Point is that nothing any of us say or do is going to make any difference in the outlooks of Piers Morgan, Bob Costas or Jason Whitlock. Just like nothing these guys say is going to change the outlooks of us gun people. What’s the point? Might as well watch that new Gangnam video. Twice the fun and no boogeyman involved.
thing is, if anyone else that hasn’t truly become set in their opinion on rights/restrictions. They can be swayed by logic.
Mind you, the reader of this site have already formed opinions either way long ago…
Probably still bitter about that whole freeing ourselves from the Queen’s iron hand thing back in the day. Of course Brits don’t like our 2nd amendment, they would still be oppressing us today if we didn’t have one, just they do to Northern Ireland.
Last time I checked, the first amendment was written with letters and small scale printing in mind, not media conglomerates, social networking, and cell phones; the fourth was made with people searching you with their hands in mind, not high tech x-ray scanners or machines that can electronically strip you bare. Times change and the technology changes with it, and I should not have to use 18th century weaponry because of it. +1 for this woman!
Whenever I get in a conversation at work with someone who is for gun control in some way, shape, or form the idea of where does the line get drawn gets brought up by them. It usually happens when it looks like that they can’t come up with anything to counter your logic so they resort to, “where’s the line then, should we be allowed to have grenades, tanks, nukes?!” It can also come up if trying to defend automatic weapons, which as much as I would like to shoot them, I have a hard time defending the idea. The defense to their jump to the extreme is I say the line is with indescrimnate weapons. I semi-automatic firearm is discriminate fire. It hits what you point at. Grenades damage an area and make no distinction between good, bad, or property. Discrimnate weapons should have no restrictions.
Don’t even bother with that kind of argument. Just ask them straight up:
“Do you think I should go to federal prison for ten years where I’ll be raped, tortured, and possibly even killed for owning something I’ve never used in a crime and never will?”
If they answer no, inform them that’s the current penalty for violating a plethora of various federal gun control laws.
If they answer yes, they’re a scumbag not worth talking to.
That’s a clever answer, and I like the thought, but it’s still an opinion, though a reasonably considered one.
Another answer is that if the government can have it, then anyone should have it. With respect to the “OMG!” that often elicits…
People already control tanks, nukes, and mega super bombs with laser guidance. The Government, like soylent green, is made of people.
The difference is that if an individual uses a tank to smash up a freeway, they are condemned and subject to punitive actions.
Where as when the people in Government use tanks (paid for with other peoples money) to smash up a country, they get pensions and parades.
Given the choice, I am less afraid of the handful of people who actually have the interest and the independent financial resources to maintain nuclear weapons, than I am the unaccountable sociopaths who control them now.
This ties in with the idea that anti-gun people are not anti-gun. They love guns when they are used by some people (the Government) to disarm others (everyone else).
I think people should own whatever they want and can afford, but if you set off a grenade and damage someone else’s person or property you will be held responsible for your actions.
I don’t care if my neighbor has a tank so long as they don’t drive over my roses.
+1 I am with you New Chris. The rational, moral sensibilities of the MAJORITY of people is what controls the means of violence. The few who don’t have those sensibilities have always been with us and always will be. We must deal with them, but not be tyrannized by their excesses.
Chris that’s such perfect logic, but the antis don’t even want crime response to have to exist anymore. They want to change societal nature itself by restricting absolutely everyone they view as a potential threat to “prevent” the unstoppable factor of crime. Antis don’t want to work within the scope of the “antiquated” Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those documents are a hindrance to the control over every aspect of our lives they either want to have or will unknowingly create shortly after we’ve all been disarmed.
No, they’re not. They provide indiscriminate fire. I think that’s where the line should be. Well, an UZI not so much, but grenades, tanks, and nukes ya.
Regular folks (at least those with some spare change) already own tanks. People brought their own cannons to the Revolutionary War and War of Northern Aggression. People still own their own cannons and mortars. And have you ever seen tannerite on youtube? As for full-auto weapons they are only indiscriminate if you don’t know what you’re doing. Work on your Google-fu! Have a nice day! :>)
Regular folks can own trebuchets. I’ve not heard of any laws banning or regulating them, and people can build them for less than the cost of a tricked out AR.
