Which constitutional amendment is the most important?

[Cicero]

I'm anti- hand gun. Like these whimpy liberals:




Lynyrd Skynyrd

Ronnie Van Zandt's brother Donnie formed the band ".38 Special." While the tune is called "Mr. Saturday Night Special," and SNS's are indeed useless, Ronnie does have the lyric, "Shoots him full of .38 holes." Since this tune came out in 1975 and ".38 Special" was formed in 1975, that part could be a dig at his brother.

While Aerosmith is generally known as a leftist-type group, Steve and Joe Perry own and shoot select-fire weapons.

[Cicero]

Let's say a rifle of a calibre matching or approximating the military cartriges in use by modern armies, with a semi-auto action and a detachable magazine of greater capacity than five rounds.


Let's see how your definition mirrors the US Assault Weapons Ban definition of an "Assault Rifle"

semi-automatic rifle. The same. Except without full-automatic capability it isn't an "Assault Rifle."

Detachable magazine. The same.

Pistol grip type stock. You didn't include. But what is the objection to a pistol grip on a semi-auto weapon?

Bayonet mount. You didn't include. Except these are features on rifles not banned.

Flash hider, grenade launcher, and/or threaded barrel. You didn't include. Except these are features on rifles not banned.

So the "Assault Rifle" is really any rifle that looks menacing. If you used the term "military-style rifles" you could have included the SKS and the M-1 carbine.

[Piscivore]

Let's see how your definition mirrors the US Assault Weapons Ban definition of an "Assault Rifle"

semi-automatic rifle. The same. Except without full-automatic capability it isn't an "Assault Rifle."

Detachable magazine. The same.

Pistol grip type stock. You didn't include. But what is the objection to a pistol grip on a semi-auto weapon?

Bayonet mount. You didn't include. Except these are features on rifles not banned.

Flash hider, grenade launcher, and/or threaded barrel. You didn't include. Except these are features on rifles not banned.

So the "Assault Rifle" is really any rifle that looks menacing. If you used the term "military-style rifles" you could have included the SKS and the M-1 carbine.

As you like. How many Americans do you think actually have a use for, beyond just ownership, of this kind of weapon on a daily basis?

[Cicero]

As you like. How many Americans do you think actually have a use for, beyond just ownership, of this kind of weapon on a daily basis?

Perhaps you could advise us on what firearm Americans shoot every day?

[Suddenly]

As you like. How many Americans do you think actually have a use for, beyond just ownership, of this kind of weapon on a daily basis?

Daily really isn't a fair criteria. These are for special occasions, like being attacked by Apaches, New Years Eve, and overthrowing Paraguay.

[Piscivore]

Perhaps you could advise us on what firearm Americans shoot every day?
Nope. Can you?

Did you find the post where JoetheJuggler "parrots the tired anti-gun argument about the "need" for a particular firearm." yet?

[Piscivore]

Daily really isn't a fair criteria. These are for special occasions, like being attacked by Apaches, New Years Eve, and overthrowing Paraguay.
:D

[Newtons Bit]

My dad shoots a shotgun just about every day...

[Cicero]

Nope. Can you?

I am not the one who made such a stipulation for your idea and JoeThe Juggler's of having a use for "Assault Rifles" on a daily basis. Do you "have a use for" your undisclosed type of firearm on a daily basis?

Did you find the post where JoetheJuggler "parrots the tired anti-gun argument about the "need" for a particular firearm." yet?

Substitute "use" for "need." It is a distinction without a difference.

Next you will be declaring Suddenly is not actually anti-gun.

[Cicero]

My dad shoots a shotgun just about every day...

And many owners of Mini 14's, AR-15's, etc shoot them just about every day. That must mean they are as essential to their lifestyle as shooting a shotgun is for your dad. They just spend more on their ammo.

[Newtons Bit]

And many owners of Mini 14's, AR-15's, etc shoot them just about every day. That must mean they are as essential to their lifestyle as shooting a shotgun is for your dad. They just spend more on their ammo.

His .223 ammo is cheaper than his shotgun ammo, but that's probably because he bought 20,000 rounds of surplus Aussie ammo 15 years ago...

[Suddenly]

Next you will be declaring Suddenly is not actually anti-gun.

