiss what you don't understand; not novel but effective in on-line debate I guess. Sigh . . . really? Christ on a Pink Pony that's sad.
Don't wet yourself Sugarplum . . . [video=youtube;uCppmoZiXUY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY&feature=en dscreen[/video]
And for every "justified self defense shootings" there dozens that are not. Despite the efforts of the NRA a carry permit is not a license to kill and you are not the arbiter of whether your actions are justified.
So, you're in favor of registration. "It is a common misconception that machine guns, silencers (suppressors), sawed-off shotguns, and short barreled rifles are illegal to own. This is entirely untrue. Your Constitutional Right to Bear Arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (Title 26, USC Chapter 53) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 make formal provisions for the private ownership of these weapons. Individuals (ie. non-firearms dealer or police dept.) are allowed to purchase machineguns that are classified as "Transferable", that is, weapons that were registered as machine guns prior to May of 1986. Since there are a finite number of these weapons, prices are continually rising. Silencers, Sawed-off Shotguns, and Short Barreled Rifles are still in current productions, so the prices of these items remains fairly constant. For an Individual the requirements to purchase these weapons are: 1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old 2. Be of sane mind 3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol 4. Have never been convicted of a felony 5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax) 6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes 7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application. After approximately 90-120 days, during which time the FBI runs your prints to verify your identity, etc., the transfer will come back approved. Only after the transfer is approved can you take possession of your item. It is interesting to note that since 1934, when machine guns, silencers, short shotguns/rifles began to be regulated, there has only been one case of a legally owned weapon being used in a crime - and the user was a police officer." OK. I can go along with that.
Not by Concealed Weapon Permit holders. 60% of gun murders happen in the 50 largest metro areas of the nation and 70% to over 90% of both murder victims and murderers in large cities have criminal records. Those leftist run urban hellholes are criminal utopias and the worst of them have the strictest gun control. Howsabout you focus on not letting criminals out of jail? You already have a registry of these violent criminals but you allow them to roam free . . . why the the heck don't you go after them before you come after those who are the least likely to commit a crime? I have a theory . . . Those violent criminals are less of a threat to leftist social ideology than citizens who consider thmeselves free and independent and claim their rights. We scare you more than murderous thugs, which is why you assign their qualities to us, to justify to yourself your intellectually and morally bankrupt agenda serving thought process. Disgusting and all the more reason to resist you and never surrender. You are what solidifies our resolve. Statement that govenment drones, tomahawks, tanks and soldiers will soone be coming to annihilate me (while he rests comfortably in his trailer) in 5 . . . 4 . . . . 3 . . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . LOL at you.
Interesting view and you clarified it well here, but I do have a question. What about the fact that rights are inalienable?
While those weapons are certainly within the protection sphere of the 2nd Amendemnt the government has, for now, successfully argued that it should be allowed to continue with the tax scheme that limits the possession and use of those arms. Like all current gun control laws post Heller and McDonald, NFA-34 is infirm and subject to challenge. I can't promise the government's argument will fail and the people will prevail, but at least within our ability to try. There are many, many laws to be challenged and invalidated before we try to retake Title II arms though. All in good time.
Well you can't buy a predator drone, you can't buy a radar guided missile, and you can just barley afford an AA gun with ammunition. Sorry to say so there isn't currently a store selling such weapons, nor a place to have it mounted, that is if you can get a truck big enough and the proper equipment. End of sarcasm here. First of all you may think this is funny, it is not. None of what you said sounds ridiculous, as much as you would like it to. The principle is still the same, and by reason there isn't a need for you to own an AA gun is there? So you wouldn't buy one, and very few if any people would sell one. Companies who made such weapons may not even sell to civilians. Its not as simple as simple as access meaning use of. Much less the access to such a weapon causing people to automatically use it for evil purposes.
