syarzhuk: Second Amendment - where do you draw the line?

Дзюндзя (

syarzhuk) wrote,
@ 2007-04-20 11:40:00

Second Amendment - where do you draw the line?

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 your opinion, does this mean that government should not infringe on citizens' right to own:
- nuclear bombs
- bomber planes
- tanks
- machine guns
- automatic guns
- pistols with magazine
- single-loading pistols
- double-barrel guns
- single-barrel guns
- shotguns
- sabers
- kitchen knives?

Where do you draw the line and what is your reasoning?

(Post a new comment)

drawing the line is difficult

murzik
2007-04-20 03:48 pm UTC (link)

as always, doesn't mean that the constitutional amendment should be ignored. if it was up to me - i would allow anything from automatic guns down to be owned by private citizens. nuclear bombs to machine guns seem more real military approaches, something that government should take care of in the organized army. people should have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves and organize into militia groups in case government will fail to protect them against a localized attack. if the whole nation is attacked - then the bigger government enters the picture.

(Reply to this)

	omoh_pa 2007-04-20 03:53 pm UTC (link)
	Citizens should not own weapons of mass distruction. Everything else should be allowed. By the way everything on your list is legal to own in US right now except for nuclear bombs and fully automatic guns. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	syarzhuk 2007-04-20 04:02 pm UTC (link)
	I am not asking what is legal, especially since laws are different in every state Do I understand you right that private tanks and bomber planes are OK? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	It is hairsplitting, of course, but ... igorlord 2007-04-20 04:14 pm UTC (link)
	Tanks and bomber planes are legal to own. I even know of a person who owns a few (older) tanks. (Private tanks are illegal to drive on the public roads, though). The ammo and weapons (including mounted machine guns) for the tank and bombs for the plane are illegal, though. So private tanks and bombers have weapon systems removed. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: It is hairsplitting, of course, but ... thorion 2007-04-20 04:39 pm UTC (link)
	All of them are demilitarized, I believe - and therefore can't be characterized as weapons. (Reply to this) (Parent)

omoh_pa
2007-04-20 04:16 pm UTC (link)

Yes they are. There are hundreds if not thousands of fully operational tanks and other armor in private collections right now and I never heard of any problems caused by them. There was an incident with a bulldozer not so long ago, but then again it was not a tank.
I don't know how many operational bombers (and fighter icluding jets) are in privat posetion right now, but I now that they are numerous. There is B-17 flying out of Pompano Executive Airport about 1.5 mi from where I am right now.
Poland sold all of it's aging MIGs to private collectors. US market is full right now with MIG-17s starting at $20,000

Want a modern one? Gonna cost you... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1983-Aero-Vodochody-L39C-Jet-fighter_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63677QQihZ001QQitemZ110114634085QQrdZ1

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ppk_ptichkin
2007-04-20 04:15 pm UTC (link)

Ответ зависит от компетентности потенциального владельца, коя и должна быть оговорена, и для чего предполагается использовать. В конце концов, бочка нитратных удобрений + бочка солярки + Ford F350 с будкой при правильном употреблении сработают не хуже, чем e.g. полный груз бомб пикирующего бомбардировщика времён второй мировой войны.

Пример: (музыка!) http://www.redbullusa.com/mig (музыка!).

И разрешить, наконец, марихуану.

(Reply to this)

