Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

Captain_Swoop said:
And shotguns with a larger bore.
You can buy a 4 and 2 bore double rifles.
They are monsters.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is some sort of historical exception for those. Good lord, a 2 gauge rifle means an 8oz round ball. I'll refrain from ever firing one. But, I read an article somewhere years ago that modern 12 gauge and 10 gauge rifled barrels are in a sort of legal conundrum.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
To be entirely fair, there are a lot of posters, and the wording of the 2nd doesn't really help.
Click to expand...
To be entirely fair, most of the posters involved have been going round and round on this for years. They've had plenty of time to reason out their own interpretation of the amendment, find their own sources and cites, and resume the debate starting from that work they've already done.

Instead, it always seems to come back to "what does 'arms' even mean, anyway?"

crescent said:
And SC opinions have changed. Heller was the first time the court recognized an individual right to own guns.
Click to expand...
Even just starting from Heller would be a huge improvement, instead of every time trying to reinvent the entire debate up to Heller, from first principles, as if none of this--including Heller!--has ever been thought of before.

lobosrul5 said:
Err, actually I know of the major supreme court decisions. DC v. Heller is newer and supersedes US v. Miller. But that doesn't mean it won't itself be superseded once more. Furthermore, the DC v. Heller decision doesn't contradict anything I said. I mean in part, the majority decision states: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:".
Click to expand...
And yet here you are, starting from "what does 'arms' even mean?", as if you've never heard of the two century's worth of court decisions and public debate on the question of gun control.
 
theprestige said:
And yet here you are, starting from "what does 'arms' even mean?", as if you've never heard of the two century's worth of court decisions and public debate on the question of gun control.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that these interpretations, for instance the definition of 'arms', are now fixed and cannot be reinterpreted by another court decision somewhere?

If that's the case, then you have an excellent point. If all of the interpretations you mention above can be undone by another decision of another court somewhere then the "what is meant by 'arms'?" and other questions are entirely legitimate.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Not exactly, but I expected a distortion. The law in this regard is the Constitution and currently as interpreted by the Courts the 2nd Amendment is the law. Neither Congress nor the President can change that. So, in essence if Congress banned any firearm or by decree the President declared anything banned, THEY would be breaking the law. I wouldn't expect most outsiders to understand and this thread established that clearly.
Click to expand...


That's not true. Some firearms, like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, are already banned or tightly restricted under existing federal law. The assault-weapons ban, flawed though it was, was never ruled unconstitutional. State laws regarding firearms, magazine size, access, registration, waiting periods etc. have been upheld.
Although the Heller decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court made it clear that the right to possess a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions. The Court indicated that the Second Amendment continues to allow for limits on guns like the following:

Not allowing everyone to possess a gun. The right can be withheld from felons and the mentally ill, for example.

Not allowing guns to be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding people from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, remain valid.

Certain restrictions on the sale of guns. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms continue to be allowed.

Banning certain types of guns. The Second Amendment does not protect guns that are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. (The Court endorsed the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'")

Outlawing concealed weapons. Laws prohibiting concealed weapons probably remain valid.
Click to expand...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-own-gun-under-heller-30295.html
 
Bob001 said:
Just curious. Is a "full-auto Glock" something that is actually marketed, or was a standard semi-auto Glock doctored? If the latter, what would Glock need to do to make such a modification impossible?
Click to expand...

Any self loading firearm (semi auto) can be converted to full auto with the proper knowledge and tools ... there is no way to make it impossible.

Even Bolt action firearms can be converted to full auto with enough patience.

In fact a double barrel black powder muscle loading MUSKET, can be converted to fire full auto with simple handyman tools.
 
3point14 said:
I don't think someone needs to know the details of the four stroke engine cycle or the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini to opine that speed limits are a good idea.
Click to expand...

Why are vehicles constructed in a way that allows them to exceed the speed limits?
 
3point14 said:
Are you saying that these interpretations, for instance the definition of 'arms', are now fixed and cannot be reinterpreted by another court decision somewhere?
Click to expand...
I am not saying that.

If that's the case, then you have an excellent point. If all of the interpretations you mention above can be undone by another decision of another court somewhere then the "what is meant by 'arms'?" and other questions are entirely legitimate.
Click to expand...
This does not follow.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
“detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon...”

This is how arbitrary it al becomes...

Illegal:

[qimg]https://www.apexgunparts.com/media/catalog/category/Russian_AK47.jpg[/qimg]

Legal:

[qimg]https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-content/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2012/02/19/310345_01_sa_85m_hungarian_ak47_thumbhol_640.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

In Canada some firearms can be made legal by simply manufacturing them without the CARRY HANDLE :)
 
Hellbound said:
Actually, I think just automatic weapons ... are banned at the federal level ...
Click to expand...

