DescentBB

Judge Traxler wrote: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.

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.”

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

Tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote: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?

Tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote: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?

Tunnelcat wrote: (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).

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.”

Tunnelcat wrote: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.

Grendel wrote:Funny tho how this plays out these days...

Krom wrote: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.

Grendel wrote: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.

Tunnelcat wrote:

Grendel wrote: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.

Tunnelcat wrote: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.

Tunnelcat wrote: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.

Tunnelcat wrote:

Krom wrote: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.

Grendel wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote: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

Grendel wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote: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.

Grendel wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote:

Krom wrote: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

Top Gun wrote:

Grendel wrote: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?

Top Gun wrote: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 wrote:When seconds count...the police are only minutes away.

Sorry, but I just love that expression.

Tunnelcat wrote: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.

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

Tunnelcat wrote:

Grendel wrote: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.