Learn More - Click Here!

Thread Options
#864503 - 11/30/07 11:31 PM Whose Right to Bear Arms?
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
To quote Cathy Lanier, Washington's acting chief of police: "Last year, more than 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C., a 13 percent increase over 2005." The bad guys seem to have no trouble finding a weapon in the nation's capital, while the innocent are legally disarmed.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulG...p;comments=true
Last edited by The Man of Steel; 12/01/07 12:08 AM.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#864505 - 11/30/07 11:34 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? TheManofSteel
Hated By Some Offline
10K Club
Hated By Some
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
does this article discuss how many weapons would've been recovered had they been even more easily accesible?

correct me if i am wrong, but it is illegal, right? i think enforcement is your issue here.

Return to Top
#864514 - 11/30/07 11:51 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hated By Some
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
What Supreme Court cases do you disagree with?

Return to Top
#864519 - 11/30/07 11:53 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hated By Some
Hrothgar Geiger Offline
10K Club
Hrothgar Geiger
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
I'm confused about the thread title "Who's Right to Bear Arms?"

Do you mean "Who Is Right to Bear Arms?"
Also, I don't think you can claim that the residents of D.C. have been "legally disarmed." They may still legally purchase rifles and shotguns. And, I might be wrong, but I'd thought there was a grandfather clause for handguns legally registered prior to a certain date. No one (aside from criminals) has had their firearms confiscated.

Return to Top
#864520 - 11/30/07 11:54 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? straw
Hated By Some Offline
10K Club
Hated By Some
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
Originally Posted By: straw
What Supreme Court cases do you disagree with?

what's this odd segue all about? tmos posted an article about gun control. i responded to that issue. this seems to be a bit out of left field, straw. do you disagree with the miller case?

Return to Top
#864521 - 11/30/07 11:55 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hrothgar Geiger
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
Originally Posted By: AML-Barbarian
I'm confused about the thread title "Who's Right to Bear Arms?"

Do you mean "Who Is Right to Bear Arms?"
Also, I don't think you can claim that the residents of D.C. have been "legally disarmed." They may still legally purchase rifles and shotguns. And, I might be wrong, but I'd thought there was a grandfather clause for handguns legally registered prior to a certain date. No one (aside from criminals) has had their firearms confiscated.


I meant the title as a possessive "Whose" but misspelled it. The actual article's title is "Whose..."
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
#864522 - 11/30/07 11:56 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hated By Some
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
Originally Posted By: Ron Mexico
Originally Posted By: straw
What Supreme Court cases do you disagree with?

what's this odd segue all about? tmos posted an article about gun control. i responded to that issue. this seems to be a bit out of left field, straw. do you disagree with the miller case?


Of all my article postings, I love the RTBA postings because I sit back and watch the most hilarious, albeit serious and informative, debates unfold
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
#864574 - 12/01/07 03:49 AM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hrothgar Geiger
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Originally Posted By: AML-Barbarian
I don't think you can claim that the residents of D.C. have been "legally disarmed." They may still legally purchase rifles and shotguns. And, I might be wrong, but I'd thought there was a grandfather clause for handguns legally registered prior to a certain date. No one (aside from criminals) has had their firearms confiscated.


Wow, that's great. Really, that's one of the best posts I've ever seen from a lefty. (a) You deftly ignore the restriction that the shotgun or rifle may only be owned if stored disassembled or with a trigger lock, greatly reducing their ability to serve as a deterrent. (b) You brilliantly pretend that the grandfathering of legal hangun ownership - from such a long time ago that only literal grandfathers can own the weapons! - is some sort of mitigating allowance. And (c) your use of the gun rights crowd's argument against them is, quite simply, stunning!... If it's illegal to have guns, then only criminals own guns!

Return to Top
#864580 - 12/01/07 06:16 AM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Jokerman
Hated By Some Offline
10K Club
Hated By Some
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
Quote:
(a) You deftly ignore the restriction that the shotgun or rifle may only be owned if stored disassembled or with a trigger lock, greatly reducing their ability to serve as a deterrent.

what about serving in a militia means that the right is for deterrence of crime?

Return to Top
#864583 - 12/01/07 06:40 AM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hated By Some
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Originally Posted By: Ron Mexico
Quote:
(a) You deftly ignore the restriction that the shotgun or rifle may only be owned if stored disassembled or with a trigger lock, greatly reducing their ability to serve as a deterrent.

what about serving in a militia means that the right is for deterrence of crime?


Ignoring your glaring logical fallacy (you should trust that source), the question was not about constitutional rights - it was about whether the residents had been disarmed.

Return to Top
#864600 - 12/01/07 03:15 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Jokerman
Hated By Some Offline
10K Club
Hated By Some
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
i'm not sure about the fallacy: your point is predicated on the ability of guns to serve as a deterrent to crime. where in the constitution are citizens afforded that right?

as far as residents being disarmed, if the right is a collective right to be able to participate in the militia, when the citizen soldiers are rounded up, having to unstore and unlock their weapons is far from disarming them. they could certainly do so in a minute, consistent with the "minutemen" concept of the founding fathers' time.

