Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle

 

Arms, as defined in the 2nd Amendment, are weapons to be owned BY THE PEOPLE for defense purposes, not for offensive actions

So in your view all weapons outside of guns are strictly offensive? I am asking, not assuming.

I think the point he was making was that some people here are saying it's a Right without conditions...but when 'push come to shove' conditions arise as part of their belief. I am not sure how to circumvent this confliction, save for dividing them into 'defensive' and 'offensive' categories. That's interesting to me...don't have much to add to it though.

I never said anything about conditions as that wasn't the question, but IMO if someone displays willingness to use whatever weapons they may in their posession in an offensive or abusive manner, be they individuals or governments, there should be restrictions on that someone and possibly prison time.

Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to pre-emptively use superior weaponry against ANY people? Where does it authorize them to send the military thousands of miles to attack other defenseless countries and call it "defense"? You don't see why people would feel threatened because their own defense against those who have consistently demonstrated a tendency to shoot first and ask quesstions later is seriously lacking by comparison?

I know posse comitatus is supposed to prevent government from using the military HERE, but if you pay close attention, they've told us their drones are already overhead and we know how they're being used elsewhere. We don't even know for SURE who's manning the keyboards. Besides, we know how much congress values their oaths of office, they're less popular than bedbugs and AIDS and they probably like us just as much after the votes are in.

reply to post by frazzle

I never said anything about conditions as that wasn't the question

It was inferred from a series of posts prior which I believe was connected to his inquiry.

but IMO if someone displays willingness to use whatever weapons they may in their posession in an offensive or abusive manner, be they individuals or governments, there should be restrictions on that someone and possibly prison time.

I agree with you

You didn't address my question though. If they use it defensively, give no indication for other uses, is there any weapons you would limit? You said a nuke is only offensive. What about a rocket launcher? My question was weapons beyond guns...are they only offensive in your opinion..

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by jsipprell

 

Immaterial to the question. We're talking about the second amendment which applies to citizens not to governing organizations.

I reiterate: Do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

I don’t know where you got the idea that you have the authority to frame the terms of the debate, but let’s go there for a moment, just for the sake of argument.

Arms, as defined in the 2nd Amendment, are weapons to be owned BY THE PEOPLE for defense purposes, not for offensive actions, which is the only purpose of nuclear weapons.

Where in the second amendment does it say anything bout offensive vs defensive?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(In case this heads that direction, "Security" isn't limited to only defensive capability.)

You're placing a limitation on it and you know it.

Wiki:

The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment

In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

It was changed to 'guns' basically.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jsipprell

 

Red herring argument. No one is talking about nuclear weapons, the 2nd amendment protects our liberty to own and bear firearms.

The second amendment doesn't say a word about "firearms", it says "Arms". Read literally it places absolutely no restrictions on what form those arms might take.

So if one is going to assert that the 2nd must be taken verbatim; that no limitations may be placed it's perfectly cogent to explore the parameters of that assertion.

If the phrase "nuclear weapons" is too distracting, then let's start much further in from the extreme. Are 20mm autocannons okay? With armor piercing depleted uranium sabot rounds or without?

reply to post by jsipprell


Arms was what firearms were called, (and still are), when the Bill of Rights was debated and signed. Talking about nuclear weapons is a red herring question.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Do you have something substantial to back up the claim Arms was always defined as such?

And if that's the case, why did they feel the need to add the 'refined interpretation' just a few years ago.

reply to post by Honor93


Keep in mind that while the congress has the right to declare war while the President is Commander and Chief.

This is why police actions are possible.

As a far as running drugs that was Ronald Regan who developed Altimeters pretty much while he was still President.

As far a drones Congress formally declared war against Iraq and as they as "all is fair in war and love". Robots limit risk to soldiers as otherwise they would have to do what the drones did, do you have a problem with that

You keep insisting I am off-topic but here you are presenting information that is clearly within the range of legality in relation to the Constitution :shame:

Actually 12 years ago in Miami a Bank called Community Bank was found to be involved with Fidel Castro and more was going on, I headed up the operation that shut the whole thing down.

If it makes no sense for an AMD to threaten civilians what is the point suggesting it is necessary to have these weapons, clips and to not have your weapons registered.

Any thoughts?

PS: your comments do not seem relevant to the topic of why possessing these weapons make any sense.

Beyond of course the idea that because your slaves were taken away you are worried about your guns.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jsipprell

 

Arms was what firearms were called, (and still are), when the Bill of Rights was debated and signed. Talking about nuclear weapons is a red herring question.

"Arms" at the time were muskets and cannons; that's all they could have been considering the considerable lack of prescience. I suspect you're not interested in limiting the second to antique ownership.

The OED US English edition defines "Arms" as:

weapons and ammunition; armaments

and "Armaments" as:

military weapons and equipment

I certainly don't see anything limiting Arms to merely Firearms in modern parlance.

If you aren't asserting that we limit ourselves to a standard of early firearms that means you're limiting Arms to be what you've decided is acceptable -- modern firearms.

I'm still curious though. Where exactly is the limit you're embracing? Are RPGs okay? They fit the dictionary definition of a firearm.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Do you have something substantial to back up the claim Arms was always defined as such?

And if that's the case, why did they feel the need to add the 'refined interpretation' just a few years ago.

Absolutely! So thrilled you asked. See the Federalist Papers, then the US Supreme Court rulings in both DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago.

reply to post by jsipprell


See the Federalist Papers since it appears you're ignorant to the reasons the authors of the Constitution gave us the 2nd Amendment. Get it right from the horse's mouth.

And I don't recall stating I am embracing any limits to our liberties.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

then the US Supreme Court rulings in both DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago.

You mean what I posted myself earlier on this page?.....

You said Arms was always defined as such in the US. Those rulings took place this century..

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

then the US Supreme Court rulings in both DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago.

You mean what I posted myself earlier on this page?.....

You said Arms was always defined as such in the US. Those rulings took place this century..

That isn't what I said, that's a straw man argument. And I know those rulings were in this century, in this decade even. For the first couple hundred years of this nation everyone clearly understood what the 2nd meant. And anyone who took US Government also was taught why the framers of the Constitution gave us that particular liberty. Oddly enough hunting was never mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Straw man? I am asking a simple and direct question and you are either sidestepping or not understanding.

You said. Arms was always meant to mean firearms. So those very recent rulings are hardly substantiating that claim. Again my request. Can you provide something to substantiate the claim? I wasn't doubting you, I was genuinely curious. Now however I am doubting.

Your quote

Arms was what firearms were called, (and still are), when the Bill of Rights was debated and signed.

Not a straw man. It's what you implied.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Re-read what I actually said.

And had you read Heller you would have noticed the court declared that "arms" in the 2A referred to firearms. And it doesn't matter if the rulings were recent or not, for the simple fact that our 2nd Amendment rights were not challenged for some 200 years. Now they have been attacked and the court has ruled.

And what "implication"? Did I not say when the amendment was "debated and signed"? Yes or no?

reply to post by jsipprell

The second amendment doesn't say a word about "firearms", it says "Arms". Read literally it places absolutely no restrictions on what form those arms might take.

So if one is going to assert that the 2nd must be taken verbatim; that no limitations may be placed it's perfectly cogent to explore the parameters of that assertion.

If the phrase "nuclear weapons" is too distracting, then let's start much further in from the extreme. Are 20mm autocannons okay? With armor piercing depleted uranium sabot rounds or without?

edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

Do you always try to move the goalposts when your argument falls flat?

How about a reverse analogy. The constitution calls for taxes, right? "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." No cap was put on that one either, no limitations. So in modern parlance taxes have become bigger and much more dangerous to your welfare than the second amendment ever could. They didn't actually SAY they'd throw someone in jail for not volunteering to pay enough, but they do.

In "modern parlance", the fact is you stand a better chance of being taxed to death or winding up in debtor's prison than being hit by an autocannon wielded by a US citizen. So why don't you put your considerable energies toward debunking the modern day version of the sixteenth amendment and leave the Bill of Rights alone. After all, shall not be infrringed didn't include your right to keep ANY of the money you earn.

Priorities.

Originally posted by frazzle

reply to post by jsipprell

 

The second amendment doesn't say a word about "firearms", it says "Arms". Read literally it places absolutely no restrictions on what form those arms might take.

So if one is going to assert that the 2nd must be taken verbatim; that no limitations may be placed it's perfectly cogent to explore the parameters of that assertion.

If the phrase "nuclear weapons" is too distracting, then let's start much further in from the extreme. Are 20mm autocannons okay? With armor piercing depleted uranium sabot rounds or without?

edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

Do you always try to move the goalposts when your argument falls flat?

Do you always assert the failure of an argument without providing an explanation? I haven't actually made any assertions regarding the validity, scope or acceptance of the second amendment, all I've done is attempt to figure out exactly what your position is. Kindly do me the service of not declaring my argument a failure prior to me actually making one.

How about a reverse analogy. The constitution calls for taxes, right? "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." No cap was put on that one either, no limitations. So in modern parlance taxes have become bigger and much more dangerous to your welfare than the second amendment ever could. They didn't actually SAY they'd throw someone in jail for not volunteering to pay enough, but they do.

In "modern parlance", the fact is you stand a better chance of being taxed to death or winding up in debtor's prison than being hit by an autocannon wielded by a US citizen. So why don't you put your considerable energies toward debunking the modern day version of the sixteenth amendment and leave the Bill of Rights alone. After all, shall not be infrringed didn't include your right to keep ANY of the money you earn.

Priorities.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the issue at hand is the second amendment, nothing else. Specifically: Where exactly do you place limitations on it and what are your supporting arguments?

• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own RPGs?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own autocannons?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own heavy machine guns (say between .50 and 12.7mm)?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own light machine guns or assault rifles?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own automatic weapons of any kind?
  

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jsipprell

 

See the Federalist Papers since it appears you're ignorant to the reasons the authors of the Constitution gave us the 2nd Amendment. Get it right from the horse's mouth.

And I don't recall stating I am embracing any limits to our liberties.

edit on 29-1-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

The federalist papers certainly do not support your argument that "Arms" is limited to "Firearms". (Discussion of court cases is not germane here as those actually do place limitations on the 2nd).

During the revolutionary period personal ownership of a cannon (were one wealthy enough or a blacksmith) would not only be accepted, it would be appreciated, for the purposes of having a "well regulated militia". Are you contending that the Framers intended cannon ownership to be verboten?

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by frazzle

reply to post by jsipprell

 

The second amendment doesn't say a word about "firearms", it says "Arms". Read literally it places absolutely no restrictions on what form those arms might take.

So if one is going to assert that the 2nd must be taken verbatim; that no limitations may be placed it's perfectly cogent to explore the parameters of that assertion.

If the phrase "nuclear weapons" is too distracting, then let's start much further in from the extreme. Are 20mm autocannons okay? With armor piercing depleted uranium sabot rounds or without?

edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

Do you always try to move the goalposts when your argument falls flat?

Do you always assert the failure of an argument without providing an explanation? I haven't actually made any assertions regarding the validity, scope or acceptance of the second amendment, all I've done is attempt to figure out exactly what your position is. Kindly do me the service of not declaring my argument a failure prior to me actually making one.

How about a reverse analogy. The constitution calls for taxes, right? "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." No cap was put on that one either, no limitations. So in modern parlance taxes have become bigger and much more dangerous to your welfare than the second amendment ever could. They didn't actually SAY they'd throw someone in jail for not volunteering to pay enough, but they do.

In "modern parlance", the fact is you stand a better chance of being taxed to death or winding up in debtor's prison than being hit by an autocannon wielded by a US citizen. So why don't you put your considerable energies toward debunking the modern day version of the sixteenth amendment and leave the Bill of Rights alone. After all, shall not be infrringed didn't include your right to keep ANY of the money you earn.

Priorities.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the issue at hand is the second amendment, nothing else. Specifically: Where exactly do you place limitations on it and what are your supporting arguments?

• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own RPGs?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own autocannons?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own heavy machine guns (say between .50 and 12.7mm)?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own light machine guns or assault rifles?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own automatic weapons of any kind?
  

edit on 29-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

You probably should make an assertion of where you “stand” regarding the second amendment before expecting any feedback. Failing to make your own position known while shrilly demanding answers from others is disingenuous and I, for one, do not feel beholden to respond further to them.

I did get a kick out of how you don’t “necessarily disagree” on the sixteenth but won’t make a definitive statement on it. Are you, by any chance, a lawyer? Or maybe a judge who can arbitrarily throw out evidence (including the Constitution) when its inconvenient.

This is a conversation, not an interrogation.

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by frazzle

reply to post by jsipprell

 

The second amendment doesn't say a word about "firearms", it says "Arms". Read literally it places absolutely no restrictions on what form those arms might take.

So if one is going to assert that the 2nd must be taken verbatim; that no limitations may be placed it's perfectly cogent to explore the parameters of that assertion.

If the phrase "nuclear weapons" is too distracting, then let's start much further in from the extreme. Are 20mm autocannons okay? With armor piercing depleted uranium sabot rounds or without?

edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

Do you always try to move the goalposts when your argument falls flat?

Do you always assert the failure of an argument without providing an explanation? I haven't actually made any assertions regarding the validity, scope or acceptance of the second amendment, all I've done is attempt to figure out exactly what your position is. Kindly do me the service of not declaring my argument a failure prior to me actually making one.

How about a reverse analogy. The constitution calls for taxes, right? "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." No cap was put on that one either, no limitations. So in modern parlance taxes have become bigger and much more dangerous to your welfare than the second amendment ever could. They didn't actually SAY they'd throw someone in jail for not volunteering to pay enough, but they do.

In "modern parlance", the fact is you stand a better chance of being taxed to death or winding up in debtor's prison than being hit by an autocannon wielded by a US citizen. So why don't you put your considerable energies toward debunking the modern day version of the sixteenth amendment and leave the Bill of Rights alone. After all, shall not be infrringed didn't include your right to keep ANY of the money you earn.

Priorities.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the issue at hand is the second amendment, nothing else. Specifically: Where exactly do you place limitations on it and what are your supporting arguments?

• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own RPGs?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own autocannons?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own heavy machine guns (say between .50 and 12.7mm)?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own light machine guns or assault rifles?
  
• Should it be permissible for private citizens to own automatic weapons of any kind?
  

edit on 29-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)

You probably should make an assertion of where you “stand” regarding the second amendment before expecting any feedback. Failing to make your own position known while shrilly demanding answers from others is disingenuous and I, for one, do not feel beholden to respond further to them.

So that means that at this point your position is "Yes, there should be limitations on the second amendment but I refuse to elucidate on the exact nature of said limitations."? Perhaps this is putting words in your mouth, which is certainly not my intention. I may very well be getting responses from different people confused.

I did get a kick out of how you don’t “necessarily disagree” on the sixteenth but won’t make a definitive statement on it. Are you, by any chance, a lawyer?

No, I'm just not interested in getting side-tracked by off-topic discussions of US nuclear policy or the sixteenth amendment.

This is a conversation, not an interrogation.

Perhaps my position is not intransigent? Perhaps I am interested in exploring the boundaries of the issue in hopes of having a robust and maximally cogent opinion?

It may seem like interrogation to you, but please understand my frustration. I'm trying to get anyone, outside of those who except the status quo as either sufficient or overly permissive, to explain either where exactly they believe limitations should be placed or acknowledge the fact that no limitations amounts to permitting personal ownership of any scale of military weaponry.