Supreme Court rules on Second Amendment
#11
Registered User
At the time of the Second Amendment, hunting firearms were actually better than most military firearms. If you want to go back to historical interpretations, then there really is no big distiction between personal recreational and self-defense weapons versus militia weapons.
However, the flaw with that historical argument is that a militia armed with 30-30s is going to melt like butter in an oven if it came into a firefight against a modern army unit. That's why tactics for such rebellions have changed to hit-and-run actions, IEDs, terrorism, etc.
I think the idea that the general US population is going to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical future US government using hunting weapons is a right-wing fantasy. Red Dawn.
It's also unwise to remember that much of the US was "frontier", and people really did use these hunting/defense weapons as everyday tools. They would have never survived if they had been diarmed. It's a whole new world, however.
I think it is only practical for the justices to consider what the right to bear arms means in the current context, rather than what it meant in George III's day.
The framers of the Constitution never expected it to be unchanged, and I doubt many of them expected it be in force for over 200 years, either. After all, they had just overthrown one government, installed a new one, and then about a decade later replaced that new one with a third one. Who would expect the third one would then last as long as it did?
However, the flaw with that historical argument is that a militia armed with 30-30s is going to melt like butter in an oven if it came into a firefight against a modern army unit. That's why tactics for such rebellions have changed to hit-and-run actions, IEDs, terrorism, etc.
I think the idea that the general US population is going to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical future US government using hunting weapons is a right-wing fantasy. Red Dawn.
It's also unwise to remember that much of the US was "frontier", and people really did use these hunting/defense weapons as everyday tools. They would have never survived if they had been diarmed. It's a whole new world, however.
I think it is only practical for the justices to consider what the right to bear arms means in the current context, rather than what it meant in George III's day.
The framers of the Constitution never expected it to be unchanged, and I doubt many of them expected it be in force for over 200 years, either. After all, they had just overthrown one government, installed a new one, and then about a decade later replaced that new one with a third one. Who would expect the third one would then last as long as it did?
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Freehold
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The language seems to imply that a citizen has the right to keep a firearm in his home for self defense. Regulations to control firearms in other places seem to be allowable.
#13
Registered User
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Jun 27 2008, 03:41 PM
However, the flaw with that historical argument is that a militia armed with 30-30s is going to melt like butter in an oven if it came into a firefight against a modern army unit.
That's why tactics for such rebellions have changed to hit-and-run actions, IEDs, terrorism, etc.
I think the idea that the general US population is going to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical future US government using hunting weapons is a right-wing fantasy.
Heck, some people have felt that recent administrations have edged towards tyrannical - different people feeling that way about different administrations, of course. To take one example, people who, with a fair amount of justification, think of Ruby Ridge as an example of the leading edge of tyranny probably feel the second amendment is what has prevented the government from being quite a lot more tyrannical.
The framers of the Constitution never expected it to be unchanged
and I doubt many of them expected it be in force for over 200 years, either. After all, they had just overthrown one government, installed a new one, and then about a decade later replaced that new one with a third one. Who would expect the third one would then last as long as it did?
Edit: by the way, while Scalia wrote his opinion to conform to Kennedy's view, he spent about 60 pages on precedents from the day of King George III, and none discussing issues from today.
#14
Registered User
Originally Posted by Starbrd,Jun 27 2008, 07:23 PM
The language seems to imply that a citizen has the right to keep a firearm in his home for self defense. Regulations to control firearms in other places seem to be allowable.
#15
I agree with the ruling, but I still have a problem with people who have guns that carry more than 9 bullets. What are you shooting at that you need more than that? I also do not understand why do we need metal piercing rounds as civilians?
#17
Originally Posted by Slows2k,Jun 27 2008, 09:56 PM
Any reason you picked 9?
#18
Registered User
I believe some pistols have magazines that carry more than nine rounds, simply because that's how many fit in the grip. Also, some revolvers carry fewer than six rounds, and others carry more, though I doubt any exceed nine.
I haven't heard of metal piercing rounds. There are teflon bullets designed to penetrate kevlar body armor, but I believe they are banned in most states.
I haven't heard of metal piercing rounds. There are teflon bullets designed to penetrate kevlar body armor, but I believe they are banned in most states.
#19
A quick google shows the Glock 19 handgun has a 15 and 20 round magazine available.
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winter Springs, Fl.
Posts: 6,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal Bill is absolutely right that this case is going to cause more litigation. People could disagree about whether the decision turns on judicial activism or strict interpretation. But Scalia did go to some lengths to stress that his decision was confined to the facts of the case. Left unresolved by the ruling is the extent to which governments can regulate firearms, short of laws that amount to an outright prohibition. Clearly there is no abolute right to firearms since a prohibition against felon's owning them or minors purchasing them would probably be all right with the court. Trickier questions remain about how far the government can go in regulating them: what about cooling off periods, gun registration, or assault rifle bans?