[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Who said that? It was said that an assault weapon was never needed for self defence with the very obvious explicit implication that a handgun or shotgun would have sufficed therefore eliminating the need. Citing a case where one was used just proves that someone had one and used it. Not that they needed to use it over something else.

If they're interchangeable then what's the point of banning one?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No it's more like still wanting their car airbags even though they're not the slightest bit "ok with" any of the circumstances that would result in the airbag ever being used. Every effort should be made to prevent needing airbags and guns for self defense, but that is no justification for not also keeping the airbags and guns ready for use at a moment's notice.

Why do people insist on using paper-thin analogies to talk about guns? You don't have airbags in your car in case you crash it into an airbag!

Adding armed guards, reducing gun-free zones, mindlessly parroting NRA propaganda and refusing to listen to any kind of reason when every other country on Earth proves beyond question that having less guns leads to less gun deaths is NOT making every effort to prevent those gun deaths. Its not really making much effort at all.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Who said that? It was said that an assault weapon was never needed for self defence with the very obvious explicit implication that a handgun or shotgun would have sufficed therefore eliminating the need. Citing a case where one was used just proves that someone had one and used it. Not that they needed to use it over something else.

You weren't there, I wasn't there, neither of us knows what was needed. Getting worked up over what weapon was needed and what weapon wasn't is part of the problem. It did the job, it saved their lives, that's the issue.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Why do people insist on using paper-thin analogies to talk about guns? You don't have airbags in your car in case you crash it into an airbag!

Adding armed guards, reducing gun-free zones, mindlessly parroting NRA propaganda and refusing to listen to any kind of reason when every other country on Earth proves beyond question that having less guns leads to less gun deaths is NOT making every effort to prevent those gun deaths. Its not really making much effort at all.

The kids of celebs, politicians, and the wealthy are already protected with armed guards. Those who aren't so fortunate should just "deal with it"?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not about needs it's about rights. Rights are most important when they protect the people we (collectively) disagree with, not the people we agree with. If it only protects the popular folks and we turn a blind eye whenever it's convenient, then it's not a right. The 1st protects bigots, the 4th protects murderers, the 5th protects mobsters. Why shouldn't the 2nd protect spree killers?

If we want to update the 2nd, there's a perfectly clear path to doing so. Undermining that path is undermining all constitutional freedoms.

A "right" still has limitations. We have the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. But it's still illegal for a civilian to possess a fully automatic machine gun for instance. The same principle applies here.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

A "right" still has limitations. We have the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. But it's still illegal for a civilian to possess a fully automatic machine gun for instance. The same principle applies here.

OAW

No, it isn't illegal, you just need the right license. I own many.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Why do people insist on using paper-thin analogies to talk about guns? You don't have airbags in your car in case you crash it into an airbag!

You asked why someone would want two redundant or even contradictory solutions to the same problem. The analogy answers that just fine. Personal safety or self defense doesn't care what caused the threat, only that the threat exists. Giving up one's gun won't reduce the number of other guns out there.

If you're asking for an arms race example, there's SUVs. People get them to protect their precious spawn from all the other SUVs out there on the road. Does it contribute to the same problem it's trying to solve? Sure it does. But that doesn't make it a smarter choice for an individual to abstain.

...when every other country on Earth proves beyond question that having less guns leads to less gun deaths is NOT making every effort to prevent those gun deaths. Its not really making much effort at all.

Slow down there, picard. Did you forget that the only proposal for addressing the 300 million guns that are already out there is "a wizard did it"? You're a little too amped up over people not doing something that is impossible to do.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Adding armed guards, reducing gun-free zones, mindlessly parroting NRA propaganda and refusing to listen to any kind of reason when every other country on Earth proves beyond question that having less guns leads to less gun deaths is NOT making every effort to prevent those gun deaths. Its not really making much effort at all.

Your reasoning is obviously not reasoning to those of us who own and use weapons responsibly. Making analogies with every other country on earth is a ridiculous effort. The United States has a different culture, and has had so for over two hundred years. It is also one of the most diverse countries on the planet, as far as ethnicities and cultures go. One can't compare the U. S. to Britain (which still has a violent society, despite private gun ownership bans), because their population is smaller and less diverse. The U. S. has the third largest population on the planet, and with 300 million guns owned by 80 million people, I'm going to be so bold as to say that the 14 thousand gun homicides/accidents last year are actually rather minimal. Could it be better? Sure, but so could eliminating drunk drivers, which kill more people annually than guns. The reality is that there is absolutely no way to control all 300 million people in a country completely. You're going to have psychopaths, rapists, habitual drunks, etc., and the only way to control them is to have every other citizen being a police officer, or have him spy on his neighbors activities, and that's not the kind of country I want to live in, and I would hope you wouldn't either. You really need to do some research and discover just how the crime rate has decreased consistently over the last forty years, at the same time as gun ownership has grown tremendously. It isn't as bad as you think it is.

[Chongo]

As I posted earlier, one can turn a Ruger 10/22 carbine varmit rifle into an "assault rifle" in a few minutes with an after market kit.

[subego]

An assault rifle for assaulting varmints.

A more honest example would be a Mini-14.

[Chongo]

true. The Mini 14 can fire military .223 rounds. , whereas the 10/22 being a .22

Mini 14 B&A




The 10/22 banana clips jam anyway. They make a 100 round wind up drum magazine for the 10/22 "Tommy Gun" gun kit that works quite well.



Both the Mini and the 10/22 are semiautomatic and remain so after the kits

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not about needs it's about rights. Rights are most important when they protect the people we (collectively) disagree with, not the people we agree with. If it only protects the popular folks and we turn a blind eye whenever it's convenient, then it's not a right. The 1st protects bigots, the 4th protects murderers, the 5th protects mobsters. Why shouldn't the 2nd protect spree killers?

If we want to update the 2nd, there's a perfectly clear path to doing so. Undermining that path is undermining all constitutional freedoms.

Ones "right" to keep and bear arms does does not give one the right to keep and bear any and all "arms" one might desire. Banning "assault weapons" does not affect your right to own rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc.

Does the 2nd Amendment give you the right to "keep and bear" a bazooka? What about a fully automatic M-16? What about a tank or nuclear weapon? Surely there are certain "arms" that you would agree should not be in the hands of the general public. What "arms" are these? Where do YOU draw the line?

EDIT: I would like to go on the record as stating that I fully support the right to keep and bear arms. I personally own several guns, including an AR-15. But I also believe there are certain rational, logical, and commonsense limits as to what ordinary citizens should be able to keep and bear. Then again, any ban wouldn't affect me as I already possess that which they seek to ban.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, it isn't illegal, you just need the right license. I own many.

That's not completely accurate. It is illegal to sell and/or import newly produced fully automatic weapons except for sale to law enforcement/government. What you own, and what people transfer/sell to civilians, are fully automatic weapons produced and/or imported prior to the ban. 1996 I believe?

There are a limited number of such firearms and they are expensive. Supply (low) and demand (high). Even with the proper license, it would cost over $10,000 for someone to acquire a fully automatic M-16 for example.

So for all intents and purposes, fully automatic weapons are illegal for civilians to own. One can't just go into a gun store and purchase one.

[Shaddim]

There are vast numbers of full-autos available, ranging from $3k (MAC-10) - $50k (vintage Thompson). Like in anything, it depends on what you're shopping for.

[lpkmckenna]

Ann Coulter, racist as always, and FoxNews gladly giving her a forum for it.



Not surprising it is Hannity giving her a forum, being the most insufferable twit at the network.

[subego]

She's an idiot, but it's not like I don't notice how people only seem to give a shit when white people get shot up.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

She's an idiot, but it's not like I don't notice how people only seem to give a shit when white people get shot up.

It's not a problem, but it is demographics. That and being raised to believe they're royalty, then finding out that life isn't as "fair" as they want it to be. The brass ring requires work, no they don't just hand them out.

She's not an idiot, she's just indelicate and non-PC when she's right, which isn't all the time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's not a problem, but it is demographics. That and being raised to believe they're royalty, then finding out that life isn't as "fair" as they want it to be. The brass ring requires work, no they don't just hand them out.

What?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's not a problem, but it is demographics. That and being raised to believe they're royalty, then finding out that life isn't as "fair" as they want it to be. The brass ring requires work, no they don't just hand them out.

Wow! Just Wow!

She's not an idiot,

At least you got that right.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Ones "right" to keep and bear arms does does not give one the right to keep and bear any and all "arms" one might desire. Banning "assault weapons" does not affect your right to own rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc.

And the "right" to free speech doesn't give one the right to libel or plagiarize either, but that doesn't mean we can extend those exceptions arbitrarily to outlaw anything we find inconvenient during the current news cycle.

Does the 2nd Amendment give you the right to "keep and bear" a bazooka? What about a fully automatic M-16? What about a tank or nuclear weapon? Surely there are certain "arms" that you would agree should not be in the hands of the general public. What "arms" are these? Where do YOU draw the line?

If you mean that modern times have made parts of the constitution unwieldy then I agree. Just like the need for outlawing slavery and women's suffrage, the 2nd amendment is long overdue for an update to reflect modern reality. But there is a perfectly reasonable mechanism for doing that. If we choose not to use the amendment process, and instead decide to believe that it's ok to simply disregard the bill of rights, then that opens the door (wider) to blatant violations of all our rights, whenever it's expedient to do so. Of course, if you simply disagree with the premise that we should have rights, then I can't fault you for your logic, only your judgement

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And the "right" to free speech doesn't give one the right to libel or plagiarize either, but that doesn't mean we can extend those exceptions arbitrarily to outlaw anything we find inconvenient during the current news cycle.


If you mean that modern times have made parts of the constitution unwieldy then I agree. Just like the need for outlawing slavery and women's suffrage, the 2nd amendment is long overdue for an update to reflect modern reality. But there is a perfectly reasonable mechanism for doing that. If we choose not to use the amendment process, and instead decide to believe that it's ok to simply disregard the bill of rights, then that opens the door (wider) to blatant violations of all our rights, whenever it's expedient to do so. Of course, if you simply disagree with the premise that we should have rights, then I can't fault you for your logic, only your judgement

I fully believe we should have rights and I've said I fully support the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Where I differ from the NRA and other "gun nuts" is that I am rationale and don't feel that instituting a ban on high capacity magazines or requiring a background check on ALL gun purchases infringes on my rights under the 2nd Amendment.

I'm still internally debating the proposed ban on "assault weapons" (although I should say that it wouldn't affect me as I already own an AR-15). Other than that one, as a responsible, rationale gun owner, I fully support the initiatives Obama and Biden put forth.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already held that our rights under the 2nd Amendment are NOT unlimited and that elected officials can enact "commonsense" gun laws to protect communities. So, I disagree with you that the amendment process is the only way to put limitations on our rights under the 2nd Amendment as the SC has said that commonsense gun laws do NOT infringe that right.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

That said, whether an "assault weapon" is a "dangerous and unusual weapon" and whether an "assault weapon" ban is a "commonsense" gun law is clearly debatable.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

or requiring a background check on ALL gun purchases infringes on my rights under the 2nd Amendment.

Step 1. Require a background check or tax stamp for gun purchase.
Step 2. Stop providing said background checks or tax stamps.
Step 3. Laugh because everyone failed to learn from history.

"dangerous and unusual weapon"

Since assault rifles are used by 99% of the armies of the world they can't be either of these.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Wow! Just Wow!