It depends. I'm all for shotguns and am pro-hunting as a wildlife control measure (translation: shoot the bastards before I hit them with my car).

I don't mind others having guns as long as they can hit what they aim at and don't have stray bullets wandering about... this is why if I were dictator only shotguns and low powered rifles would be legal and training mandatory.

I'm not a rookie as to these things. I've had a few guns pulled on me and a few other assorted death threats, my general attitude is that if someone wants to shoot me he has to bring his own gun. I don't see how being armed would have done anything helpful for me in those spots. Once you are looking down the barrel, the gun merely becomes something else the guy can steal from you.

I prefer the bow for self defense. The one time I had a break-in, turned out to be an innocent mistake by a drunk when I forgot to lock the door, I popped out of the hallway with the bow pulled back and the guy crapped himself... Right now I'm out of practice so I stick to the cricket bat.

[Piscivore]

I am not the one who made such a stipulation for your idea and JoeThe Juggler's of having a use for "Assault Rifles" on a daily basis. Do you "have a use for" your undisclosed type of firearm on a daily basis?
No. I was just asking a question.

You seem to be loathe to answer any. Why is that?

I take it you have not found the post where JoetheJuggler "parrots the tired anti-gun argument about the "need" for a particular firearm"?

Have you read my posts so that you understand what my position is? Can you tell me what you think it is? Or are you just blindly contradicting straw arguments for which your rhetoric has been pre-prepared?

[JoeTheJuggler]

He parrots the tired anti-gun argument about the "need" for a particular firearm.
Where did I do that? I suspect you're referring to my arguing that the "daily usefulness" criteria that Suddenly suggested still doesn't make the distinction I'm asking about.

ETA: I suspect on this point you and I agree. The question of "need" or "daily use" doesn't make the distinction I'm asking about.


Since JoeTheJuggler has not yet posted his definition of an "assault weapon," perhaps you could provide your own.


Such a definition is not necessary to address my question which I see you are still ducking. I have already rephrased my question in a way that doesn't use "assault weapon" at all. I can do it again:

Given that the 2nd Amendment used the term "arms" and not "firearms" how can you [whoever makes the following claim] claim that the 2nd Amendment establishes an individual right to own ANY type of firearm-- including firearms that were not even remotely similar to firearms that existed when the amendment was drafted-- but that it does not establish a similar individual right to own other types of arms (chemical, biological, nuclear, or whatever other kind of arms you agree there is no individual right to own)?

It's just an awkward question.

I prefer to use the pithier version where I ask something like, "How is it that "arms" in the Second Amendment can be said to refer to something like an Uzi but not to refer to weaponized Ricin or anthrax? (Again, there's no need to get hung up on Uzis or Ricin or whatever--those are merely shorthand for what I said in the more awkward wording.)

ETA: The fact that the founding fathers could anticipate the advancement of technology in firearms and other kinds of arms still does not make the distinction I'm after.

Also for clarity, you could imagine every time I say "individual right" I have said "individual right divorced from the need for citizen militias or the military". I accept that originally it was an individual right, because the government didn't always pass out guns to soldiers--you often had to provide your own. But that situation is long gone.

[KingMerv00]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure KingMerv intended it to be a 2nd Amendment discussion. Early on he didn't have much to say about other responses, but quickly went to challenge those who ranked the 2nd before the 1st.

*unbail on thread*

I'm back from Vegas.

I did not know what direction this thread would take. My surprise was genuine.

*rebail on thread*

[JoeTheJuggler]

*unbail on thread*

I'm back from Vegas.

I did not know what direction this thread would take. My surprise was genuine.

*rebail on thread*

Really? You didn't know what direction the thread would take when your post that initiated the gun debate was post number 2?

ETA: Also you should know that if you mention the 2nd Amendment in any context and however tangential to a larger topic, the discussion will become another gun debate! :)

[KingMerv00]

Really? You didn't know what direction the thread would take when your post that initiated the gun debate was post number 2?

ETA: Also you should know that if you mention the 2nd Amendment in any context and however tangential to a larger topic, the discussion will become another gun debate! :)

*Losing commitment to staying bailed on thread*

I knew some people would pick the 2nd. I mused about the idea, but was thunderstruck by how many actually did. I thought it might be an interesting argument between the 10 or so of the other amendments.

