8 ms·
IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.
by tc313 9y ago
IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.
- orf 9y agoIsn't the 2a just a "well armed malitia"? Maybe an RPG is more than well armed, but encryption?
- InitialLastName 9y ago"well-regulated militia," but it's pretty much an open question how much that actually has to do with the right described in the second clause. Gun rights activists tend to down-play that first bit, as it implies a collective perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with unlimited individual gun ownership rights.
- Karunamon 9y agoSome context into the mindset and beliefs of the people who penned the original amendment is helpful in this case, but you find very little in support of the level of control that the anti-2A people want. Gun rights antagonists tend to downplay that bit, as it implies an individual perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with tightly-controlled gun ownership permissions.
- ams6110 9y agoThey also downplay that in every case of a gun being used in some criminal way, numerous laws and regulations are already being broken. So what difference will more regulations make? The only thing that could possibly give the gun-control people what they really want is total confiscation of all guns, and even if that were somehow possible there would be a civil war over that if it were to be seriously attempted.
- agar 9y ago> The only thing that could possibly give the gun-control people what they really want is total confiscation of all guns Strawmen are so unhelpful in reasonable debate. Not all gun control advocates are either anti-second amendment, nor in favor of eliminating all guns. To say otherwise, creating a false black/white dichotomy in the gun debate, does a massive disservice to both gun advocates and gun control proponents. Ironically, by making the choice "all guns" or "no guns", gun advocates themselves are forcing the "no guns" option to the center of the debate. As a wave of frustrated anti-gun youth become voters and reasonable political moderates look at options to "protect the children", I really think it's in gun proponents' best interests to provide a better alternative than "do nothing" on one side and "civil war" on the other.
- Karunamon 9y agoIt ceases to be a strawman when it's on a sign held by protestors acting in good faith[1]. At the end of the day, these stances, even the "moderate" ones you mention, are irreconcilable all the way down to first principles. If you are for gun control, you are necessarily for measures that will restrict the right to bear arms as it is recognized today, some more, some less, but restrictions on the right all the same. There's no real evading that. [1] https://pics.me.me/yes-i-do-want-to-take-away-youur-guns-your-31844602.png https://pics.me.me/yes-i-do-want-to-take-away-youur-guns-you...
- foldr 9y agoagar said that not all gun control advocates want to repeal the second amendment, not that there aren't any gun control advocates who want to repeal the second amendment.
- agar 9y agoOf course some gun control advocates want a "we've come to collect your guns" law. I never said that no one holds extreme positions. But that does not mean that everyone holds extreme positions, which is what you claimed. Arguing that the extremes are the only options is a problem. How productive would health debates be if the only two options presented were veganism and paleo? If the only sex ed options are abstinence or polyamory? There must be room for compromise, or there is no debate, only argumentation.
- 13of40 9y agoMy state constitution clarifies it as "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state..."
- lostlogin 9y agoDoes it really say ‘himself’?
- ams6110 9y agoYes, it likely does. With English lacking a gender-neutral pronoun, "he" or "him" or "his" historically did not necessarily imply the male sex, depending on context. As "man" can refer to all of humankind, again it's a matter of context.
- lostlogin 9y agoYet the actual second amendment seems to avoid the problem as far as I can see. Edit: And of all the second amendment issues that could be argued, I somehow picked this one.
- laurentoget 9y agoI wish this was the only surprising bit in the constitution of Alabama. The section outlawing interracial marriage was only removed in 2000, and it still contains a section mandating segregated public schools.
- InitialLastName 9y agoYour state constitution doesn't particularly get a say in what the US constitution means (so says the 10th amendment).
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoThat's not necessarily true. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment only prohibits the federal government from "infringing" on your right to bear arms, and not the states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Supreme_Court_cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...
- mr_spothawk 9y ago> "it implies a collective perspective that they find conceptually incompatible" so says you. it's not clear to me at all that militia members don't support collective action
- InitialLastName 9y agoThe militia in that sentence IS the collective action. How many gun owners are part of a well-regulated militia? Even the NRA removed references to that first clause from their material.
- bmelton 9y agoTo be fair, militias of the day weren't generally standing militias, and needed to be mustered. We do have definitions as to what militias are informed to us by writings of the founders, the federalist papers, previous drafts of the second amendment and, failing that, codified by law in 10 US Code § 311. The definition of militia there ("consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard") will likely have been expanded by our recent advances in military equality.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- InitialLastName 9y agoIAANAL but I'm pretty sure the second amendment is actually really vague in terms of what it refers to, and has actually been tested in court less often than one might think.
- rdtsc 9y agoIt depends how you look at it. What was the purpose. Presumably after fighting in the Revolutionary War the goal was not to give people hunting privileges, they had something else in mind. From that point of view, maybe RPGs should be allowed, but so should attack helicopters, surveillance capabilities, private spy satellites, etc. > IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder. Surprisingly perhaps you can buy a military grade flamethrower complete with a napalm package: https://throwflame.com/ https://throwflame.com/ it's not even classified as a firearm, and is illegal in only two states I think.
- goldenkey 9y agoThat flamethrower is awesome. What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't?
- punchclockhero 9y agoClearing brush. It's considered an agricultural tool IIRC.
- reitanqild 9y agoAlso for preburning (ahead of forest fires) IIRC.
- ianamartin 9y agoAre you saying that literally fighting fire with fire is a thing? I may have missed my calling . . . .
- munk-a 9y agoI mean... yes? That is where the saying comes from.
- ApolloFortyNine 9y agoHow it's written I personally think you should be able to buy any weapon available on the open market. Or at least any weapon that could realistically be used by an infantryman (as the wording is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,." I'd rather have a new amendment then have judges be able to decide what the definition of arms is. Slippery slope. They really could one day decide that 'arms' is only muskets, or even just knives.
- bmelton 9y agoBroadly speaking, that's been the holding of the courts since 1939. U.S. v. Miller loosely established the test (later solidified in 2008's Heller v DC) that weapons commonly used in militia service are inherently deserving of second amendment protections. Miller, a known mobster who was caught with a sawed off shotgun lost his case because a) the military testified that they had never used sawed off shotguns, so they were not useful to a military, ergo a militia (which was a lie -- they had used them, and found them useful for trench-clearing) b) Miller's attorney was not very good, and didn't even challenge that testimony, much less so by totally disproving it -- I offer a little sympathy here as they didn't have Google at the time Also noteworthy, Miller was actually dead when the decision came down, as he'd been murdered, and because /shrug, the trial kept going, but the defense (for obvious reasons) quit trying. He was sentenced in absentia.
- ApolloFortyNine 9y agoYou say solidified, but it was a 5-4 ruling. To determine if handguns could be banned by the city. And an 'arm' that has been used by infantry forces for generations. Which I find just insane. People say no one wants to take Americans guns rights away, but we were literally one vote from effectively doing so.
- bmelton 9y agoWhenever someone says "no one wants to take your guns away", now you can just point them at this and see whether they maintain that position: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-town-votes-to-ban-assault-rifles-fine-violators-1000-per-day/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-town-votes-to-ban-assa...
- shpongled 9y agoExcept you can own an RPG in the US... It's an NFA classified destructive device. You can also own cannons, tanks, or attack helicopters if you have the money.
- humanrebar 9y agoThere's a school of thought that the word "arms" in the Constitution might have referred mainly to sidearms, not to canons, catapults, warships, etc. The theory is that there were other words like "artillery" to describe larger weapons.
- mywittyname 9y agoThis school only makes sense if you throw out the entire section that mentions a well regulated militia. A militia would be expected to have artillery.
- 75dvtwin 9y ago>"Justice Scalia also wrote: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” [1] https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/ https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scal... I think for a weapon to be 'compliant' with US's second amendment a couple of criteria must be met a) must be in current wide use in military b) must be capable of being carried by a single person (which is why tanks and fighter jets will not qualify) This follows form 'individual' focus of the bill of right. c) must be capable to aim it at a single person (which is why explosive or RPGs would not qualify). This follows from the notion that Bill of Right in general, does not condone collateral damage or collateral effect. As this is Individual's right, and therefore presumes individual's responsibility. I also find this linguistic analysis of what 'bear arms' meant in 1791s, interesting/educational [2] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=255 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=255