A victory for common sense.

[callmeslick]

http://amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... apons.html

[Spidey]

Depends on you definition of common sense, since the 2nd makes no mention of firearm types whatsoever.

[Grendel]

Not my "common sense" either.

Today the majority holds that the Government can take semiautomatic rifles away from law-abiding American citizens, In concluding that the Second Amendment does not even apply, the majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

[and]

For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subjected to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand.

Funny too:

Indeed, Maryland pointed out, the Heller court explicitly declares that especially dangerous weapons “that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned.”

M16 =/= AR-15.

My favorite random user comment:

Anyone who looks at the government to protect the rights of citizens to be allowed to have weapons to protect them against government…is not thinking things through.

[Spidey]

And what’s ironic, hypocritical or just changing a position to make an argument at the time is…

The left* constantly says the 2nd is strictly for militia purposes…well that reasoning would presume that military weapons are the exact type of firearms the 2nd was constructed to protect, all other arguments aside.

*Replace with any group you feel more fits the description.

[Tunnelcat]

Depends on you definition of common sense, since the 2nd makes no mention of firearm types whatsoever.

Which begs the question, what would the Founding Fathers have thought about the average citizen being able to own something as efficient and deadly as a modern automatic or semiautomatic firearm that could kill or maim a lot of people in seconds (remember, they firmly believed that the "average citizen" wasn't intelligent enough to make a good judgement call for electing the nation's president, hence the formation of the Electoral College). So if they could somehow envision the future of firearm evolution, would they have been so quick to write such a murky and loose 2nd Amendment?

[callmeslick]

Spidey, of all you wrote above, I agreed with one point: that if the argument WERE being made in this case around the purpose of the 2nd as to ensure a citizen militia(a dangerous one to defend, as it was predicated on the ABSENCE of a standing army to do the job), then a 'military-style' weapon should be the type encouraged, not restricted. However, no one made that argument here, and the court was pretty clear around where they stood on the matter.

[Spidey]

Depends on you definition of common sense, since the 2nd makes no mention of firearm types whatsoever.

Which begs the question, what would the Founding Fathers have thought about the average citizen being able to own something as efficient and deadly as a modern automatic or semiautomatic firearm that could kill or maim a lot of people in seconds (remember, they firmly believed that the "average citizen" wasn't intelligent enough to make a good judgement call for electing the nation's president, hence the formation of the Electoral College). So if they could somehow envision the future of firearm evolution, would they have been so quick to write such a murky and loose 2nd Amendment?

I've said this before, this idea downplays the idea that the founding fathers were aware of changing technology.

[Tunnelcat]

Obviously, they weren't. My question was purely hypothetical. But what if they could envision a future with more efficient weapons? Would they have been so cavalier about letting the average Joe Shmoe to even become part of a loosely organized militia actually owning such weapons outright? Weapons that could be turned against THEM someday? My guess it that they would have been mortified about the whole idea given that they were elites and thought the average citizen voter was somehow a lesser class of person who couldn't be fully trusted.

[Spidey]

Sure, but that makes a poor basis for an argument.

Maybe if Teller knew what damage the H-Bomb could do we wouldn't have them.......

[Grendel]

Depends on you definition of common sense, since the 2nd makes no mention of firearm types whatsoever.

Which begs the question, what would the Founding Fathers have thought about the average citizen being able to own something as efficient and deadly as a modern automatic or semiautomatic firearm that could kill or maim a lot of people in seconds [..] So if they could somehow envision the future of firearm evolution, would they have been so quick to write such a murky and loose 2nd Amendment?

I don't think things would be different These people were not stupid and well aware of arms technology and how it evolves. If you look back you will find some surprising weapons (there are more.) For "killing and maiming a lot of people" there are way better methods than small arms. I don't find the 2nd murky or loose, it's there to protect your right to bear arms. I don't see why people in law enforcement and the military are more trusted to handle "powerful" weapons than law abiding Joe Blow -- in the end they are the same people under the law. I sure am wary of a government that tells me I can't have the same weapons the police is using because ... (drawing a blank on the reasoning. For the good of the masses ? How about to outlaw alcohol then.)

