9th Circuit rules individuals have no right to bear arms

[AustinTX]

AustinTX, you have chosen not to address the bulk of that which I put forth to refute your concept of the 2nd amendment and the intent of those who drafted it. If you wish to continue with this debate, please address some of the material I have presented in this regard.
...
What about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets? Would a well-formed militia of the people, one necessary to the security of a free state, need those? Your damn right they would.

You ask that if the 2nd amendment guarantees individuals the right to own these weapons, “why are many types <of guns> not legal to be owned by the general public?” It’s ironic that you then go on to cite the Patriot Act as a threat to our civil liberties. I ask you this simple question. Do you think that the Patriot Act is the first set of laws that may circumvent our rights as afforded by the Constitution?

That's becuase I said I conceeded everything else, I was trying to get what your take on how the 2nd ammendment reconciles with the laws passed under Regan and Clinton, probably Bush too, that limit our right to bear arms of certain types. These laws have passed under Democratic and Republican lead congresses. Contrary to an earlier reply you made to CL, I don't believe sniper rifles are "sporting" weapons, they're about as military as you can get (but yes, you could use one to take a deer out at 1/2 mile) and would be a necessity in today's day and age for an armed citizenry to protect their freedoms. The longer these laws stay in place, the more likely an intrepretation of the 2nd that differs from yours will gradually take over.

No, I don't believe the USA PATRIOT act is at all the first "unconstitutional" law passed by Congress; but it is the most far sweeping erosion to our rights that I can think of. It could be used to circumvent practically everything in the Constitution (as far as personal liberties go). That's why I said, even if the 9th Circuit opinion goes to the Supreme Court, and it agrees, Congress would fix it for several reasons, an extremely strong gun lobby is probably at the forefront, but it could easily be argued that the right to own personal firearms (of the type we can now) for protection of ones property, family, and to provide for them (in the case of hunting) is one of the fundamental rights not directly enumerated and covered by the 9th Ammendment.

 

[Silent Method]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Silent Method

If you think this is the extent of the gun control movement, you are sadly mistaken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't. But I wish it was. How's that?

How's that? Somewhat contradictory in light of your antagonistic reply to poink's statement.

He brought up a push by certain lib/dems to outright ban guns. You replied in such a way as to imply the only aim of the gun control movement is to mandate waiting periods and background checks to simply for the purpose of ensuring "that guns don't end up in the wrong hands."

 

[AustinTX]

...
Good point. As a little aside, I find the discussion of armor piercing bullets to be rather silly. Aside from the fact that we are guaranteed arms specifically for warfare, what kind of armor are we talking about? Any number of the most commonly used center-fire cartriges used today will zip right through the bullet-proof vests commonly worn by police officers, and come out the other side. This is nothing new.

Sounds like you're agreeing with being able to limit the types of firearms and ammunition available to the general population. If they've outlawed some, they can outlaw others later....


edit re: what kind of armor; the stuff that could stop mechanized equipment, plus some of the "cop killer" bullets that will go through the full armor (not just a vest with plates).

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

What a huge mistake this turned out to be! If there was ever a "True" example of a slippery slope this was it!

 

[Silent Method]

Contrary to an earlier reply you made to CL, I don't believe sniper rifles are "sporting" weapons, they're about as military as you can get (but yes, you could use one to take a deer out at 1/2 mile) and would be a necessity in today's day and age for an armed citizenry to protect their freedoms.

First, the right to bare arms has nothing to do with "sporting" firearms. It has everything to do with weapons.

Second, I don't think you have the slightest idea about the concept of "sniper" rifles. What is the difference between the Remington Model 700, arguably the most popular hunting rifle in North America, and the USMC M24 Sniper System? Answer - the M24 has a neat-o black composite stock.

It’s always entertaining to hear someone like yourself make a comment like “but yes, you could use one to take a deer out at 1/2 mile.” No, YOU probably couldn’t. In the hands of a man who possesses such skill, an 1894 Marlin, an early century Savage, a 1903 Springfield, or a .50 caliber Barrett are equally suitable “sniper” weapons.

We should all be so well trained. In the hands of most people, the advanced optics, smooth trigger, tight action, and fine barrel of a good “sniper” weapon are lost. Save for the advanced optics, which may serve to illustrate to them just how difficult sniping is. J


Yep, our modern rifles are becoming more and more accurate. However, in real world performance as far as their sutibility for sniper applications, they differ very little from some of the well made centerfire rifles that came on line with the advent of smokeless powder in the 1890s.