*Weakly re-rebails on thread*

[JoeTheJuggler]

I knew some people would pick the 2nd. I mused about the idea, but was thunderstruck by how many actually did. I thought it might be an interesting argument between the 10 or so of the other amendments.

The NRA is one of the (if not the) largest non-profit organizations in the world. And your question seems tailor-made, since most civil libertarians consider the Bill of Rights as a whole to be important rather than stressing any specific amendment. (Unlike NRA types who are known for pushing for "2nd Amendment rights" specifically. In fact, in the NRA, I'll be there's nothing else they agree on but that the 2nd Amendment is the most important.)

Anyway, the Second Amendment is the same as abortion in this regard. If you mention the term, you can expect any broader discussion to become another generic abortion debate. I've tried to use it as an example in broader ethical, moral or philosophical discussions. It doesn't work. At least one side in each of those debates sees it only as an opportunity to rehash the same talking points arguments they've made over an over.

[Cicero]

The NRA is one of the (if not the) largest non-profit organizations in the world. And your question seems tailor-made, since most civil libertarians consider the Bill of Rights as a whole to be important rather than stressing any specific amendment. (Unlike NRA types who are known for pushing for "2nd Amendment rights" specifically. In fact, in the NRA, I'll be there's nothing else they agree on but that the 2nd Amendment is the most important.)

And yet the NRA, or "NRA types" as you refer to them, consistently throws Class III firearm owners under the greyhound. They couldn't care less about arguing for them. That they would be likely to defend the right of American citizens to bear nuclear weapons, as you imagine they would, is doubtful since they do not defend the right of American citiznes to bear ATF registered select-fire weapons.

Anyway, the Second Amendment is the same as abortion in this regard. If you mention the term, you can expect any broader discussion to become another generic abortion debate. I've tried to use it as an example in broader ethical, moral or philosophical discussions. It doesn't work. At least one side in each of those debates sees it only as an opportunity to rehash the same talking points arguments they've made over an over.

And your nuclear/bio weapon talking points is a fresh approach?

[Piscivore]

And your nuclear/bio weapon talking points is a fresh approach?

Can't you just answer the question?

[JoeTheJuggler]

And yet the NRA, or "NRA types" as you refer to them, consistently throws Class III firearm owners under the greyhound. They couldn't care less about arguing for them. That they would be likely to defend the right of American citizens to bear nuclear weapons, as you imagine they would, is doubtful since they do not defend the right of American citiznes to bear ATF registered select-fire weapons.
I don't imagine anyone would defend an individual right to bear nuclear weapons. I just want to know how you distinguish some arms from other arms based on the 2nd Amendment.

NRA and NRA members have indeed opposed assault weapon bans.

And your nuclear/bio weapon talking points is a fresh approach?
I've never run into it before. I think many people just assume the 2nd Amendment is strictly about firearms or "guns".

My main point is that what a gun was at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified was no more like an automatic assault weapon than it was like chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. They were single shot things that took a trained soldier close to a minute to reload. If "arms" refers to modern weapons that can spray death into a crowd of people, then why doesn't it refer to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? What distinguishes firearms?

[Cicero]

I don't imagine anyone would defend an individual right to bear nuclear weapons. I just want to know how you distinguish some arms from other arms based on the 2nd Amendment.

NRA and NRA members have indeed opposed assault weapon bans.

The "Assault Weapon" ban had zero to do with select-fire/full auto weapons.

I've never run into it before. I think many people just assume the 2nd Amendment is strictly about firearms or "guns".

Are anti 2nd Amendment rights folks interested in anything other than firearms?

My main point is that what a gun was at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified was no more like an automatic assault weapon than it was like chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. They were single shot things that took a trained soldier close to a minute to reload. If "arms" refers to modern weapons that can spray death into a crowd of people, then why doesn't it refer to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? What distinguishes firearms?

And when the 1st Amendment was ratified, there was no phonograph, telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, TV, internet, etc, yet they all seem to be covered today. But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Perhaps the nuclear/bio weapons are similarly excluded.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are anti 2nd Amendment rights folks interested in anything other than firearms?
Painting your opponents as "anti 2nd Amendment" is a disingenuous way to argue. We are arguing about what kind of a right the 2nd Amendment grants. My position (which I stated earlier when asked) is that the individual right was linked to military capabilities. (It's funny that people who are strict constructionists on other matters have no problem with re-jiggering the 2nd Amendment to claim it establishes an individual right independent of the military.)

