Are ANY Gun Laws Legal?

[Socrates]

Well... semantics, syntax, and viewpoint, in the case of the 2nd Amendment: if the syntax were clearer, the semantics would take care of themselves. But that's why interpretation is necessary -- it's those darn commas, and deciding what counts as a subordinate clause.

Call me a deconstructionist or worse, if you will, but I find the notion that there's some sort of "plain meaning" of language that exists on some level other than how humans interpret it (which may vary) sort of naive...

The concepts and ideas behind the writing of the Constitution are relatively easy to find. It's these basic concepts that for most Constitutional scholars are easy to find, and, are the reason for many justices using a 'strict constructionist' view of the Constitution. It's a fairly long document, concerned with one man's nature, once given power, to misuse that power, destroying what gave them that power in the first place, and causing suffering and misery.

These were also very smart men, that could anticipate that things would develop that they might not be ready for. However, the primary ideals of freedom they knew must be present for the society to flourish.

Having British soldiers running around, moving into their houses for months at a time, eating their food, etc. certainly is little different from the threat of home invasion, and the recognition of the need for firearms to be secure in your own home.

They attempted to limit the Federal government, but, that created serious problems as well, since raising an army was difficult, and paying for it even harder.

They also understood the concept that government bureaucracy is unlikely to flourish if there is no money to pay people, and, that was clearly their intent.

We are now on a path, or already really have, an oligarchy we elect. Even the state congress' are reasserting their right to govern their states, for fear of Obama and the current congress. We are clearly going down a path to socialism, or socialized government practices. That is not the direction the founders designed the Constitution to go in.

I believe there are a LOT of folks out there that are concerned about these issues, and, they are voting with gun and ammunition dollars, right now.

The Supreme Court has in the past been a rock in the path to socialism. It has also done incredible things to help get to that point. There is a split on the court, one side going for government being the solution to everything, and, that the Constitution is a 'living' document, to be changed as everything changes.

The strict constructionist view is that the limitations on the Federal Government MUST be upheld, or, the system of government we have is not going to be the one the founders designed, and, that has worked for a couple hundred years.

One of the other great fears is the benevolent dictator, similar to Pericles. A sophist that will say anything to gain power, and, then do anything to keep it. FDR was very close to that, a country that was in desperate straight relied on this man on the radio to guide them. There are different views on how well he did that, but, one is very clear, he erroded the limitations on the Federal government tremendously, and, created bureaucracy
at a new, self-serving level, and, the war is what saved us.

The founders understood the threat of such a person, and, designed a system to stifle this sort of person.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Buying guns and ammo because we are going down the socialist path is the path to the Condition Tin Foil and a lock down.

If we want to discuss what gun laws are legal - that's our topic.

Just a hint to steer closer to the topic of this thread.

[Socrates]

Short answer:

If you are a Strict Constructionist, NO.

If you are a Frankfurter, and believe in slippery slopes, and expanding the power of the government, then yes.

In a state that won't trust me with hot water, why would they trust me with a gun?

ONLY because it's in the BOR's. Apparently hot water isn't...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So, should any gunpowder based weapon be available for purchase by civilians without any restrictions? We've had this discussion before until it was locked.

Thus, I can live under a flight path to the airport with a L-70 Bofors 40mm, if I can afford it? Or one of those WWII vehicles with four 5O BMGs mounted?

They sure would help defending your neighborhood. But if Ma Deuces were easily available - guess what - they would be in gang hands very quickly. The risk of such weaponery is irrelevant to the argument only if your view is based on a discredited view of how the Constitution is interpreted. Remember the Constitution has changed as morays changed. A strict constructionist might pine for days of slaves and no women voting.

No limits at all? We've seen that the Swiss and Japanese arguments have been flawed. The argument that laws don't regulate speech on the Federal level has been discredited. If we want to maintain gun rights, cliches and incorrect arguments won't cut it.

So if the only argument is repeating 'shall not' over and over again without resort to context, this argument is becoming worthless - esp. if it is 'get ready for the revolution thread'. How about this - we had a presidency that many disagreed with - for some its policies were threats to the BOR. No one had to drive around with a Ma Deuce - we had an election. Saying this particular presidency is a call for Ma Deuces behind your Hummer is a specious practical argument. In 2012, if Obama flops, the Congress changes.

Justing saying 'gun' - not convincing.