I didn't take my PC supplements this morning. It is a demographic issue, to believe otherwise is asinine. It's not particularly racial, but it is economic and cultural.

I am right, it just isn't popular.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Since assault rifles are used by 99% of the armies of the world they can't be either of these.

So are mortars, bazookas, tanks, missiles, etc. The SC was very clear that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to "keep and bear" these types of weapons.

So again, where do we draw the line?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

I fully believe we should have rights and I've said I fully support the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Where I differ from the NRA and other "gun nuts" is that I am rationale and don't feel that instituting a ban on high capacity magazines or requiring a background check on ALL gun purchases infringes on my rights under the 2nd Amendment.

That is distinctly not what you said on the last page. The process for buying a gun and accessories is different from which guns are allowed. I don't object to what you say here.

I'm still internally debating the proposed ban on "assault weapons" (although I should say that it wouldn't affect me as I already own an AR-15). Other than that one, as a responsible, rationale gun owner, I fully support the initiatives Obama and Biden put forth.

The problem with rights is that they're not for the things we support, they're for the things we don't support. If a "right" only protects you when you're doing what's popular, then it's not a right.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already held that our rights under the 2nd Amendment are NOT unlimited and that elected officials can enact "commonsense" gun laws to protect communities. So, I disagree with you that the amendment process is the only way to put limitations on our rights under the 2nd Amendment as the SC has said that commonsense gun laws do NOT infringe that right.

That said, whether an "assault weapon" is a "dangerous and unusual weapon" and whether an "assault weapon" ban is a "commonsense" gun law is clearly debatable.
...
So are mortars, bazookas, tanks, missiles, etc. The SC was very clear that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to "keep and bear" these types of weapons.

So again, where do we draw the line?

I think there's a qualitative distinction between taking away things people already have, vs preventing people from getting things that nobody has. Tanks may be common, but they're not commonly owned (not by natural persons). At this point, what we're describing as "assault weapons" are commonly owned (by law-abiding natural persons). This makes taking them away both less just and less feasible.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

So are mortars, bazookas, tanks, missiles, etc. The SC was very clear that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to "keep and bear" these types of weapons.

So again, where do we draw the line?

Weapons are TOOLS ONLY. You can own tanks, and even war planes, but again, these items are costly to maintain and license.

The problem is a small number of people. Mental cases. Where were their doctors? Where were their friends and family? Police? School teachers? Where is the responsibility of those people to get mental cases off the streets?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Weapons are TOOLS ONLY. You can own tanks, and even war planes, but again, these items are costly to maintain and license.

The problem is a small number of people. Mental cases. Where were their doctors? Where were their friends and family? Police? School teachers? Where is the responsibility of those people to get mental cases off the streets?

You didn't answer the question. This isn't about mental health. This is about the right of the Federal and/or State government to enact gun laws restricting the types of arms individuals can own.

As the SC held that the 2nd Amendment is NOT limitless, that there are certain arms that are NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment, and that commonsense gun laws are permitted under the 2nd Amendment, where would you, personally, draw the line? What arms do you personally feel the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to own? Or, do you disagree with the Supreme Court?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The problem is a small number of people. Mental cases. Where were their doctors? Where were their friends and family? Police? School teachers? Where is the responsibility of those people to get mental cases off the streets?

You don't like paying taxes, so they were all cut. Next question?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think there's a qualitative distinction between taking away things people already have, vs preventing people from getting things that nobody has. Tanks may be common, but they're not commonly owned (not by natural persons). At this point, what we're describing as "assault weapons" are commonly owned (by law-abiding natural persons). This makes taking them away both less just and less feasible.

No one is talking about "taking away" assault weapons from people. That is a scare tactic used by the NRA: "Obama wants to take away your guns!!! Give us money to fight him!!".

What is being proposed is banning sales of assault weapons, i.e., preventing people from getting things in the future.

Not "taking away things" and not preventing people from "getting things nobody has".

[Uncle Skeleton]

I was using "people" figuratively to mean "the people," collectively. Sorry about that.

Taking away the right of people to continue doing things that a large number of (other individual) people have been doing (such as buying "assault rifles"), as opposed to preventing people from starting to do something that no one has been doing. This illustrates the problem, now you can have one and I can't. I'm far worse off than if neither of us can have one. What if you are a criminal, or your gun ends up in the hands of a criminal? This was not a problem for banning tanks and bazookas, not an ethical problem or a practical one.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't take my PC supplements this morning. It is a demographic issue, to believe otherwise is asinine. It's not particularly racial, but it is economic and cultural.

I am right, it just isn't popular.

I still don't know what "it" is.

Jesus. I hate non-specific subjects.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

You didn't answer the question. This isn't about mental health. This is about the right of the Federal and/or State government to enact gun laws restricting the types of arms individuals can own.

As the SC held that the 2nd Amendment is NOT limitless, that there are certain arms that are NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment, and that commonsense gun laws are permitted under the 2nd Amendment, where would you, personally, draw the line? What arms do you personally feel the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to own? Or, do you disagree with the Supreme Court?

It depends on how you interpret militia now that we have a standing army. This is where I laugh about the Secretary of Defenses recent comments because how will civilians defend themselves against the Army without armor piercing ammunition and the like. "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" -Thomas Jefferson The SC has forgotten exactly how paranoid the founders were about the accumulation of power.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

So are mortars, bazookas, tanks, missiles, etc. The SC was very clear that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to "keep and bear" these types of weapons.

So again, where do we draw the line?

WMDs that can cause ecological damage.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You don't like paying taxes, so they were all cut. Next question?

The government is overspending by >$1T, and no amount of taxation can fix that. Next question?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

It depends on how you interpret militia now that we have a standing army. This is where I laugh about the Secretary of Defenses recent comments because how will civilians defend themselves against the Army without armor piercing ammunition and the like. "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" -Thomas Jefferson The SC has forgotten exactly how paranoid the founders were about the accumulation of power.

See, I don't buy the whole "Citizens need guns to protect against a tyranical government". I'm sorry, but a bunch of disorganized people runnning around with semi-autommatic AR-15s and handguns isn't going to do much against an organized army equipped with body armor, tanks, fully automatic weapons, etc. And this is why the founding fathers also provided a checks and balances system, i.e., separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

I personally interpret "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." as being mostly directed to repelling invasion and combating insurrections within the state, not providing protection against a tyrannical government.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

It depends on how you interpret militia now that we have a standing army. This is where I laugh about the Secretary of Defenses recent comments because how will civilians defend themselves against the Army without armor piercing ammunition and the like. "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" -Thomas Jefferson The SC has forgotten exactly how paranoid the founders were about the accumulation of power.

And yet the standing army was created long before the founders were dead (And stood while many were president).

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

WMDs that can cause ecological damage.

OK, fair enough.

And what in the 2nd Amendment precludes my ownership of such weapons? It says "keep and bear arms" and, according to the NRA and gun nuts, places no restrictions whatsoever on what "arms" I can keep.

If you would argue that the 2nd Amendment does not allow one to keep and bear WMDs that can cause ecological damage, why is it limited to precluding those and not other arms? If the government can have WMDs that can cause ecological damage, why can't I?

Slippery slope that.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

OK, fair enough.

And what in the 2nd Amendment precludes my ownership of such weapons? It says "keep and bear arms" and, according to the NRA and gun nuts, places no restrictions whatsoever on what "arms" I can keep.

If you would argue that the 2nd Amendment does not allow one to keep and bear WMDs that can cause ecological damage, why is it limited to precluding those and not other arms? If the government can have WMDs that can cause ecological damage, why can't I?

Slippery slope that.

Because unlike other people, I believe the EPA is a good thing and should have jurisdiction in those cases.

But, sure, fine, let anyone have anything, as long as they can properly store and care for it, meeting appropriate environmental guidelines. Works for me.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

See, I don't buy the whole "Citizens need guns to protect against a tyrannical government".

So the US should still be a colony of Britain?

Also see current/recent events in Egypt, Lybia and Syria

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

So the US should still be a colony of Britain?

The Continental Army comes to mind. And we were provided arms by countries like France and Spain I believe.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The Continental Army comes to mind. And we were provided arms by countries like France and Spain I believe.

FWIW, France had troops and commanders on-the-ground, fighting alongside the Continentals.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

FWIW, France had troops and commanders on-the-ground, fighting alongside the Continentals.

That too, that too...

Makes me think of the difference between Libya and Syria. We gave Libya Air Support to help neutralize part of the army's advantage. We've been more hands-off with Syria (we don't know if we can trust the rebels) and the results have been much slower.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That too, that too...

Makes me think of the difference between Libya and Syria. We gave Libya Air Support to help neutralize part of the army's advantage. We've been more hands-off with Syria (we don't know if we can trust the rebels) and the results have been much slower.

And Syria is less crucial to the oil supply. That or Iraq and Libya provided enough.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

OK, fair enough.

And what in the 2nd Amendment precludes my ownership of such weapons? It says "keep and bear arms" and, according to the NRA and gun nuts, places no restrictions whatsoever on what "arms" I can keep.

If you would argue that the 2nd Amendment does not allow one to keep and bear WMDs that can cause ecological damage, why is it limited to precluding those and not other arms? If the government can have WMDs that can cause ecological damage, why can't I?

Slippery slope that.

It seems like a logical interpretation would be to assume that the amendment covers arms that were available at the time.
Anything else should be up for whatever legislation or restrictions the current government deems appropriate.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And Syria is less crucial to the oil supply. That or Iraq and Libya provided enough.

We've not received any oil from them, that's a deflection.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It seems like a logical interpretation would be to assume that the amendment covers arms that were available at the time.
Anything else should be up for whatever legislation or restrictions the current government deems appropriate.

My interpretation is that it's for arms suitable for use as a member of the previously mentioned militia.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We've not received any oil from them, that's a deflection.

From who?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It seems like a logical interpretation would be to assume that the amendment covers arms that were available at the time.
Anything else should be up for whatever legislation or restrictions the current government deems appropriate.

That's a stupid version of logic. Does free speech only cover mediums of speech that were available at the time? Does freedom of religion only cover religions that were in America at the time? Does freedom against self-incrimination only cover crimes that were illegal at the time? That logic is consistent, yes, but very unfriendly to freedoms of all kinds.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's a stupid version of logic. Does free speech only cover mediums of speech that were available at the time? Does freedom of religion only cover religions that were in America at the time? Does freedom against self-incrimination only cover crimes that were illegal at the time? That logic is consistent, yes, but very unfriendly to freedoms of all kinds.

Free speech via SMS, Twitter, Facebook, or international TV news broadcast, while potentially greater in scale than the readership of any publication in existence at the of writing the 1st amendment requires very little imagination to predict. Once you have the newspaper, its not a stretch to imagine one being circulated to millions instead of just thousands. Arguably it doesn't really change the nature or potential consequences of having free speech once you can reach thousands at a time.

If you don't restrict interpretation of the 2nd amendment to arms available at the time however, then you'd surely have to include all arms up to and including nuclear weapons. You can't tell me anyone thought nukes were possible that long ago.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's a stupid version of logic. Does free speech only cover mediums of speech that were available at the time? Does freedom of religion only cover religions that were in America at the time? Does freedom against self-incrimination only cover crimes that were illegal at the time? That logic is consistent, yes, but very unfriendly to freedoms of all kinds.

No, but there are limits to free speech just as there are limits to the 2nd amendment. Such limits have been affirmed as constitutional by the SC.