Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Not if they are being out gunned by the bad guys. For a long time revolvers were fine for LEO's until they started facing people armed with easily conceled sub machine guns. If over time we can get the large capacity magazines off the streets then maybe we can scale back the fire power needed by law enforcement.

Just a thought.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

But that doesn't apply to law-abiding civilians too then?
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

The same can be said about martial arts and self-defense as a whole. FMA knife skills in the wrong hand can be a scary thing. Same with offtopic and boxing--there are instances of boxers or offtopic fighters using their skills in domestic violence assaults or in rapes. Should we, from this, decide that maybe martial arts are too violent or too "unfair" for you or I to be training in? Of course not. Because boxing doesn't punch innocent people; people do.

Of course guns are "unfair" weapons. Since when does self-defense have anything to do with fairness? I thought self-defense-oriented arts generally assumed the attackers would be unfair (bigger, more people, element of surprise, armed attackers). So why does a potential crime victim need to worry about whether his/her self-defense is "fair"? The objective is to survive an attack that is, by its very nature, unfair.

Take the case of Sarah McKinley in Oklahoma. Does a shotgun give someone an unfair advantage over someone who doesn't have a gun? Sure it does. That's the point. She was a teen mother, recently widowed, home alone with her baby. Two men who had been stalking her broke into her house with knives. 911 response was not going to be there in time to protect her (she was on the phone with a dispatcher for 21 minutes before they broke through her front door, and police had still not reached her house. So she shot and killed one with a shotgun and the other fled. Yes, the shotgun gave her an "unfair" advantage. That's a good thing in the hands of someone trying to defend themselves. Was there any unarmed self-defense training a teen mother could have that would have allowed her to defeat two larger attackers with knives while she was standing her ground to protect a baby (instead of disengaging at the first chance and fleeing)?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.UN9DiaDTmR4



I think the comparison is a good one. offtopic used to be banned in parts of the US because it was "too violent" so legislators thought there was no legitimate reason for it to exist in a civilized society. offtopic in the wrong hands leads to grim, spectacle-oriented underground fight clubs. But in the right hands, it's an exciting sport and an excellent training regime. So the bans were lifted, something I supported 100%. A semi-auto pistol in the wrong hands can be used in a massacre, but in the right hands is an accurate, concealable, easily-reloadable self-defense weapon for someone who needs to defend against the potential of larger or multiple attackers.

Just because you don't agree with the comparison doesn't mean you should be calling me dishonest or insincere. That's totally out of line.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I generally avoid Second Amendment arguments with non-Americans because they can't really relate to the Constitutional arguments and would rather debate policy. However, you're right. We don't talk about how much privacy we "need" from government intrusion or how much freedom of religion we "need." They are Constitutional rights.

But under the Constitution, the right to bear arms is actually broader than the right to privacy. Some constitutional rights are only freedom from "unreasonable" government action, like the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. But other constitutional rights are free on their face from ANY government interference, such as the freedom of religion. While courts still recognize limits on this latter category of constitutional right, the limits on government action are much broader than in with the constitutional rights that protect against "unreasonable" government actions. The second amendment is phrased like the freedom of religion instead of like the freedom from unreasonable searches...the word "unreasonable" does not appear in the second amendment.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

It could. There aren't any easy answers to this question. I think it is open to debate where you draw that line in the sand. Problem is a lot of what we hear is either ban everything or I have the right to own anything. I really don't think the founding fathers had an Uzi in mind when that amendment was written.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

They also didn't have Islam and atheism in mind when they crafted the First Amendment freedom of religion (they were thinking about protecting one type of Christianity from another). But it applies to Islam and atheism too because it's not limited on its face to sects of Christianity.

The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment meant the equal protection clause to apply to Black people; they weren't thinking about women or Arabs. But it applies to Arabs and women too because it's not limited on its face to Black people.

Nothing in the Second Amendment restricts it to single-shot weapons. To the contrary, it's drafted broadly, preserving the civilian right to own military-style weapons instead of just hunting weapons ("For purposes of a well-regulated militia..."). Even restrictions on fully-automatic weapons are "pushing it" from a Constitutional Law perspective; an out-an-out ban of everything but muskets would be completely contrary to Constitutional jurisprudence.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Miltov, I have no desire to ban everything but muskets. That was just an example of how "original intent" can be taken to an extreme.

Btw, how many of today's owners are members of a well regulated militia?