A trebuchet can do a lot of damage.
So, by the logic being applied by the “ban things because our neighbors might be crazy” thinking, there would be thousands of trebuchet related deaths every year.
But there isn’t… why?
I would postulate that just because people have access to massively destructive things, very few use those things maliciously against others.
In this context, how is a tank different from a trebuchet, a catapult, or a ballista?
[quote]But I think we all need just a cooling-off period before anybody actually gets to say anything using a microphone. (interruption) A waiting period, yes. Absolutely. A waiting period. You apply for your permit to use a microphone and then there’s a waiting period, and you’re monitored. Your background’s investigated. They look into, you know, what kind of nefarious stuff you’ve done in your life and see whether you warrant microphone permission.[/quote]
Seriously, why would anyone listen to Morgan when he is a british citizen talking about American rights? I would love to see every gun control advocate taught how to shoot and then forced to live in high crime areas for a few months without any personnel security. I bet they would all change their minds after a bit in gun control then.
I tend to go by, if the 2nd only applies to muskets, then the 1st only applies to books and newspapers from movable type printing presses and actual vocalized speech. Which would be patently ridiculous.
From the Wikipedia article on Muskets: Musket calibers ranged from 0.5 to 0.8 in (13 to 20 mm). A typical smooth bore musket firing at a single target was only accurate to about 100 to 150 yd …”
Sounds like an interesting option for DGU. Thanks for the idea, Piers.
Piers Morgan is just another not very well made product of Great Britain, like those Brit Sports cars of the 50’s and 60’s. You had to tighten everything up once a week or they broke down. Apparently, no one is tightening Piers up often enough.
Looking for something positive in Morgan’s statement [like using excrement for fertilizer], I realized that 2A advocates have overlooked a potential tactic.
Whether or not the Second covers modern firearms [and I am convinced it does] it certainly covers swords, knives, pikes, cannons…
Perhaps it’s time for a flanking attack on gun-control totalitarians by filing suit in NYC, Chicago, etc., for the right to possess and bear knives, swords, and other lethal toys of that era. I’d love to see Bloomberg’s reaction to that.
And if Morgan does not think that muskets are comparable to “high powered” modern firearms, maybe he would volunteer to stand in front of one. Quite frankly, if I was going to get shot, I think I’d rather get hit with a .223 that a 57 caliber soft lead musket ball. And oh yeah, many if not all of the militas formed to fight in the Civil War brought along their own uniforms, muskets and cannon, and were officered by the men who’d paid for the outfitting. And although I am poorly read on the subject, I seem to recall that there were a number of militas formed to join the invasion of Cuba during the Spanish-American War too, and again, the provided their own kit.
As you would expect, he got tons of responses to his pronouncements (including lots of newspaper/printing press analogies), but none were better than hers.
Many Brits (not all) don’t like guns or support the civilian RKBA. However, they seem to have a long ‘proud’ centuries-old history of carrying government-issued guns on behalf of their royalty and upper class elites to oppress and murder native peoples from around the world. The British commoners also have a history of being killed in some stupid fight, on the far side of the world, for a cause that was usually about economic imperialism.
Piers misses the fact the what the framers had “in mind” with the 2A was that the citizenry could only oppose gov’t tyranny if citizens possessed weaponry equal to that of the regular army. So, yeah, it does have modern military weaponry like tanks, select-fire assault weapons, grenades, semi-auto pistols, etc. “in mind.”
Note that no where in the 2A or in the writings of the time related to it was there any sense of limitation on which weapons the gov’t could have and which weapons average citizens could have…at least nothing I’ve come across.
My take is that the reason the Founders chose the word “arms” is precisely because it is very broad in scope and encompasses every type of “arm” they knew of, every type they could foresee in the future and those they knew they could not yet foresee in the distant future. A testimony to their intelligence.
“Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan, known professionally as Piers Morgan, is a British journalist and television host currently working in the United States.”
wiki
“Carol is a frequent radio, television and print media contributor on the topics of business and entrepreneurship, appearing regularly on Fox News, MSNBC, Fox Business, WGN TV Chicago, among others.” http://www.carolroth.com/
From the DC Court of Appeals decision in Heller, upheld by SCOTUS:
“The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).”