	anonimo_cobarde 2007-04-20 04:16 pm UTC (link)
	Мне кажется, принятая интерпретация заключется в том, что слово bear понимается буквально -- т.е. то оружие которое можно физически носить на себе. Таким образом, танки, авианосцы итд исключаются. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	omoh_pa 2007-04-20 04:18 pm UTC (link)
	What's wrong with owning a tank (or two)??? http://www.history.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=97512 (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	anonimo_cobarde 2007-04-20 04:22 pm UTC (link)
	Фигасе. Это в Канаде или США? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	omoh_pa 2007-04-20 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	Конкретно этот из Калифорнии кажись. Но вообще частные коллекции танков есть почти в любом городе. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	anonimo_cobarde 2007-04-20 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	Прочитал другие Ваши сообщения, ворпос снят. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	increp 2007-04-20 04:33 pm UTC (link)
	I'd say nothing. Nothing wrong w/ owning a piece of history. The discharge of the tank's weapons should be a crime, unless you're on your private shooting range. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ygam 2007-04-21 06:36 am UTC (link)
	Можно физически носить на себе. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	lodrion 2007-04-20 04:17 pm UTC (link)
	You should add stuff like anthrax, etc. Another interesting question is why people are talking about the second part of the amendment and totally forget about the first (Reply to this) (Thread)

	efimg 2007-04-20 04:29 pm UTC (link)
	the first part is about Militia group, that is not what Syarzhuk asked (IMHO) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	lodrion 2007-04-20 04:33 pm UTC (link)
	I totally agree. I just wanted to add that to the discussion -- whether the ownership of the weapon should be somehow tied to membership in the well organized militia (Reply to this) (Parent)

	syarzhuk 2007-04-20 04:38 pm UTC (link)
	The Soviet-style "druzhinniki" were totally "well-regulated militia", weren't they? Yet they had no weapons whatsoever. So I don't know how taking into account the first part would change anything in this discussion (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	lodrion 2007-04-20 04:41 pm UTC (link)
	http://syarzhuk.livejournal.com/464721.html?thread=1563473#t1563473 (Reply to this) (Parent)

increp
2007-04-20 04:30 pm UTC (link)

Here's my take on it. We should construe the meaning of the 2nd Amendment as it was understood then, at the time of the adoption. This is difficult, but possible.

The 2nd Amendment covered those arms that were used in a well-regulated Militia. These were fairly primitive weapons. However, it's not their primitiveness that we are concerned with, it's their application. And their application was Militia, self-defense, the right to protect oneself.

Obviously, since then the guns evolved into the machinery of war, then into the machinery of total war, then into WMD. However, the basic role of some of the arms has remained - Militia, self-protection, etc.

Therefore - the distinction should be drawn exactly at a point where a gun seizes to be a tool of self-defense and turns into a machinery of destruction.

I'd say, that the current line - semi-automatic w/ restrictions - OK, automatic - not OK - is a good line.

The 2nd Amendment most certainly does not cover tanks, missiles and WMD w/ nuclear submarines.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	lodrion 2007-04-20 04:37 pm UTC (link)
	Indeed. But then, to play devil's advocate, shouldn't the right granted by this amendment be limited to members of a well-regulated Militia. And would you elaborate on what the founding fathers meant by _well-regulated_. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	efimg 2007-04-20 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	That is not what Amendment says. Militia and people are listed as equal and independent, they are separated by comma... "well-regulated" belongs to Militia, not to people's right. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	lodrion 2007-04-20 05:27 pm UTC (link)
	I am not so sure that this interpretation really holds much water. There is a nice discussion of this at http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	efimg 2007-04-20 05:49 pm UTC (link)
	:-) I really enjoyed their interpretation. To summarize, in their opinion 2-nd Amendment talks about citizens right to serve as soldiers. I'm sorry, I can't take this seriously, does anybody think that this right is so important to have special amendment? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	lodrion 2007-04-20 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	Damn, and everybody else thinks that this site is a reasonable source of pro-gun information. What gives? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

efimg
2007-04-20 06:15 pm UTC (link)

I don't care what their political agenda is, and what is their general opinion about guns.
I found their interpretation of 2-nd Amendment really entertaining. What they actually did, they interpreted every words in a way that is slightly different from intuitive or commonly acceptable today understanding and that's what they got.

BTW, if you want to interpret "arms" as it was back then, should you interpret "people" in the same way? Exclude black people, I'm not sure about women...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	efimg 2007-04-20 04:49 pm UTC (link)
	The 2nd Amendment covered those arms that were used in a well-regulated Militia. This is very doubtful statement, that makes all further conclusions quationable. In my opinion, it is wrong statement since the Amendment itself clearly list Militia and citizens independently. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	increp 2007-04-20 04:53 pm UTC (link)
	There are strong reasons to believe either way, I don't deny it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	omoh_pa 2007-04-20 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	I agree in general. I find nothing wrong with automatic weapons either. Israel is full of them and they don't have any problems with that. Their problems come from a different source. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	What is the question? efimg 2007-04-20 05:04 pm UTC (link)
	I'm not sure what actually the question is. It looks like we are discussing three questions here: 1. What 2-nd Amendment allows? 2. What the government allows? 3. What I'd like to be allowed? The language of 2-nd Amendment is plain ans simple, "arms" should be allowed. Everything that falls under standard dictionary definition of "arms" should be allowed. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: What is the question?

syarzhuk
2007-04-20 05:37 pm UTC (link)

anybody's answer to 3 is not meaningful to anyone but that "anybody"
if the answer to 2 is different from the answer to 1, then there are clear paths to constitutional court to prove the government wrong
so the only question is - what, in your opinion, 2nd amendment allows

Everything that falls under standard dictionary definition of "arms" should be allowed.
But do you use 1776 definition of "arms" or the current one? Anthrax powder and nuclear bombs didn't exist back then...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: What is the question? efimg 2007-04-20 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	When a law becomes outdated, it should be changed. Until it happens, it is still valid and should be enforced as is. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: What is the question? syarzhuk 2007-04-20 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	т.е. в твоей интерпретации гражданин США может иметь любое оружие, вплоть до атомной бомбы? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: What is the question? efimg 2007-04-20 06:20 pm UTC (link)
	That is the language of the 2-nd Amendment. Do I like that US citizen can own any kind of weapon? Well, that is question 3... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: What is the question? increp 2007-04-20 07:23 pm UTC (link)
	Until it happens, it is still valid and should be enforced as is. As WHAT is, I'm sorry? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: What is the question? efimg 2007-04-20 07:40 pm UTC (link)
	IT. As it is. As its language says. If the law says "don't tie your horse here", one can legally park your car there, even if in one's opinion cars replaced horses and the same law should apply to cars now. IMHO, obviously. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: What is the question? increp 2007-04-20 07:43 pm UTC (link)
	There's a problem here. I can certainly see what the language says, I cannot say the same about what that language means. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	birdwatcher 2007-04-20 05:09 pm UTC (link)
	Слова "well regulated" лишают это заклинание содержательного смысла. Государство не должно нарушать прав граждан владеть атомными бомбами, но должно хорошо такое владение регулировать: запретить, например. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	syarzhuk 2007-04-20 05:39 pm UTC (link)
	Запретить, конечно, нельзя, см. определение А сказать, что можно всем, кто пробежит марафон за 2 часа и ни секундой больше - может, конечно :) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	birdwatcher 2007-04-20 05:46 pm UTC (link)
	о! (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: What is the question?

thorion
2007-04-20 06:18 pm UTC (link)

Почему же не может? Достаточно запретить/контролировать владение ураном и плутонием (Energy Reorganization Act of 1974). То есть владеть атомной бомбой ты можешь.. но вот радиоактивных материалов в ней содержаться не должно. Достаточно логично :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	efimg 2007-04-20 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	Well, that would be unjustified restriction. To get Ph.D. on nuclear physics before owning one - that is better one. :-) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ira_k 2007-04-20 06:53 pm UTC (link)
	я хотела комментарий в предыдущий пост повесить. красиво написала, а мне не разрешили, все исчезло, пропало ... ах...:) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	syarzhuk 2007-04-20 07:16 pm UTC (link)
	про кинчева? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ira_k 2007-04-24 08:37 pm UTC (link)
	yeap..:) (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs