[vansmith]

Please forgive me if I am wrong but wouldn't any law that counters the US constitution not be declared unconstitutional? If so, what is to stop someone from owning highly destructive weapons that are clearly not for personal protection?

Sorry if that was a stupid question but not being American myself, my knowledge of American law is extraordinarily limited.

Originally Posted by cwa107

The Constitution refers to the broad category of "arms" intentionally. It's non-specific because the founders were afraid of tyranny. The intent was to empower citizens to keep the government in check.

To build on what I said earlier, if I could justifiably demonstrate that there was a legitimate threat to my security and freedom from government tyranny, could I legally possess a tank if that was shown to ease my worries?

I find these gun conversations really interesting. The best I get is language rights debates .

[cwa107]

Originally Posted by D3v1L80Y

In the end, speculations and debate on the intent of the Founding Fathers is moot.

You're right. There are no absolutes, especially considering that this was a document written in a different era.

[Aptmunich]

Originally Posted by baggss

Actually, I completely disagree.

I expect a lot of you guys will
As most of you know I'm a brit in germany, so my perspective is purely that of an interested outsider. But I enjoy hearing the diverse opinions you guys have over there...

[D3v1L80Y]

Originally Posted by vansmith

could I legally possess a tank

Technically, yes you could.

I could have an arsenal of RPG's and tank buster missiles in my living room, a fully-loaded SAM launcher in my backyard, an M-1 Abrams tank parked in the driveway and a fully-stocked laboratory capable of creating "dirty" bombs in my basement... and technically it would be legal... according to the Second Amendment.

[XJ-linux]

Nevermind...

[MilwaukeeMac]

Originally Posted by D3v1L80Y

No, it wouldn't.
The First Amendment stateseople would still have freedom of speech. Even if that speech is transmitted via broadcast journalism, then it is still protected as those would be forms of exercising one's speech and to regulate or limit such would constitute as an abridgment; a shortening or condensing of one's speech... in other words, a direct violation of the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment simply states:Therefore, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
The argumentative part of the Second Amendment is how someone decides to define "arms".

It may be that someone more linguistically adept than myself could tease a difference out of "abridge" and "infringe," but I think the larger point I was trying to make is that both "press" and "arms" are intentionally vague words meant to encompass a large array of media and weaponry, not to open the floodgates to parsing and categorizing. "Arms" means weapons as the founders knew them, including firearms. If the founders had wanted to get more specific, I'm guessing they would have. Bright bunch, those founders.

[bobtomay]

Let me first say, I am not one of the stereotypical Texans. I have never owned a firearm. My parents never owned a firearm. My wife's parents (also a Texan) never owned a firearm. The number of times I've had my hands on a firearm outside my military service can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

I do live in Texas, however. So, I do know a great many that own guns from hunters, sport shooters and law men and women. The people I know have a great respect for them.

Would have to say that I am probably middle of the road when it comes to bans on weapons. I understand the need not to allow ... say, my next door neighbor, who's house is 20 feet from mine, having the right to keep a bomb in his house. I even agree that there is no need for some types of weapons in the hands of the everyday person. At the same time, I am concerned and feel this is a very slippery slope allowing the government to tell us which weapons we're allowed to have and which we're not.

Originally Posted by D3v1L80Y

The Second Amendment simply states:

Therefore, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
The argumentative part of the Second Amendment is how someone decides to define "arms".

The Minutemen Militia groups weren't provided with any equipment and some actually used farming tools as weapons, or even Native American weapons like longbows and spears as muskets and rifles weren't as readily available for all.
The Bill of Rights gave these people the right to own weapons of any kind in an effort to protect themselves and their country.

The word infringe is defined as "To transgress or exceed the limits of".
So, if the privilege of owning a firearm was somehow reduced or controlled, that would not necessarily infringe on a person's right to own some other form of weaponry, therefore it would not exceed the limits of the Second Amendment. To do that, the government would have to disallow the people from having ANY type of weapon or "arms".

That just isn't the case if certain restrictions are put into place that might block some from obtaining specific types of weapons.

I am not for or against arms control one way or the other... I just find it amusing that some people are gung-ho for the literal translation when it benefits them, but then leave it open for interpretation when it doesn't benefit them.

The argumentative part is no longer defining "arms" but in defining "infringe".
I must totally disagree with your stated definition. According to several dictionaries (including the one on my MBP) it is defined as "act so as to limit".

This is no different than infringing on another's copyright. While the offender in a copyright case may certainly have "exceeded their limit" according to your definition, the lawful action is based upon the offender's action having "limited the right" of the copyright holder. The offender is the "infringer" and the copyright holder is the "infringed".

Per the 2nd amendment, "the right" belongs to the people and it is the people that would be "infringed" while the government in setting up any laws limiting this right would become the offender/infringer.

That whole definition turns this backwards and no longer provides "the people" with "the right". Instead, it gives the government the right to decide what are "the limits" of "the right". By this definition, the people could never possibly become the "infringed" because the boundary of their rights would be set (or limited) by the government and could change how and when the government decides, and would make the people the infringers by exceeding their right and the government the infringed.

You got it right when you stated:

The Bill of Rights gave these people the right to own weapons of any kind in an effort to protect themselves and their country.

Of "any kind" is the key here. And this is exactly the case - when the government begins deciding what are the limits of this right, the people become the infringed.

[XJ-linux]

Wowsers, this is actually one of the more civil, well spoken and thoughtful "firearms" threads I've seen in a while. +1 for everyone who has constructively contributed, regardless of their positions on the issues. Honestly, I was just wondering if anyone outside of my "firearms forums" was snagging ammo while it's still out there.

[Kash]

Originally Posted by D3v1L80Y

Technically, yes you could.

I could have an arsenal of RPG's and tank buster missiles in my living room, a fully-loaded SAM launcher in my backyard, an M-1 Abrams tank parked in the driveway and a fully-stocked laboratory capable of creating "dirty" bombs in my basement... and technically it would be legal... according to the Second Amendment.

If we were living in a world where the Second Amendment by itself was the only binding authority, then sure. However, that's not the case. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the right to legislate restrictions on the Second Amendment. As such, if there is a law that restricts personal ownership of the list of weapons you mentioned, then no, you would not legally be able to own them.

The Second Amendment is not the only binding authority regarding gun ownership rights. You've also got United States v. Emerson, United States v. Miller, and the most recent, and pertinent, one, District of Columbia v. Heller.

[D3v1L80Y]

Originally Posted by Kash

If we were living in a world where the Second Amendment by itself was the only binding authority, then sure. However, that's not the case. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the right to legislate restrictions on the Second Amendment.

I know. I was being facetious.

You have just more or less proven my point, though.

Certain restrictions and/or laws can be put into place which define what weapons are available and legal for people to own, and the people's right to keep and bear arms is not violated.

No government agency or authoritative body is saying that a person cannot own weapons altogether. That would violate the Second Amendment.

People could still purchase, keep and bear arms.
Just not certain types.

[gagnerants]

Or we can go with what family guy said, every one has the right to have bear arms.

[Derek McNelly]

I for one enjoy arms.

[schweb]

Why does the topic of guns come up so often on a Mac forum?

[leecho7]

Didn't you hear schweb? Thats the new market Apple's trying to break into.
They'll be unveiling the iShot in the next keynote.

[gagnerants]

Yep the iShot will use bullet pro's for ammo.