G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So, does the government have the power to deny citizens the right to bear certain arms, or not?
Should people be allowed to carry handguns openly?
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Strange question, slasher. Of course the government has that power and the government uses it all the time. That is what we as citizens pay government employees to do.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I'm interested in Abatis's opinion on the subject.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
No, I do not agree. It's the height of ignorance to even remotely believe that the framers of the constitution, who had just experienced decades of oppression by their own central government (the last straw being that the british were attempting to confiscate all arms and powder from them to prevent them from defending themselves), would knowingly and willingly provide their new central government with any power whatsoever to restrict the populace to inferior arms so that they would be forced to be subservient to that new government. In this particular instance, 'reasonable' means nothing more than submission. Something that is the exact opposite of what the framers intended.
would reasonable include the combination assault rifle with grenade launcher
SmarterthanYou
rebel
every instrument of war that the soldier can carry in to battle should most definitely be available to 'we the people'.
that would include shoulder launched anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles
And suitcase a-bombs? Ludicrous idiots.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yes.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
soldiers are not given suitcase A bombs for combat, you total fucking moron. this is why idiots like you should stay out of adult conversations. you don't know what you're talking about.
Suitcase a-bombs exist. Why am I not able to have one? I need it to defend myself against a government that has thousands of a-bombs and millions of troops to use against me. I want a shoulder fired atomic grenade launcher, too. They are available I understand. I want one. Ignoramus imbeciles.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
i guess we'll add reading comprehension to your growing list of handicaps, since I said that soldiers don't carry them in to combat, not that they don't exist. the rest of your bullshit diatribe is just you crying that I whipped your ass in the debate.
The goddamned debate, imbecile, concerns what is or is not permissible for average Americans to have and use in their defense of whatever it is they are trying to defend. I kicked YOUR ass and you know it. You don't have a clue where to draw the firearms control line and neither do I but I admit something needs to be done while you want nothing to be done. Fuck you, jerkwad, dumberthananyoneIevermet. I AM THE CHAMPION!!!!!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the founding fathers said you lost. they are laughing at you as you fume about getting your ass kicked.
If the founding fathers laid it all out so perfectly then why is the entire nation still wondering just WTF they meant in 2nd Amendment rights? This exact issue has already been examined by the USSC several times and each time something different comes out of their decisions. How do you propose to change that? Idiot. Consider yourself pwned big time.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
people are still 'wondering' about it because they are afraid....of each other mostly, but still afraid. 'shall not be infringed' is pretty damned clear and specific, but you sheeple can't handle that kind of freedom. You clamor for subjugation and slavery for fear that another citizen is going to shoot up a mall, not even bothering to remember that in the last century, governments have killed more people than citizens with guns. The USSC has become nothing more than a political bench tool, which is why you fuckheads like to argue about liberals and conservatives all the damned time, accomplishing nothing more than surrendering more of your freedom for a feeling of safety. you've been pwned as hard as anyone could ever be. come back when you've read the constitutional commentaries and debates. maybe then you'll stand a chance.
You lost. I WON. Quit whining.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
As I said, for the weapons of warfare; bombs, missiles, artillery, jet fighters, armed tanks and all weapons of indiscriminate destruction including chm/bio/nuke WMD's, there is no claimable by a citizen (or deniable by government) "right" to own them as the powers of development, acquisition, maintenance, ownership and deployment of such things has been conferred by the people to government. Short of rescinding those powers, the people can't claim what they have surrendered. As an example, the citizens can not claim the right to print their own money (or claim the 1st Amendment's protection of the equipment / materials to do so) nor is the government denying the "right of a free press" by prosecuting counterfeiters. The power to coin money has been completely surrendered by the people . . .
As for other weapons, STY's "every instrument of war that the soldier can carry in to battle should most definitely be available to 'we the people'." I agree that it would be unconstitutional to outright ban those items.
I do believe that even if SCOTUS were to apply the most stringent standards of "fundamental right" status to the right to arms (which it has alluded to) and to apply strict scrutiny (presently not assigned to the right to arms) to the contested law, I believe the government could sustain the tax / registration scheme (NFA-34) that is in place now for full auto machine guns and all manner of "destructive devices" of war that are legally in the hands of hundreds of thousands of private citizens. So that isn't so much a ban or a right's denial but the government arguing (and proving) that the "the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling [government] interest".
The preexisting right to arms was secured to perpetuate the general militia principle which of course still exists; as long as there are civic minded citizens willing to assemble in time of need, bringing their own arms for mutual aid, then the principle remains alive. As such, the standard or criteria to determine if an arm enjoys 2nd Amendment protection remains applicable; if it is of the type:
________________
". . . as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment." -- Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158., passage cited directly in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
________________
It is a fine line that SCOTUS has had to toe since 1903. That's when the constitutional means of calling the citizenry to service, organizing and training them as militia and deploying them as militia was extinguished. Presently, NO entity, public or private, is empowered to call the citizenry to service, organize, train or deploy them as militia . . . Any and all civilian militia service obligation and all state militia powers under Art I, § 8 has been removed by Congress.
If one really wanted to argue the nitty-gritty, Congress relieving the citizenry from all organized militia obligation extinguished any and all interest the federal government could be said to possess in the one weapon a citizen would have mustered with if called. In that regard, if you really wanted to institute a gun / gun owner registration, you should lobby for an active militia law to be re-enacted by Congress. At least then you would have a list of militia aged gun owners.