Nope .. not even in Canada .. I've been to a Full Auto Firearm shoot before, right in my Province, plenty of people legally own full auto "machine guns" here.
 
Yeggster said:
Name one successful drug ban? You know an illegal drug that does not exist now because it was banned by the government?
Click to expand...

This argument only works if you propose legalizing drugs.

Drugs are illegal, but available. Speeding is illegal but it happens. Prostitution is illegal, but one can still find prostitutes. Lots of things are like that.

Guns, however, are the only one that conservatives think should be legal based solely on unwillingness to follow the law (ETA: or hypothetically proposed laws). Its a very inconsistent approach.
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
This argument only works if you propose legalizing drugs.

Drugs are illegal, but available. Speeding is illegal but it happens. Prostitution is illegal, but one can still find prostitutes. Lots of things are like that.

Guns, however, are the only one that conservatives think should be legal based solely on unwillingness to follow the law (ETA: or hypothetically proposed laws). Its a very inconsistent approach.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense

Most "recreational drugs' ARE legal as well ......

And ... no-one I know of thinks legal gun ownership is based solely on ANY one factor, there are MANY factors ... same as everything else.
 
Last edited:
Yeggster said:
Any self loading firearm (semi auto) can be converted to full auto with the proper knowledge and tools ... there is no way to make it impossible.

Even Bolt action firearms can be converted to full auto with enough patience.

In fact a double barrel black powder muscle loading MUSKET, can be converted to fire full auto with simple handyman tools.
Click to expand...

I think I saw a patent drawing of how that is accomplished. It looked quite complicated and impractical. I'd love to see how a black power muzzle loader can be full auto. Unless you just mean both barrels with one trigger pull.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I think I saw a patent drawing of how that is accomplished. It looked quite complicated and impractical. I'd love to see how a black power muzzle loader can be full auto. Unless you just mean both barrels with one trigger pull.
Click to expand...

I agree there! .. the bolt action modifications I have seen were dismal!

At one time double loads in each chamber or barrel were manufactured and sold in black power firearms .. a 6 chamber gun, could fire 12 shots before needing to be reloaded for example.

The double barrel Muzzle loader conversion is simply ... multiple shot and powder loads (as described above) are placed in each barrel, and connecting holes are drilled to allow the powder flame from the left barrel to ignite the powder in the right barrel

... and vice a versa down the barrel to the start till all loads have been discharged.
 
theprestige said:
And yet here you are, starting from "what does 'arms' even mean?", as if you've never heard of the two century's worth of court decisions and public debate on the question of gun control.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but nowhere did I ever type that which you put in quotes. That's not even an accurate pseudo-quote. Did the framer's of the constitution intend that everyone be allowed to own whatever types of arms available? I never asked for the word 'arms' to be defined. There is a long history of denying private citizens certain types of arms that no SC decision has ever ruled against. That is relevant in a debate about the constitutionality of banning certain types of firearms.

I also wouldn't expect everyone, especially the non-Americans, on this thread to be an expert on "two century's worth of court decisions and public debate".
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
This argument only works if you propose legalizing drugs.

Drugs are illegal, but available. Speeding is illegal but it happens. Prostitution is illegal, but one can still find prostitutes. Lots of things are like that.

Guns, however, are the only one that conservatives think should be legal based solely on unwillingness to follow the law (ETA: or hypothetically proposed laws). Its a very inconsistent approach.
Click to expand...

Yeggster said:
That doesn't make sense

Most "recreational drugs' ARE legal as well ......

And ... no-one I know of thinks legal gun ownership is based solely on ANY one factor, there are MANY factors ... same as everything else.
Click to expand...

Good catch on my poorly chosen wording. I can totally see how not using the word "illegal" changes the meaning of what I wrote, even if it was in direct reply to your reference to "illegal drugs".:rolleyes:

That said, you seem to be implying that there would be no point in banning this or that type of gun, partly because they would be available anyway, like, say cocaine or meth.

Except that we don't legalize cocaine or meth, even though the laws are not perfectly implemented and those drugs can still be found. The laws criminalizing possession and distribution of so-called "hard drugs" are thought to have value, despite not cutting of the supply 100%

So yes, if we as a society decide to ban this or that type of firearm or accessory, they may still be available - just like illegal drugs. That is no justification to not ban such guns, after all, we continue to ban illegal drugs even though they remain available. There may, however, still be value - enormous value - in reducing the supply, just as with illegal drugs.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
...Did the framer's of the constitution intend that everyone be allowed to own whatever types of arms
Click to expand...

I thought that was obvious ... The framers of the constitution intended everyone to own the same types of arms the current military has ...