The truth is, any number of the comonly used "sporting" rifles we have today are highly suited for sniper aplication. If you look at the weapons chosen by the military for sniper purposes, you will find that, almost invariably, civilian hunting rifles are adapted for the role.



As for the rest of that post, fine, I understand where your concerns lie regarding the government. However, my issue is with your misinterpretation of the second amendment.

I agree in that I am not worried about this 9th circuit court ruling in and of itself. What I AM worried about is the citizens of my country who share the same misconceptions as you.

 

[AustinTX]

Second, I don't think you have the slightest idea about the concept of "sniper" rifles.
...
It’s always entertaining to hear someone like yourself make a comment like “but yes, you could use one to take a deer out at 1/2 mile.” No, YOU probably couldn’t.

Uh, not. You obviouslly have no clue about my background. Right wing police orgs support gun control (type, fire rate, type of amunition, waiting periods, etc.) you gonna say they don't know anything about handguns beause they don't agree with you too?

But thanks for the personal insults in lieu of addressing any issues related to the 2nd vs the laws passed by the Reps and Dems.

 

[Silent Method]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Silent Method
...
Good point. As a little aside, I find the discussion of armor piercing bullets to be rather silly. Aside from the fact that we are guaranteed arms specifically for warfare, what kind of armor are we talking about? Any number of the most commonly used center-fire cartriges used today will zip right through the bullet-proof vests commonly worn by police officers, and come out the other side. This is nothing new.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like you're agreeing with being able to limit the types of firearms and ammunition available to the general population. If they've outlawed some, they can outlaw others later....

Sounds like you've misinterpreted what I've said.

edit re: what kind of armor; the stuff that could stop mechanized equipment, plus some of the "cop killer" bullets that will go through the full armor (not just a vest with plates).

My only point in asking what kind of armor was to illustrate the fact that the majority of commonly used centerfire cartridges we've been using for the last 100 years zip right through body armor.


The "cop killer" bullets you cite is a media scare-term coined by NBC for the KTW bullet, a simple brass slug coated with Teflon - created at the request of police forces.

What do you mean by "cop killer" bullets that will go through the full armor (not just a vest with plates)." What is the "full armor" to which you refer? I doubt you have any knowledge about the ballistics of the KTW bullet.

Regardless, understand that we've had standardized cartridges that will out penetrate the KTW, and make swiss cheese of any practical body armor, for over 100 years.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Uh, not. You obviouslly have no clue about my background. Right wing police orgs support gun control (type, fire rate, type of amunition, waiting periods, etc.) you gonna say they don't know anything about handguns beause they don't agree with you too?

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment? Do you think that the consensus of what "right-wing" police officers think is law? Does majority now usurp law? Your ignorance and acceptance of the irrationality of legal positivists is why your argument falls to shit. Simply because those who wish to re-invent the Constitution voice their specious arguments, does not mean that they are correct. "The intent of the legislature is the meaning of the law". With this, we know, by the words of the authors, that you and those who disagree are wrong. Words have meaning, they are not infinitely mutable. The concept remains, you only see that the facts can change.

But thanks for the personal insults in lieu of addressing any issues related to the 2nd vs the laws passed by the Reps and Dems.

This is irrelevent. You have been owned.

 

[Silent Method]

Uh, not. You obviouslly have no clue about my background.

You're correct. I can only address what you present in this forum.

Right wing police orgs support gun control (type, fire rate, type of amunition, waiting periods, etc.) you gonna say they don't know anything about handguns beause they don't agree with you too?

Really? Which ones?

What about THESE police organizations?


The Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment
Second Amendment Police Department

Now read these articles:

CRIMINALS, GUNS AND THE LAW;
WHY COPS DO NOT SUPPORT GUN CONTROL
What the rank and file police officers think of gun control!

At best, your statement is a blind overgeneralization based on very limited knowledge. At worst, it's simply an idea you made up in an effort to support your position. I suspect that you "just thought" that's how it is.

But thanks for the personal insults in lieu of addressing any issues related to the 2nd vs the laws passed by the Reps and Dems.

Please go back and reexamine our dialogue. Regardless of any law passed, I am basing my argument on the Constitution of the United States and the rights guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.

 

[Silent Method]

Your ignorance and acceptance of the irrationality of legal positivists is why your argument falls to shit. Simply because those who wish to re-invent the Constitution voice their specious arguments, does not mean that they are correct.

Well said.