I think the best way to look at is to view the constitution as a living document that can be viewed through modern eyes without violating original intent.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I know there aren't easy answers to the question. However, the moment we state that personal-defense against a criminal element that outguns the 10-shot magazine capacity would require the law-abiding operator (whether civilian or LEO or whatever else) to possess and deploy full-capacity magazines, then I must ask why in the world should we then disarm the law-abiding from having them, and how would that constitute part of a solution?

As for the Founding Fathers not having Uzi's in mind, what of it? The moment we say that the Bill of Rights is applicable only to 18th-century technology, we then say that the First Amendment's free press does not apply to newfangled things like computers but only to traditional fixed-type printing presses, that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to newfangled things like torture by waterboarding or electrocution but only to traditional 18th-century tactics of torture, and so on. That's not exactly the sort of society I'm that interested in myself.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Well, here's the current definition of that from the United States Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

So I strongly suspect that the answer to your question is "most of us". A "well-regulated militia" likely just meant "well-disciplined armed citizenry".



Sure. That's why we're having these discussions, since we differ on how such view and such non-violation would be implemented.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

The US Supreme Court has explained that the "for purposes of a well-regulated militia clause" explained the purpose of the second amendment but did not limit or expand the scope of the remainder of the amendment. Furthermore, "militia" means men capable of fighting, not merely the National Guard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I'm not non-American. No idea how you came up with that idea, given my profile says USA in it.



No argument here. And as far as privacy goes, I could also state that that which is not stated in the Fourth Amendment can be implied in the Ninth.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Miltov and Bronze, thanks for some well thought out responses. This thread has become informative as well as interesting.

I don't have a strong opinion on this and am kind of floating in the middle. I agree that people have the right to own guns but also am of the opinion that at some point you there can be limits placed on the types of weapons civilians can own. I have to admit that I have no idea of what would be a reasonable limit. Even freedom of speech has limits such as crying fire in a crowded theater. When does freedom of religion cross the line, animal sacrifice perhaps or even human sacrifice?

I know the above example is somewhat silly but it points out the real issues when defining rights and the limits of those rights.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I was talking about generally in the thread, not with you specifically. Generally I've tried to stick to policy and self-defense arguments instead of Constitutional arguments because a large percentage of MAP members are from the UK, not the US.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

The wearing of traditional highland dress also used to be banned. There are currently 5 and a half million Scots in Scotland alone. Should everybody in the UK now live in fear of the tartan!?
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

The limits of your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

That's a fairly well understood limit.

So if your 2nd amendment rights begin to infringe on the right to life of others, your 2nd amendment rights can be curtailed - this is probably the origin of the rule preventing criminals from owning weapons.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Absolutely. That's why physically attacking another person without self-defense justification is illegal. Shooting someone without justification is illegal. Punching someone without justification is illegal. Choking someone without justification is illegal. And slamming someone into the ground without justification is illegal.

We don't ban boxing to prevent people from using punches in illegal assaults. We don't ban BJJ to prevent people from using choking in illegal assaults. And we don't ban judo to prevent people from slamming people into the ground in illegal assaults. Why not? Because while boxing, BJJ, and judo can be used in illegal assaults ("your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others"), they can also be used for sport or self-defense purposes without infringing on the lawful rights of others.

So can firearms.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Which is why when you get a blackbelt you are required to register your hands in court as deadly weapons.

(Totally off topic, I know. But it's one of the better "myths" from the past about becoming a blackbelt and that's all I could think about when I read Mitlov's post!)
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Broadly speaking, I agree with you, at least I agree with you in the context of the US, where you have the 'right' to bear arms. However, you ban criminals from owning weapons, because it is presumed that there is an unacceptable risk of them using them to violate the rights of others.

You can justify a ban on large magazines and semi-automatic rifles in much the same way - the utility they offer in terms of self defence is not sufficiently great to outweigh the damage they can facilitate - the same reason why you can't own explosives and grenade launchers and heavy artillery.

As far as I'm concerned, a case can be made to ban any weapon up to the point it has a measurable effect on a person's ability and right to lawfully defend themselves. I don't think the US is anywhere near that limit at the moment. You don't need a semi-automatic rifle for self defence and I don't think you need one for hunting, therefore I think you can justify a ban.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I'm always flabergasted by the tought process that the soccer mom from the suburbs feels the need for that .44 semi-aotu with a 15 round magazine, and a couple of spares to drive to the local Wally World.

The US is either the new Somalia, or Americans are quickly becoming a nation of scared and paranoid citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top