The IDEA is so they can overthrow the government AGAIN, if it become necessary.
 
Belz... said:
To hear the other side, those rights have been there since foundation.
Click to expand...

Except they haven't been there insofar as protection from state and local law, until the 14th Amendment was ratified, see section 1 specifically. Even afterwards it took some decades before court cases going up to the SC saw it actually applied correctly.

North Carolina made it illegal for free "coloreds" to keep weapons without special permission, in 1840:

That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.

Texas, yeah Texas, dd this in 1872:

Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions -- and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
Good catch on my poorly chosen wording. I can totally see how not using the word "illegal" changes the meaning of what I wrote, even if it was in direct reply to your reference to "illegal drugs".:rolleyes:

That said, you seem to be implying that there would be no point in banning this or that type of gun, partly because they would be available anyway, like, say cocaine or meth.

Except that we don't legalize cocaine or meth, even though the laws are not perfectly implemented and those drugs can still be found. The laws criminalizing possession and distribution of so-called "hard drugs" are thought to have value, despite not cutting of the supply 100%

So yes, if we as a society decide to ban this or that type of firearm or accessory, they may still be available - just like illegal drugs. That is no justification to not ban such guns, after all, we continue to ban illegal drugs even though they remain available. There may, however, still be value - enormous value - in reducing the supply, just as with illegal drugs.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense ... I understand you ...

I honestly don't think banning any guns will help in these situations (for the many reason that have been posted) BUT...

... In essence I agree with your point ... "just because it's going to be difficult and not 100% successful" ... is no reason to refuse to enact laws, that should be at most a tiny part, of any decision, to make new laws, about anything.
 
Yeggster said:
That makes more sense ... I understand you ...
Click to expand...

Quit it! How can we have a bitter rancorous spiteful and angry argue if we actually read what each other write and give it real consideration!

YOU'RE BREAKING THE RULES OF INTERNET FIGHT CLUB!!
 
Anybody noticed how some people are trying to make the case that their ignorance about firearms in a gun control debate is actually a virtue?
 
lobosrul5 said:
I'm sorry, but nowhere did I ever type that which you put in quotes. That's not even an accurate pseudo-quote. Did the framer's of the constitution intend that everyone be allowed to own whatever types of arms available? I never asked for the word 'arms' to be defined. There is a long history of denying private citizens certain types of arms that no SC decision has ever rules against. That is relevant in a debate about the constitutionality of banning certain types of firearms.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, English doesn't have specific punctuation for "not a literal quote but a summary of the general sense of what's been said". So I have to rely on regular quote marks and the ability of the reader to consider context. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

And of course the points you raise are relevant to the debate. I'm saying that the debate has made progress. There's no reason you have to revert to the same basic question again, as if no progress has been made, and as if you haven't even given the question much thought yet yourself.

I also wouldn't expect everyone, especially the non-Americans, on this thread to be an expert on "two century's worth of court decisions and public debate".
Click to expand...
Why not? They like to style themselves as experts on every other damn thing.

Here's one thing that might happen:

"I'm from the UK, and I haven't given US gun control issues much thought yet. Here's what I think about the Second Amendment. Where can I find more material on the subject, including arguments and court decisions on the many sides of the debate?"

That would be understandable, and welcome.

But most of the regulars on the subject here have been going at it for, I dunno, at least ten years. Seems reasonable to me. I don't think it's too much to expect that by this point they'd be reasonably well-informed about the subject, and ready to build advanced arguments on conclusions they've already arrived at.
 
Yeggster said:
I agree there! .. the bolt action modifications I have seen were dismal!

At one time double loads in each chamber or barrel were manufactured and sold in black power firearms .. a 6 chamber gun, could fire 12 shots before needing to be reloaded for example.

The double barrel Muzzle loader conversion is simply ... multiple shot and powder loads (as described above) are placed in each barrel, and connecting holes are drilled to allow the powder flame from the left barrel to ignite the powder in the right barrel

... and vice a versa down the barrel to the start till all loads have been discharged.
Click to expand...

Ah, OK I've heard of double loads before. But that's not quite the same as automatic fire. Your getting 2 shots per barrel about .2 seconds apart from each other whether you like it or not.
 
Yeggster said:
I thought that was obvious ... The framers of the constitution intended everyone to own the same types of arms the current military has ...

The IDEA is so they can overthrow the government AGAIN, if it become necessary.
Click to expand...

It was more or less framed as the States ability to keep a militia to dissolve the Union should they feel themselves tyrannized. Done in order to keep the anti-federalists happy, among other concessions.
 
crescent said:
Quit it! How can we have a bitter rancorous spiteful and angry argue if we actually read what each other write and give it real consideration!