[Socrates]

You win this one, just because Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas and friends were appointed by FDR, stayed on the bench for 30+ years, and, out numbered Hugo Black, and the strict constructionist prior. Their effect on the Incorporationist Doctrine is pivotal to the issue under discussion, and, their failure to ever address the 2nd Amendment, and the individual right to bear arms.

If not for the fact that FDR was elected for 4 terms, and appointed Charles Evan Hughes, Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutledge, and Chief Justice, Harlan Fiske Stone, that's TEN Supreme Court Justices, we might well be having a different discussion. When you have a president with such incredible support, who is intent on one thing: Expanding the government and it's power, and he appoints the entire bench, plus one, well, it's amazing that anyone even brings up the concept of Strict Construction.

However, we now have a few Constitutional law scholars that have come to the same same conclusion as far as Strict Construction:
Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts, we may finally have enough votes to reign in the 'growth and slippery slope' trend.

[vranasaurus]

So by your reasoning I should be allowed to keep a suit case nuke in my gun safe?

If you say no then the 2A is not absolute. The second amendment says "arms" not "firearms", "guns", or "swords". A basic definition of "arms" is weaponry. If we use that definition and your reasoning about the second amendment being absolute then we have the right to any "arm".

[Socrates]

Congratulations. You've just learned how to take the first step to gun control...
You have started down the slippery slope, and, where is the slide going to end, with my 22 short Beretta 950?(Did you know .22 short, and .22 long Beretta 950's are illegal to purchase in Kali, unless you are LEO?) Guess they rank right up there with your suitcase nuke as a weapon of mass destruction...

Congratulations on using a truly absurd example, that 'justifys' your position, and, therefore you can now write a law that will ban 30 round magazines, and .50 Caliber rifles, or no handguns, at all, in Washington D.C., for 30 years...

So yes, I'd rather you could try and buy a suitcase nuke, and live with about 20 branches of the Federal government chasing you for possessing a controlled substance, and taking pictures of your sex life, and, where you pee, then some absurd gun law that limits freedom, and, doesn't stop anyone from committing a crime.

How about in England, with no pistols, and, now no fox hunting, soon to be no rifles, or shotguns?

So, your next logical step is to take one, adsurdly horrendous case, 5 year old gang member shoots crack pipe mother, over 8 ball, and write a law banning all firearms for everyone...

Once you've mastered this logic, you become a front runner for a congressional position from Kalifornia...

[vranasaurus]

So yes, I'd rather you could try and buy a suitcase nuke

You and your argument just became irrelevant.

[Socrates]

NO, you did. Plutonium is not avaliable at the local store, nor is it a commodity the public is allowed to possess. There are plenty of laws that contain this avenue.

Therefore your entire scenario, trying to create bad law from irrelevance is absurd. Again, you must work for Pelosi...

[vranasaurus]

Banning the possession of plutonium would be the equivelant of banning the sale and possesion of gun powder.

[Socrates]

As I've said, prior, your use of absurd examples qualifies you to run for congressional office. You'll fit in, just fine. You use the same absurd one case situation to create law that our congress does.

Is it a terrible tragedy that some crackpipe mom scalded her 3 year old to death? Yes. Does that mean 300 million people should not be able to use water over 120 degrees in their bathtubs???

Plutonium IS already a banned substance. YOU WIN the prize, and, you can run for congress next term...

[vranasaurus]

You use the same absurd one case situation to create law that our congress does

I never once said I would use my example to write new laws. Only to prove the point that the RKBA is not absolute.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. No one is arguing for more gun laws. We are saying that the RKBA is not nor has it ever been absolute.

Is it a terrible tragedy that some crackpipe mom scalded her 3 year old to death? Yes. Does that mean 300 million people should not be able to use water over 120 degrees in their bathtubs???

This has nothing to do with the RKBA.

Plutonium IS already a banned substance

So if it is already banned it is OK? If you have a right to a nuclear weapon wouldn't such a abn be unconstituional?

Does that mean the Hughes amendment is OK because it bans the sale or transfer of machine guns made after May 1986 to civillians? Since those post 1986 Machine guns are already banned it is OK.

Whether or not something is currently banned has no bearing on whether or not such a ban is consitutional.

And please stop with the name calling.

[Al Norris]

3) No spamming, trolling, flaming or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor.

Anyone curious at why this thread is now closed can PM me.