Return to Top
#864605 - 12/01/07 05:18 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hated By Some
Hrothgar Geiger Offline
10K Club
Hrothgar Geiger
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
There is one definition of 'disarm' that reads 'to take away weapons'. This is the definition I use to question whether D.C. residents have been 'disarmed'. As far as I am aware, legally registered firearms have not been removed from the possession of D.C. residents by civil authorities.

There is another definition of 'disarm' that reads 'to render harmless'. This is the definition that tmos and Tom use to assert that D.C. residents are disarmed since their weapons must be kept unloaded and locked.

This can either be a typical BOL semantic slugfest, or it can lead to a more interesting discussion of the 2nd Amendment.

An unloaded and locked weapon owned by a citizen represents an infringement of the RTBA, as tmos puts it, only if you believe that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizen to keep weapons for their personal defense. If you believe that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to keep weapons for the defense of the State, then an unloaded and locked weapon represents no infringement at all.

Here's an example of what I mean. When a Swiss citizen completes their term of compulsory military service, they become part of the militia (or 'ready reserve'.) As part of their militia requirements, they must keep an automatic assault rifle (the Steyr 510 or 550), a side-arm (Sig P229) and roughly 48 rounds of ammunition for each in their home. The weapons are used in training exercises or in the event of a service call-up. The ammunition is inventoried quarterly. Except for training or active use the weapons are kept.....unloaded.

Return to Top
#864612 - 12/01/07 06:43 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hrothgar Geiger
Hated By Some Offline
10K Club
Hated By Some
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
either way, i see no prohibition of disarming in the constitution.

Return to Top
#864663 - 12/02/07 05:00 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hated By Some
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Originally Posted By: Ron Mexico
either way, i see no prohibition of disarming in the constitution.


Of course not, Ron.

Originally Posted By: AML-Barbarian
This is the definition that tmos and Tom use to assert that D.C. residents are disarmed since their weapons must be kept unloaded and locked.


How would you know what definition I'm using?

Return to Top
#864668 - 12/02/07 05:26 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hrothgar Geiger
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
Originally Posted By: AML-Barbarian
There is one definition of 'disarm' that reads 'to take away weapons'. This is the definition I use to question whether D.C. residents have been 'disarmed'. As far as I am aware, legally registered firearms have not been removed from the possession of D.C. residents by civil authorities.

There is another definition of 'disarm' that reads 'to render harmless'. This is the definition that tmos and Tom use to assert that D.C. residents are disarmed since their weapons must be kept unloaded and locked.

This can either be a typical BOL semantic slugfest, or it can lead to a more interesting discussion of the 2nd Amendment.

An unloaded and locked weapon owned by a citizen represents an infringement of the RTBA, as tmos puts it, only if you believe that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizen to keep weapons for their personal defense. If you believe that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to keep weapons for the defense of the State, then an unloaded and locked weapon represents no infringement at all.


Actually, I have not stated my opinion on this, so much as posted the article to continue the debate on the Second Amendment. But I do have a question that I am generally putting out there to the various parties in this debate (Rainman, Barb, RM, TT, Straw, etc) in light of the 2nd possibility, that the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to keep weapons for defense of the state.

If citizens are permitted to keep and bear arms, and this is for the purpose of defending the state, not with the express and sole purpose of self-defense, then consider the following: My home is breached and an attacker, using some sort of deadly weapon (blunt, cutting, firearm, has a bomb) threatens or has in fact already done harm to me and/or a family member. Would I have the right to utilize the firearm I keep under the 2nd Amendment for militia purposes, in order to facilitate the dispatching of the assailant. Please consider each of the factors I have proposed, and the following condition: it is unknown if law enforcement or anyone else is aware this is taking place, and I have somehow managed to assemble and load my firearm during the commission of this crime.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
#864671 - 12/02/07 06:54 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? TheManofSteel
Hrothgar Geiger Offline
10K Club
Hrothgar Geiger
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
TMOS,

With respect to your hypothetical situation;

1. I don't know. There are too many extraneous factors not defined. Militia regulations, laws on the use of deadly force, whether or not you may own other weapons for personal use.
2. Does it really matter? Wouldn't you defend yourself anyway and take whatever consequences may be applied?

Return to Top
#864676 - 12/02/07 07:57 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hrothgar Geiger
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
Originally Posted By: AML-Barbarian
TMOS,

With respect to your hypothetical situation;

1. I don't know. There are too many extraneous factors not defined. Militia regulations, laws on the use of deadly force, whether or not you may own other weapons for personal use.
2. Does it really matter? Wouldn't you defend yourself anyway and take whatever consequences may be applied?


Yes, I would. But I want to know what the legal implications of doing so would be. For instance, could my use of the firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the above scenario, though not provided for in the Constitution's 2nd Amendment (presuming SCOTUS rules that way) result in a crime on my part? Or, would the "right to life, liberty.." set forth in the Declaration supercede the use of the firearm in a manner not keeping with the 2nd Amendment?

Thatis what my concern is if the court rules that self-defense does not apply.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
#864810 - 12/03/07 03:39 PM Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms? Hated By Some
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Originally Posted By: Ron Mexico


Originally Posted By: straw
What Supreme Court cases do you disagree with?

what's this odd segue all about? tmos posted an article about gun control. i responded to that issue. this seems to be a bit out of left field, straw. do you disagree with the miller case?


Do you disagree with any Supreme Court case?

Return to Top