YOU'RE BREAKING THE RULES OF INTERNET FIGHT CLUB!!
Click to expand...

LOL ... I find virtually every argument has SOME common ground :)
 
lobosrul5 said:
Ah, OK I've heard of double loads before. But that's not quite the same as automatic fire. Your getting 2 shots per barrel about .2 seconds apart from each other whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

The double musket theory suggests loading 3 or perhaps 4 loads in each barrel ... and yes .,. once you light off the first one? ... HOLD ON, they are all going off very rapidly! :)
 
Yeggster said:
I thought that was obvious ... The framers of the constitution intended everyone to own the same types of arms the current military has ...

The IDEA is so they can overthrow the government AGAIN, if it become necessary.
Click to expand...

I think two things are reasonably clear (but not necessarily obvious) from the wording of Second Amendment:

First, that the authors recognized an inherent human right to bear arms.

Second, that the authors recognized at least one compelling reason* not to infringe on that right: Private gun ownership would provide a practical basis for raising militias when necessary to protect the state (not overthrow it, as you somehow believe).

The question of what type of arms is not answered, nor even asked, by the amendment. Instead it's been up to the courts to decide what types of arms are covered, on a case by case basis. Examining the Constitution in a vacuum, without reference to the body of case law and statute law that has grown from it, doesn't really even begin to reveal what is "obvious" in terms of practical implications.

---

* Elsewhere, some of the framers argue that it is not practical to enumerate all the reasons to protect a human right. Therefore, they continue, enumerating any reasons has the perverse effect of making it seem like only those reasons apply, and if they are negated, there are no other reasons to protect the right. Since that is not true, it is better to not enumerate reasons, but let the assertion of the right stand on its own, with all possible justifications for it intact, whether they've been discovered yet or not.

Obviously those framers lost the argument, when it came to wording the Second Amendment. But I think the principle remains, and applies: Just because militia is the only reason given, it does not follow that it is the only reason that is constitutionally binding on the right to bear arms.
 
crescent said:
Who?
Click to expand...

varwoche, I think, has taken the line that he doesn't need to know anything about firearms until they've been banned to a much greater degree than at present. The implication is that once most guns are off the table, he might be arsed to learn the technical differences between, say, cap-and-ball revolvers and single-shot muzzle loaders, if it comes to a question of whether to ban them as well.

But for now? Being ignorant of guns is totally acceptable when having an opinion on gun control policy. Because when his opinion is "ban (almost) all guns", he can always come back later and figure out the details of "(almost)" once his desired banmageddon is widely accepted in principle. He's not looking for half measures, so he doesn't need to have refined understanding.
 
theprestige said:
I think two things are reasonably clear (but not necessarily obvious) from the wording of Second Amendment:

First, that the authors recognized an inherent human right to bear arms.

Second, that the authors recognized at least one compelling reason* not to infringe on that right: Private gun ownership would provide a practical basis for raising militias when necessary to protect the state (not overthrow it, as you somehow believe).

The question of what type of arms is not answered, nor even asked, by the amendment. Instead it's been up to the courts to decide what types of arms are covered, on a case by case basis. Examining the Constitution in a vacuum, without reference to the body of case law and statute law that has grown from it, doesn't really even begin to reveal what is "obvious" in terms of practical implications.

---

* Elsewhere, some of the framers argue that it is not practical to enumerate all the reasons to protect a human right. Therefore, they continue, enumerating any reasons has the perverse effect of making it seem like only those reasons apply, and if they are negated, there are no other reasons to protect the right. Since that is not true, it is better to not enumerate reasons, but let the assertion of the right stand on its own, with all possible justifications for it intact, whether they've been discovered yet or not.

Obviously those framers lost the argument, when it came to wording the Second Amendment. But I think the principle remains, and applies: Just because militia is the only reason given, it does not follow that it is the only reason that is constitutionally binding on the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

There in lies the debate :( ... I'm quite certain it will never be resolved ...
 
theprestige said:
I am not saying that.


This does not follow.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does. If the decisions of past courts are changeable by future courts then it's a worthwhile discussion to consider alternative interpretations of the second amendment that would allow controls on firearms that, under current interpretation, would not be allowed.


Personally, I believe the second amendment is a weight around the neck of potential American legislation designed to prevent nutters from killing people. Any attempt to introduce any legislation at all will always fall foul of "shall not be infringed". The moment you require someone to demonstrate a 'right' it ceases to be one and becomes a privilege instead. Any control of any sort will naturally infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners because the very act of asking them to demonstrate their lawfulness is an infringement.
 
theprestige said:
Wherein lies the debate? I covered several points, some of which don't seem very debatable to me.
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to the main the two points you mentioned "What TYPE of arms did they mean" and does what does "Well regulated Militia" mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom