Surpreme Court Set To Rule On 2nd Amendment

[chrozzo 19]

The one argument I'd make off the top of my head would look something like:-aAssault-rifles and semiutomatic weapons are designed to function as machines of wanton destruction and violence. Hand-guns -- small and concealable on one's person, non-automatic, with clips that fire only a handful of shots -- can be used efficiently for self-defense or as a deterrent to violence. BIG GUNS -- large, ungainly and unconcealable on one's person, automatic, with clips/magazines that fire dozens of bullets in a very short time span -- are most definitely NOT suited for self-defense, but rather for use in combat.Since there is no excuse for a civilian to ever use a weapon designed for combat, designed to end life quickly and in great quantity, most of the arguments forwarded by proponents of gun-ownership rights do not apply in the special case of autos/BIG GUNS. The only argument that seems to apply is the generic "The Constitution guarantees the right to gun ownership." For some reason, I doubt the founders knew they could possibly be arming Jack and Jill Smith with guns you need a cheat code to unlock in most videogames.For me, assault-weapons are particularly scary because they were DESIGNED to fuck up armies of bitches efficiently. Does it really matter how they are used? If there is no pratical use EXCEPT to kill and kill massively, is there any basis for allowing people to own them?

qft.....and i even own some.....but i would never carrythem out...very true

[speedz99 145]

Is there any basis for allowing people to own them?

They look cool and make loud noises. Also a man feels powerful when holding one. The government shouldn't be regulating our toys.

[1970sVanMural 0]

The one argument I'd make off the top of my head would look something like:Assault-rifles and semi-automatic weapons are designed to function as machines of wanton destruction and violence.

Actually, no. They're designed to be reloaded quickly and carry lots of rounds. How you choose to use them is up to you.The first semi-auto was made over 100 years ago and held 4 rounds (I think). It was designed so shooters wouldn't have to break their shooting position to reload with their other arm (via the typical reloading mechanisms available at that time- bolt action, lever action, falling block, etc) The inception and design of the semi auto had *nothing* to do with shooting puppies, nuns, or innocent little Mary Kate and Ashley Olson (as cute little babies on Full House)Besides. Any assumed corollary between an action and an inanimate object usually fails from the word go, as it's almost always a perception issue, particularly when that object has multiple uses. Like, if you handed a Puerto Rican kid from New York City a machete and did the same to a kid from a corn farm in Nebraska, chances are, their perceptions of what they were holding would be entirely different. The "big scary gun" issue is much the same. Switzerland is a classic example of enormous per-capita ownership of "assault weapon" type firearms (including fully automatic firearms which are extraordinarily restricted here) yet their gun crime is lower than ours while their ownership of "assault weapons" is dramatically higher.But back to the point... Are there anti-personal considerations to certain firearms?Absolutely. Yes. Anyone who denies this as a whole is being dishonest. While in a theoretical vacuum, a hypothetical and philosophical case could be made as far as why such firearms should be "banned", decades of practical experience shows that such bans are entirely unnecessary and achieve nothing other than to codify the abstract lifes philosophy of a few people who know absolutely nothing about firearms beyond what they "feel".

Since there is no excuse for a civilian to ever use a weapon designed for combat, designed to end life quickly and in great quantity, most of the arguments forwarded by proponents of gun-ownership rights do not apply in the special case of autos/BIG GUNS. The only argument that seems to apply is the generic "The Constitution guarantees the right to gun ownership." For some reason, I doubt the founders knew they could possibly be arming Jack and Jill Smith with guns you need a cheat code to unlock in most videogames.

TERRIBLE argument and really shows how little you knew about the founders!They were clear as a bell that the citizenry be armed with the most modern weaponry available! They could've just as easily limited citizen firearm ownership to unrifled blunderbusses and shotguns, but they insisted that the citizens own the most modern, accurate, lethal firearms at the time.Do you seriously believe that if the founders had AR15's at their disposal, they would have had some sort of moral aversion to using them against the British? The gun thing can be argued on numerous levels, but that argument is absolutely, positively the worst and is a huge tell that the proponent of said position knows virtually nothing about the philosophies that motivated the founding of this country.You can argue that maybe it's time for a philosophical change, but to argue that they (founders) would not have been in favor of modern, efficient firearms ownership is just an enormous fail, given the enormous body of facts and writings we have on the founders.By in large, a lot of it boils down to how much you trust the government.I, for one, trust them very, very little. I believe that the philosophies regarding an armed population- able to actively resist similarly armed people coming to their door- are of substantially more value than whatever gains might occur from disarming them.

[speedz99 145]

Do you seriously believe that if the founders had AR15's at their disposal, they would have had some sort of moral aversion to using them against the British? The gun thing can be argued on numerous levels, but that argument one is absolutely, positively the worst and is a huge tell that the proponent knows virtually nothing about the philosophies that motivated the founding of this country.You can argue that maybe it's time for a philosophical change, but to argue that they (founders) would not have been in favor of modern, efficient firearms ownership is just an enormous fail, given the enormous body of facts and writings we have on the founders.

lolI'm watching Army of Darkness, and this is much funnier. Well done. The founding fathers would be shaking their heads at the way people like you manage to twist what were perfectly reasonable ideas 200 years ago in whatever way lets you keep playing with your boomsticks.Bed time. Night folks.

[1970sVanMural 0]

The founding fathers would be shaking their heads at the way people like you manage to twist what were perfectly reasonable ideas 200 years ago in whatever way lets you keep playing with your boomsticks.

Oh, yah. Obv, the founders would be totally for disarming the citizenry at large and making sure that the only people who possessed modern weaponry was the police and the government.Yeah, yeah, now that I reassess my own studies of them in light of this shattering new logic and innovative reinterpretation of every single scintilla of information we have on them, I must admit, you're totally right yet again- they would definitely be all for that... Because it's "reasonable". And don't forget "for the children" too.**Edit**

[Tactical Bear 3]

Actually, no. They're designed to be reloaded quickly and carry lots of rounds. How you choose to use them is up to you.The first semi-auto was made over 100 years ago and held 4 rounds (I think). It was designed so shooters wouldn't have to break their shooting position to reload with their other arm (via the typical reloading mechanisms available at that time- bolt action, lever action, falling block, etc) The inception and design of the semi auto had *nothing* to do with shooting puppies, nuns, or innocent little Mary Kate and Ashley Olson (as cute little babies on Full House)Besides. Any assumed corollary between an action and an inanimate object usually fails from the word go, as it's almost always a perception issue, particularly when that object has multiple uses. Like, if you handed a Puerto Rican kid from New York City a machete and did the same to a kid from a corn farm in Nebraska, chances are, their perceptions of what they were holding would be entirely different. The "big scary gun" issue is much the same. Switzerland is a classic example of enormous per-capita ownership of "assault weapon" type firearms (including fully automatic firearms which are extraordinarily restricted here) yet their gun crime is lower than ours while their ownership of "assault weapons" is dramatically higher.But back to the point... Are there anti-personal considerations to certain firearms?Absolutely. Yes. Anyone who denies this as a whole is being dishonest. While in a theoretical vacuum, a hypothetical and philosophical case could be made as far as why such firearms should be "banned", decades of practical experience shows that such bans are entirely unnecessary and achieve nothing other than to codify the abstract lifes philosophy of a few people who know absolutely nothing about firearms beyond what they "feel".TERRIBLE argument and really shows how little you knew about the founders!They were clear as a bell that the citizenry be armed with the most modern weaponry available! They could've just as easily limited citizen firearm ownership to unrifled blunderbusses and shotguns, but they insisted that the citizens own the most modern, accurate, lethal firearms at the time.Do you seriously believe that if the founders had AR15's at their disposal, they would have had some sort of moral aversion to using them against the British? The gun thing can be argued on numerous levels, but that argument is absolutely, positively the worst and is a huge tell that the proponent of said position knows virtually nothing about the philosophies that motivated the founding of this country.You can argue that maybe it's time for a philosophical change, but to argue that they (founders) would not have been in favor of modern, efficient firearms ownership is just an enormous fail, given the enormous body of facts and writings we have on the founders.By in large, a lot of it boils down to how much you trust the government.I, for one, trust them very, very little. I believe that the philosophies regarding an armed population- able to actively resist similarly armed people coming to their door- are of substantially more value than whatever gains might occur from disarming them.

1) Come on. I engage you reasonably respectfully here. Your implication that my objection to the legal ownership of BIG GUNS is somehow tied to my sympathy for the subjective reporting of their use (on nuns, puppy dogs and attractive white women) serves no purpose. It doesn't matter WHO the guns are used on, from my perspective. It's simply that they are both (a) designed and modified to wreak extreme havoc and ( B) unusable otherwise2) With respect to the statement: "Any assumed corollary between an action and an inanimate object usually fails from the word go." I agree in a very vague way, at least, if I interpret your sentiment appropriately. Not sure it totally applies in this case, however, because "assault weapons" and "extreme killing" seem inextricably linked. They're called "assault weapons." They're for massive assaults. It's pretty tough to argue forcefully that assault weapons aren't inherently more "killy" than other weapons. 3) Yes. The founders DEFINITELY wanted the populace to be well-armed. They were terrified of an oppressive government, and built in protections for future citizens, in the form of a guarantee to carry guns, and use them if needed. I'm not a history buff, but I'm well-read enough to understand how important the founders thought the rights of citizens to protect themselves from their own government was/is. I'll address this further.4) No. The Founders would have used any weapon available. They would have used cheat codes, too. I don't think I ever suggested this. 5) "but to argue that they (founders) would not have been in favor of modern, efficient firearms ownership is just an enormous fail, given the enormous body of facts and writings we have on the founders." This is where the argument becomes very, very tricky. The Founders quite simply had no conception of the evolution of weaponry. They COULDN'T HAVE. The weapons available now can cause so much destruction in such a short period of time that I'm reasonably certain the debate would be quite different. It's not "fire-pack-load-aim-fire-Jesus this sucks I can only shoot like 3 times in 5 minutes" anymore. I shouldn't have made an argument from the Founders's perspective without properly explaining my thought process. Their blanket guarantee of personal armament SHOULD be reevaluated with the new evidence. I believe restrictions are necessary, and I believe "Well, the Founders -- who granted future generations the right to bear arms 250 years ago without any knowledge of the evolution of weaponry -- said we can have automatics" is insufficient to protect the American citizen's right to own an AR-15. I'm not elucidating my feelings on the subject too clearly at the moment -- partly because of the sleeping pills, and partly because I don't think all that hard about gun ownership rights -- but I think, with respect to the Founders, I feel like this:a) They didn't have all the information, which makes their guarantee less relevant.b) The world has changed enough such that maybe we DO need to reevaluate the philosophical framework from which gun-rights are derived.Finally, I share your disdain for the codification of philosophy and morality. Most of the time. But in this case, by allowing EVERYONE to own sub-autos, autos, and assault weapons, we allow a few to hold hostage (or possibly hold hostage) the rights and lives of others. I'm not in favor of the abuse of utilitarian arguments in political philosophy, but in this case, the combination of all factors makes the decision an easy one in my mind. I do not see a compelling reason to allow people to own BIG GUNS. EDIT: I suppose this is the crux of the matter. You mentioned something about the issue boiling down to how much we trust the government, and where we're willing to draw that line. I think I draw it here, and you trust the government less. I don't disagree passionately with your level of distrust of the government, I simply don't share it. Also, too much niceness. Scram is a faggot.

[Balloon guy 158]

John Ritter: What is this all about?Jim Belushi: Aliens landed on earth and offered us a choice of two packages. Package one is the good package, it will cure all sickness, clean pollution. It seems the science guys dumped something in the ocean by accident and al life on the planet will be dead in 2-3 years.John Ritter: What's the other option?Jim Belushi: Or we can get the Big Gun.John Ritter: What's the big gun?Jim Belushi: It's a gun that can destroy a whole planet.John Ritter: Who would we use it on?Jim Belushi: The Russians.John: But wouldn't that destroy us too?Jim Belushi: Not my department.Real Men Link to movie

[ShakeZuma 585]

I find it humorous that the same people that rant and rave about George Bush and his administration taking away the rights of Americans are the same ones who are in favor of taking away the right of the citizens to defend against unjust and overbearing governments.

[ajs510 122]

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe depository of the public interest.-- Thomas Jefferson

[hblask 1]

To get back to the original question, at least for a post or two, why would the Supremes take this case unless they had some notion of overturning all the previous precedent? Up to this point, the position of the SC in regard to guns has been "do whatever the hell you want, we don't care." About the only exception was US vs Lopez. My feeling is that they don't take a case unless it either 1) has little in the way of previous rulings, so it needs a decision, or 2) the court is feeling it's time to fix some previous mistakes.Is there something about this case that makes it more of #2 than #1?

[Spademan 94]

Those claiming that assault rifles are designed for the sole purpose of random, wanton, mass killing clearly don't realize how surgical I am with an H&K.

[scram 1]

To get back to the original question, at least for a post or two, why would the Supremes take this case unless they had some notion of overturning all the previous precedent? Up to this point, the position of the SC in regard to guns has been "do whatever the hell you want, we don't care." About the only exception was US vs Lopez. My feeling is that they don't take a case unless it either 1) has little in the way of previous rulings, so it needs a decision, or 2) the court is feeling it's time to fix some previous mistakes.Is there something about this case that makes it more of #2 than #1?

They only took a 2nd Amendment case after a lower court struck down an existing, long standing (and popular in its area) law based on Second Amendment interpretations. If the Supreme Court didn't intervene, the DC gun ban would've been voided.For years, SCOTUS denied hearing cases from citizen petitioners who were proactively trying to fight the DC gun law, but they suddenly decide to hear such a case when DC is the petitioner, desperately trying to uphold a law that's been struck down?It doesn't necessarily bode well for gun owners, however, SCOTUS is thinking on legal levels that are way, way beyond the comprehension of a layperson, so there's no telling. The only thing that I will make book on is that they will tailor the ruling to be as narrow as possible, even though it's broader impacts are undeniable.My attorney once told me that the best barometer for gaging the sympathies of a sitting SCOTUS is to examine whether they hear more cases with the government as the petitioner, or the citizenry.