At any rate, I'm interested in how you get "arms" to refer to "firearms" that were not imagined by the framers, yet not other arms that weren't imagined.




And when the 1st Amendment was ratified, there was no phonograph, telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, TV, internet, etc, yet they all seem to be covered today.

But what distinguishes other arms from assault weapons (which are not similarly excluded)?

It would be as if someone held the position that the First Amendment does cover radio broadcasts but not movies.

The strongest argument I've heard is the one Suddenly spelled out. That their position is that while the 2nd Amendment establishes an individual right, that right is not absolute and is still subject to government regulation. You seem to agree to this, since you have no problem banning fully automatic weapons. You did mention the yelling fire in a crowded theater, though you have yet to explicitly say that the difference between assault weapons and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons isn't about whether or not the 2nd Amendment was referring to them, but about whether it's reasonable to ban some arms.

So the question really isn't about a fundamental right (as NRA likes to frame the debate), but about what constitute reasonable limits on it. Like banning semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to automatic weapons, or selling guns to people on the terrorist watch list, and so on.

So really the debate isn't about a fundamental individual right, but about where we draw the line wrt to what is reasonable or unreasonable for an individual to own.

[Cicero]

If "arms" refers to modern weapons that can spray death into a crowd of people, then why doesn't it refer to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? What distinguishes firearms?

Is that all they do in your estimation? You definitely have an axe to grind concerning American citizen ownership of semi-auto rifles and ATF registered select-fire mg's and smg's. Why is this?

[KingMerv00]

What distinguishes firearms?

Is that all they do in your estimation? You definitely have an axe to grind concerning American citizen ownership of semi-auto rifles and ATF registered select-fire mg's and smg's. Why is this?

Question ignored.

[Cicero]

Question ignored.

I thought you were still recovering from the shock that the 2nd Amendment placed 2nd in your poll. Imagine if it placed first, you would be keeping company with Lohan at Promises.

[KingMerv00]

Question ignored again.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is that all they do in your estimation? You definitely have an axe to grind concerning American citizen ownership of semi-auto rifles and ATF registered select-fire mg's and smg's. Why is this?

Still ducking the question, I see.

I have no ax to grind. I think the NRA's position on most (if not all) gun control laws is irresponsible and dangerous to society.

ETA: I'll try asking my question a different way. Do you think a federal, state or municipal law that bans assault weapons violates the 2nd Amendment? If so, why is that a violation but not laws that prohibit owning chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? Again, the founding fathers no more intended to protect your right to own an assault weapon than they intended to protect your right to own chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

As you have pointed out, the NRA's official position is pretty much what Suddenly described: the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to own arms, but that right is not absolute, and the government has the right to limit that right based on notions of safety and the good of society. Trouble is, when they're opposing a law that would ban assault weapons (or whatever), they don't argue it that way. Instead they talk about such a law as an attempt to take away their 2nd Amendment rights.

[MikeMangum]

This has always been my point. The Constitution, in its entirity, is our protection.

I guess the Constitution really is a living document. That piece of paper is able to apprehend, try, and punish people who violate our rights all on its own. Not bad for something without opposable thumbs.

[Apology]

Well, without the 1st Amendment I don't imagine we'd be able to have a dumb 7-page argument about the 2nd amendment and gun rights... :boxedin:

The way I see it, without the 1st Amendment, we wouldn't have been able to demand all the other amendments or even express our desires for these rights. All of the amendments are important, but without the 1st, we've got no freedom at all. It was my understanding that our desire for freedom of speech and religion was the basis for the creation of the United States in the first place.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, without the 1st Amendment I don't imagine we'd be able to have a dumb 7-page argument about the 2nd amendment and gun rights... :boxedin:

The way I see it, without the 1st Amendment, we wouldn't have been able to demand all the other amendments or even express our desires for these rights. All of the amendments are important, but without the 1st, we've got no freedom at all. It was my understanding that our desire for freedom of speech and religion was the basis for the creation of the United States in the first place.

Couldn't you say the same about pretty much any of the Bill of Rights?

Freedom of speech would be meaningless if the government were allowed to arrest you and hold you indefinitely without charges (no habeas corpus), or if you could be arrested or searched without due process (perhaps for using your so-called "freedom of speech").

That's why my response was that the Bill of Rights were ratified as a block concurrently with the ratification of the Constitution. I think as unit, they're the most important.

Some of them are so much a part of the fabric of our society that we don't even consider them important (like the 3rd Amendment). But try to imagine a government allowed to quarter soldiers in your house, and see if you'd still effectively have any freedom of speech and so on?

Many of the later amendments wouldn't even be necessary except that our culture did a crappy job of adhering to the principles in the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (We really shouldn't have needed amendments to abolish slavery or extend the vote to women, for examples.)

[Cicero]

(We really shouldn't have needed amendments to abolish slavery or extend the vote to women, for examples.)

Superimposing post mores on previous historical periods, while the opiate of the sanctimonious crowd, is not only folly, but results in a fustian historical perspective. In other words, does saying women should of had the vote back in 1791 get you laid?

[KingMerv00]

Superimposing post mores on previous historical periods, while the opiate of the sanctimonious crowd, is not only folly, but results in a fustian historical perspective. In other words, does saying women should of had the vote back in 1791 get you laid?

Question ignored again again.

[linusrichard]

Late to the party. Haven't read the thread. My take:

1st is definitely in the top tier. I'm sure it's been discussed to death before me, so I'll just leave it at that as just being obviously one of the most important.

2nd, I totally get the argument that it's the most important, because it secures all the other rights. But I'm torn, because I only get that in theory. In practice, does that ever happen? Could it ever happen? In practice, doesn't it just secure our rights to hunt and not be burgled or mugged? I'll still put it in the top tier, but I'm torn.

4th is definitely top-tier. Even with a fourth amendment, we have unreasonable searches and seizures fairly often. I shudder to think where we would be without one.

5th is up there too. You've got grand juries (pretty good), double jeopardy (very good), self-incrimination (medium good), due process (extremely good), and takings (extremely good, but could arguably be better). DP alone might send this one to the top tier, but with all that other stuff, it's definitely a contender.

6th is definitely way up there. Speedy public trial by an impartial jury. Nature of charges. Compulsory process for subpoenaing witnesses. Confrontation! Assistance of counsel!!! Shoot, if the 2nd amendment protects all our other rights in theory, assistance of counsel does it in practice (at least with respect to criminal prosecutions).

7th, not in the top tier. I like jury trials, some don't. But I don't think we'd be lost without them. And the second part of the amendment would probably be general practice without the seventh amendment anyway, so, yeah. It's nice, but not one of the most important.

8th. Call me back when the death penalty is ruled unconstitutional.

9th. Should be totally unnecessary. Should be a truism. As it is, it's completely ineffectual. People all the time say "show me where there's a right to privacy in the constitution" as they complain about activist judges, apparently unaware that they are construing the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Not in the top tier.

10th. A truism. Could say a lot more here I guess, but won't. Not in the top tier. The concept behind it is v. important, but the amendment itself, like I say, a truism.

11th. Better to have it, better to not? I don't know. Even if the eleventh is good, it's not one of the best.

14th. Oh man, one of the big ones. EP, DP, incorporation! Incorporation! You hear complaints about the creeping power of the federal government and the death of federalism, but it is still the case that your state government has far more power over your daily life than the federal government. Imagine a state unconstrained by the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 6th amendment. I don't know how we did without it for so long. Of course, if you're a conservative, the 14th probably opened the door to some things you don't like too - a mixed bag. But it's definitely in the top tier.

16th - hugely important if you think about it. If you think we need an income tax, then we need a 16th amendment, without which an income tax would either be impractical or unconstitutional, depending on how it was administered.

3, 13, 15, 19, and 24 - these were very important when they were passed, but I kind of think if they were repealed today nothing would much change. I don't know.

12, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 - some of these are good, some are very good, and some are more important than others. But I think it's pretty obvious that none of them really rank up there with the most important.

21 - just not that important to me. Definitely a good thing.

So my candidates would be 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 14, and 16. How to rank them, it's difficult. I guess I will say - 1, 4, 6, 14, 5, 2, 16.