Soucheray sipping on "high cap" kool-aid

[xd ED]

Joe Soucheray: After Sandy Hook, time to talk about limits on guns

Well, we are not going to get rid of guns and we are not going to be free from evil and mental illness and alienation and lost souls. So where are we? Maybe we should tone down the equipment, limiting the ability of madness to commit mayhem with jet engines.

Magazines with less capacity -- I don't even know the number -- do not threaten my liberty nor do they corrupt the Second Amendment, written with a quill pen at a time when the equipment was a musket. Good and responsible gun owners are not interested in committing mayhem, anyway. They certainly don't need the capacity to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Nor does evil.

Slippery slope? No. There are an estimated 300 million guns in America. They cannot and will not be taken. Nor should they be.

I need a car, up to and including a Ferrari, if I could afford one. But I don't need a jet engine bolted to it.

Somehow Joe sees it as analogous to relate a firearm magazine to a jet engine strapped to the roof of his house.

[jwdominick]

I hear this same argument from supposed 2nd amendment supporters all the time. What they don't seem to comprehend is the 2nd amendment was written to allow us to defend ourselves with equal or greater firepower as those who intend to do us harm up to and including our own government.

We are already limited greatly compared to the much more advanced weaponry the government has, not to mention those who don't follow the laws and seek to do us harm.

The rebuttal to their rant about limiting rounds a firearm can be loaded with is simple, yet they don't cease to act as if that is the resolution.

[Ron Burgundy]

I quit listening a long time ago, he is increasingly anti gun.

[CraigJS]

That whole show has become moronic..

[tman]

Someone should point out to him that the First Amendment was written when the only form of mass communication was the printed word, which could take MONTHS to be disseminated.

The Founding Fathers never, ever, imagined that people would be able to speak their mind over TV or radio, or the internet, and have INSTANT communication with the entire planet. That should be against the law.

[cobb]

Someone should point out to him that the First Amendment was written when the only form of mass communication was the printed word, which could take MONTHS to be disseminated.

The Founding Fathers never, ever, imagined that people would be able to speak their mind over TV or radio, or the internet, and have INSTANT communication with the entire planet. That should be against the law.

A good argument.

[xd ED]

Someone should point out to him that the First Amendment was written when the only form of mass communication was the printed word, which could take MONTHS to be disseminated.

The Founding Fathers never, ever, imagined that people would be able to speak their mind over TV or radio, or the internet, and have INSTANT communication with the entire planet. That should be against the law.

A fact conveniently ignored when the 4th estate rants about the 2nd Amendment.

[jwdominick]

Someone should point out to him that the First Amendment was written when the only form of mass communication was the printed word, which could take MONTHS to be disseminated.

The Founding Fathers never, ever, imagined that people would be able to speak their mind over TV or radio, or the internet, and have INSTANT communication with the entire planet. That should be against the law.

well put, might have to borrow this for future debates

[jshuberg]

When you look at the history of the wording of the 2A, it went through several versions. Where lawyers today attempt to enumerate every single infinitesimal detail, in the days during the ratification of the constitution, lawyers attempted to find the best possible single example, and to use just that one example to describe something. The final version of the 2A didn't state that the right to bear arms was for hunting, or sporting, or even defense of self or dwelling, although this was implied and discussed during the debate process, they said it was for service in the militia.

Had they simply stated the right to bear arms was for hunting, one could argue that self defense wasn't an intended and protected purpose. Had they stated it was for self defense, one could argue about defense against who, animal or man, and what type of weapon was required for the task. They chose service in the militia as the justification for a reason, they intended that every person has the right to arm himself for the purpose of armed combat should the citizen militia be called on for defense of state or country. They intended that the population be able to arms themselves with the equivalent weaponry that the standing army was equipped with. It was actually stated that they preferred a well armed civilian militia instead of a standing army. While hunting, sporting and self defense were discussed during the 2A debates, this was the singular best purpose that they identified.

When someone suggests that citizens do not have the right to own military arms, they are in fact arguing against the very core of the 2A.

[MNGunGuy]

When someone suggests that citizens do not have the right to own military arms, they are in fact arguing against the very core of the 2A.

Curious as to where you think that right stops (owning military arms). Hand grenades, claymores, chemical weapons, nuke's? What about armored vehicles, bombers or attack planes (fully armed)? All are considered or contain modern day arms but have limited rights to ownership. Are your rights being trampled on by not allowing you to hook an M203 to your AR? How comfortable would you feel with your neighbor having a cache of M67 hand grenades in his garage?

[LePetomane]

Joe Soucheray is an example of the "go along to get along" mindset that has besieged the Republicans, especially some of the ones in this state. They use lines like,"I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative", "why does someone need a 30 round magazine for deer hunting?", "why do you need a .44 magnum to put a hole in a piece of paper", the list goes on.

[xd ED]

Whether my neighbor can own grenades( or dynamite/ nitro-glycerin), lions, tigers, or bears, and whether they can keep these things near my home are 2 separate issues. The latter having been decided by zoning regulations and nuisance law.

[TTS]

When someone suggests that citizens do not have the right to own military arms, they are in fact arguing against the very core of the 2A.

Curious as to where you think that right stops (owning military arms). Hand grenades, claymores, chemical weapons, nuke's? What about armored vehicles, bombers or attack planes (fully armed)? All are considered or contain modern day arms but have limited rights to ownership. Are your rights being trampled on by not allowing you to hook an M203 to your AR? How comfortable would you feel with your neighbor having a cache of M67 hand grenades in his garage?

This does a better job than I could of describing "Arms"

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

http://constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

[xd ED]

/\ /\ /\ /\. Excellent post.

[MNGunGuy]

Whether my neighbor can own grenades( or dynamite/ nitro-glycerin), lions, tigers, or bears, and whether they can keep these things near my home are 2 separate issues. The latter having been decided by zoning regulations and nuisance law.

If it's a zoning law, city ordnance, state statue or anything else it still seems to step on your right to bear arms under the second as defined in the quote from TTS.

This does a better job than I could of describing "Arms"

Thanks. Let’s say their common-law interpretation of the word arms is correct. That still leaves full auto guns, grenades and grenade launchers, tear gas and anti-tank weapons.

My question remains. If citizens are supposed to be allowed to own military style arms as jshuberg suggested and the common-law interpretation of the word arms includes things like hand grenades, grenade launchers, RPGs and AT4s why are we not up in arms about that? In that quote the say, “somewhere we need to draw the line”. That’s exactly my point. Are these second arguments purely over rights you ought to have? If you start drawing lines in the sand and saying this is OK but that isn't then it seems more like rights you think should have.