(remember, they firmly believed that the "average citizen" wasn't intelligent enough to make a good judgement call for electing the nation's president, hence the formation of the Electoral College).

More complex than that -- from here:

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Funny tho how this plays out these days...

[Krom]

Obviously, they weren't. My question was purely hypothetical. But what if they could envision a future with more efficient weapons? Would they have been so cavalier about letting the average Joe Shmoe to even become part of a loosely organized militia actually owning such weapons outright? Weapons that could be turned against THEM someday? My guess it that they would have been mortified about the whole idea given that they were elites and thought the average citizen voter was somehow a lesser class of person who couldn't be fully trusted.

They wouldn't be mortified, it was exactly what they intended because they had just successfully gathered up all the Joe Schmoe's with a gun they could find and had overthrown their own government with it.

[Tunnelcat]

Funny tho how this plays out these days...

Yeah, it's funny how that HAS played out these days, which is another whole hypothetical question that would be very interesting to put to the Founders right now.

As to having an armed militia, if we already have an Army, Navy and Air Force, why do we need militias, and remember, none of these militias are very organized most of the time, they're usually a bunch of drunken wild boys out to play war, that are sometime better armed than the police and even our own military? I'm just asking this for discussion sake.

Personally Grendel, I'm not against sane and law-abiding people owning an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. It's these "loosely organized militias" and why we even need them that I question. It's rife for abuse of power or worse for forming an armed insurrection against a government that just they happen to dislike. If we ever need an armed insurrection, we're seriously screwed as a nation. Of course, there are those times that we have to defend ourselves during natural disasters when the authorities are spread thin. That's a better reason than most for owning a weapon.

They wouldn't be mortified, it was exactly what they intended because they had just successfully gathered up all the Joe Schmoe's with a gun they could find and had overthrown their own government with it.

Makes one wonder if it ever crossed their minds that what when they were creating their new nation with such care, diligence and introspection, that it could possibly fail so miserably that some future set of rebels would want to overthrow it all over again.

[Top Gun]

I don't see why people in law enforcement and the military are more trusted to handle "powerful" weapons than law abiding Joe Blow -- in the end they are the same people under the law.

Maybe because law enforcement and military members have rigorous training on firearms usage and strict rules of engagement regarding when and how to use them? The thought that a random bumblefuck off the street should be able to get access to comparable weapons without any prerequisites whatsoever absolutely staggers me. Your average American can't even walk and use their phone at the same time.

[Spidey]

Funny tho how this plays out these days...

Yeah, it's funny how that HAS played out these days, which is another whole hypothetical question that would be very interesting to put to the Founders right now.

Problem is...that entire concept has been rendered obsolete, because of the number of states enacting laws that require electoral college voters to vote for the winner of the state.

[Tunnelcat]

Still worked out like crap.

[Grendel]

As to having an armed militia, if we already have an Army, Navy and Air Force, why do we need militias, and remember, none of these militias are very organized most of the time, they're usually a bunch of drunken wild boys out to play war, that are sometime better armed than the police and even our own military? I'm just asking this for discussion sake.

Personally Grendel, I'm not against sane and law-abiding people owning an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. It's these "loosely organized militias" and why we even need them that I question. It's rife for abuse of power or worse for forming an armed insurrection against a government that just they happen to dislike. If we ever need an armed insurrection, we're seriously screwed as a nation.

As far as I'm concerned armed militias play the role of keeping the government of its toes. I don't mind them, let them play war if they want. If they become stupid, we still have laws

Of course, there are those times that we have to defend ourselves during natural disasters when the authorities are spread thin. That's a better reason than most for owning a weapon.

Or during a burglary/mugging/rape/etc. when the police is at least 5min away. As long the government doesn't provide me w/ an armed security detail (like the ones most politicians have) I'll insist on my right to possess weapons.

They wouldn't be mortified, it was exactly what they intended because they had just successfully gathered up all the Joe Schmoe's with a gun they could find and had overthrown their own government with it.

Makes one wonder if it ever crossed their minds that what when they were creating their new nation with such care, diligence and introspection, that it could possibly fail so miserably that some future set of rebels would want to overthrow it all over again.

Yea -- that's why they put the 2nd in place

[Spidey]

When seconds count...the police are only minutes away.

Sorry, but I just love that expression.

[Tunnelcat]

As to having an armed militia, if we already have an Army, Navy and Air Force, why do we need militias, and remember, none of these militias are very organized most of the time, they're usually a bunch of drunken wild boys out to play war, that are sometime better armed than the police and even our own military? I'm just asking this for discussion sake.

Personally Grendel, I'm not against sane and law-abiding people owning an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. It's these "loosely organized militias" and why we even need them that I question. It's rife for abuse of power or worse for forming an armed insurrection against a government that just they happen to dislike. If we ever need an armed insurrection, we're seriously screwed as a nation.

As far as I'm concerned armed militias play the role of keeping the government of its toes. I don't mind them, let them play war if they want. If they become stupid, we still have laws

I was thinking back to those nutbags who called themselves a "militia" when they stormed the Malheur Wildlife Refuge armed to the teeth having the express ideal of turning the whole public BLM refuge over to cattle ranchers and private interests. The whole affair was not something I'd consider a situation needing an armed militia to remedy. They were nothing but anarchists.

Of course, there are those times that we have to defend ourselves during natural disasters when the authorities are spread thin. That's a better reason than most for owning a weapon.

Or during a burglary/mugging/rape/etc. when the police is at least 5min away. As long the government doesn't provide me w/ an armed security detail (like the ones most politicians have) I'll insist on my right to possess weapons.

That's why I own a semiautomatic handgun. I'd hate to have the need to own something like an AR-15 though.

They wouldn't be mortified, it was exactly what they intended because they had just successfully gathered up all the Joe Schmoe's with a gun they could find and had overthrown their own government with it.

Makes one wonder if it ever crossed their minds that what when they were creating their new nation with such care, diligence and introspection, that it could possibly fail so miserably that some future set of rebels would want to overthrow it all over again.

Yea -- that's why they put the 2nd in place

In other words, they built in a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd would've hoped that they'd had a little more certainty as to what they were creating and that it would last.

[Grendel]

I don't see why people in law enforcement and the military are more trusted to handle "powerful" weapons than law abiding Joe Blow -- in the end they are the same people under the law.

Maybe because law enforcement and military members have rigorous training on firearms usage and strict rules of engagement regarding when and how to use them?

Right. Because of their training they now do everything right. Most recreational shooters/hunters I know are far more proficient w/ firearms and firearm laws than the average LEO or grunt. (Hell, even gang-bangers have better shooting skills. Why ? Because they practice more.)

The thought that a random bumblefuck off the street should be able to get access to comparable weapons without any prerequisites whatsoever absolutely staggers me. Your average American can't even walk and use their phone at the same time.

Newsflash -- currently that "random bumblefuck off the street" has access to comparable weapons in most place of the US. Some w/, some w/o prerequisites. We are still alive and the streets are still safe.

[Tunnelcat]

When seconds count...the police are only minutes away.

Sorry, but I just love that expression.

Around here on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night, it ain't in seconds, I can guarantee you that. Too many drunken student calls seem to take priority. The quickest I've seen the police for something was in 20 minutes and that was for a single car accident that happened late at night in my neighborhood... and the driver was drunk.

[Grendel]

I was thinking back to those nutbags who called themselves a "militia" when they stormed the Malheur Wildlife Refuge armed to the teeth having the express ideal of turning the whole public BLM refuge over to cattle ranchers and private interests. The whole affair was not something I'd consider a situation needing an armed militia to remedy. They were nothing but anarchists.

And for that they are touring the courts.

That's why I own a semiautomatic handgun. I'd hate to have the need to own something like an AR-15 though.

Don't own one myself -- too loud, too unwieldy, too expensive. My CZ Scorpion Evo 3 on the other hand is a lot of fun

Yea -- that's why they put the 2nd in place

In other words, they built in a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd would've hoped that they'd had a little more certainty as to what they were creating and that it would last.

I see it as the founding fathers being aware of history.