Which constitutional amendment is the most important?

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Could you explain how answering whether you own any firearms compromises your position? This question is much more relevant to your own personal position on the 2nd Amendment than your unctuous question regarding whether the 2nd Amendment covers nuclear and bio weapons.

In other words, he needs to figure out how to pigeonhole you into his narrow political views.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

In other words, he needs to figure out how to pigeonhole you into his narrow political views.

You are the one who stated that JoeTheJuggler is not anti-gun. What did you base this conclusion on and why did your admission that you own some type of firearm not undermine your position?

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Cicero

You are the one who stated that JoeTheJuggler is not anti-gun. What did you base this conclusion on

The fact that he hasn't said anything "anti-gun". He's simply asked a question you don't seem to want to answer, and that has somehow made him your "enemy".

Quote:

why did your admission that you own some type of firearm not undermine your position?

What "position" is that, do you imagine?

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

No, that would be the courts. When was the last time anyone used a gun to protect their Constitutional rights?



And if I start shipping in slaves from other countries?

This has always been my point. The Constitution, in its entirity, is our protection. No group of militia goobers with automatic weapons is going to protect us against the Federal Government with its tanks, bombs, and planes. In fact, I'm more scared of the militias with their extreme views on government than anything else.

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

to put it another way, when was the last time anyone had the balls try TRY to take away our constitutional rights?




and this is why i said first, the second may or may not be needed to protect rights you DO have, but the first amendment is the only way to get rights you SHOULD have

Right now, if you are gay or lesbian, you are losing your right to equal protection.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

This has always been my point. The Constitution, in its entirity, is our protection. No group of militia goobers with automatic weapons is going to protect us against the Federal Government with its tanks, bombs, and planes. In fact, I'm more scared of the militias with their extreme views on government than anything else.

And yet Castro and his rebels armed with semi-auto and full auto weapons overthrew the dictator Batista who had tanks, bombs, and planes at his disposal.

What militias are those and where have you ever come in contact with them?

Quote:

Right now, if you are gay or lesbian, you are losing your right to equal protection.

And you want to protect gays and lesbians from shotgun weddings?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

The fact that he hasn't said anything "anti-gun". He's simply asked a question you don't seem to want to answer, and that has somehow made him your "enemy".

His comments indicate a complete lack of knowledge of firearms and the laws already in existence that regulate them. Let's examine this statement by JTJ:

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But an assault weapon is no more useful in day to day life than anthrax.

This sentiment parrots the positions of the famous pro-gun politicians Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and Waxman.

Quote:

What "position" is that, do you imagine?

Don't keep me in suspense.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Cicero

His comments indicate a complete lack of knowledge of firearms and the laws already in existence that regulate them.

How does that make him "anti-gun"?

Quote:

This sentiment parrots the positions of the famous pro-gun politicians Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and Waxman.

Facts have the fortunate quality of being the same for everyone, regardless of political leanings.

How many Americans do you think actually have a need to use (not just own) an "assault rifle" on a daily basis?

Quote:

Don't keep me in suspense.

You seem to think you know already, since you implied that my owning a firearm "undermines" it.

And I told you once already in this thread.

[Suddenly]

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

Quote:

Hand guns are made for killin’
Ain’t no good for nothin’ else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don’t we dump ’em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

Lynyrd Skynyrd

[Cicero]

Quote:

QUOTE=Piscivore;6109150]How does that make him "anti-gun"?

He parrots the tired anti-gun argument about the "need" for a particular firearm.

Quote:

Facts have the fortunate quality of being the same for everyone, regardless of political leanings.

There was a fact in that quote? Where?

Quote:

How many Americans do you think actually have a need to use (not just own) an "assault rifle" on a daily basis?

Since JoeTheJuggler has not yet posted his definition of an "assault weapon," perhaps you could provide your own. What does "need" have to do with anything in a free country? Who needs to drive a SSC Aero on a daily basis?

Quote:

You seem to think you know already, since you implied that my owning a firearm "undermines" it.

I said just the opposite.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Cicero

He parrots the tired anti-gun argument about the "need" for a particular firearm.

Did he? Can you quote it?

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

What does "need" have to do with anything in a free country? Who needs to drive a SSC Aero on a daily basis?

Actually, "need" was my own mistaken insertion into that. I'll remove it.
How many Americans do you think actually have a use for, beyond just ownership, of an "assault rifle" on a daily basis?

Quote:

I said just the opposite.

No, you didn't. You said "why did your admission that you own some type of firearm not undermine your position?" Why would you ask why owning a firearm did not "undermine my position" if you did not think it did?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

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]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

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]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

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

[Newtons Bit]

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

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

*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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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

Can't you just answer the question?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by Joe

What distinguishes firearms?

Originally Posted by cicero

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]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

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...

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.