So if we toss out all the interpretations of 2A and go with SCOTUS, for all intense and purposes all modern guns, i.e. MP5, Uzi, M-16, Galil, on and on are covered under 2A. Why? Because the framers of the constitution did not specify that someone in the colonies could not own a canon, or regulation on the type of musket, or pistol. Because it was explicitly intended that the individual had a right to poses exactly what the military does. Does this included anti aircraft missiles, NUKES, and he likes to put it. I would think yes, although the regulations involved in possessing a nuclear warhead of any type involves numerous international agencies as well. Those who have the money to buy and Apache, or F-16, why not? Forget the millions it costs just to maintain it, much less shoot anything from it, but the point being are those folks really a threat?
The above was the item on page 53 which came up in the SCOTUS oral discussion (Note, the Solicitor General was arguining in support of DCs handgun ban and weapon storage laws):
SCOTUS orals discussion
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre – pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is -it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well –
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”
The above, of course, won’t fit in a tweet. It would also probably cause Piers head to explode as he contemplates he exercises free speech rights over technology unforseen by the founding fathers- yet still protected by the constitution.
Wow ok I had to drill down through all these responses!
Suffice to say it made me giggle this morning over my Coffee and Bagel.
I knew a guy who had a wide range of tanks in CA, but they had to cut and re-weld the breach in order for him to own them.
As far as an Uzi in concerned why not? Folks who pay the tax stamp and file the paper work have that right no?
I think it’s clear from the wording of the 2nd Amendment that it was meant to ensure an armed populace from which a militia might be raised. Not “musketeers” – “militia”. This means private citizens would be expected to possess the basic kit of an infantryman. The Militia Acts of 1792 support this interpretation.
Hi, Neat post. There is a problem together with your website in internet explorer, could test this? IE still is the market leader and a large portion of folks will miss your magnificent writing because of this problem.
Hymmmmn, Being a “Disabled American”, with a Concealed Carry Permit , Also, with a “Class – 3, license”; finding it “Outrageous’, how many of the drivers, here in S.Florida,[ie.] “Miami”, are full of “Road Rage”, and carry Guns, most of the time, “Illegally”!… Wondering, if i Mounted, a 50 caliber, on my Jeep,[ for Added protection, while visiting the Miami Area]; like they have, for the Military; With my Convertible “Top”, up!… Wouldn’t That, be considered,. “Concealed”?….[They allow guns, locked in your Glove Box!… I’d keep the Doors locked!…]. None of my “Policia, Amigos’, had a response!… lol
As far as allowing “Tanks, UZI’s, and Nukes”, tanks and full auto weapons were absolutely fine for folks to own until the gubmint infringed in the 1930’s when they crafted the definition of “destructive devices”. So for around 150 years it was ok, until the gubmint decided it wasn’t. As for Nukes? I might be inclined to draw the line there. I know people that might think it would be cool to hand me their beer and set one off for the 4th of July.
Hymmn, I’m a “Law-abiding Citizen”, with a C.C.P., and i Do carry, a few different Guns!… And, Will Continue, this Practice, for My own Protection, like i’ve done in the past!…. Whether or “Not”, the Second Amendmant is “Repealed”!…. [Fortunately, This”, Will Never Happen!….].
Oh my God. This. So satisfying.
Maybe next time Piers decides to engage in a battle of wits, he will come armed. But then again, maybe not.
He was armed, it just happens to take a while to reload a musket.
^^^ HAHHAAHHAAHH!!!!!!!! +1
A most excellent burn.
Too fricking funny!! He got smoked!!!! I hope everyone who reads this sends her a big thank you!!!
Awesome, now I have to add Piers Morgan to my boogey-man list. Now I have to hate him too. Can’t wait for TTAG’s 11 AM boogey-man. Who’s at Noon?
Take your meds and go back to bed.
Are you volunteering? JK. A bit.
Easy solution there JD. Pass this site by.
Point is that nothing any of us say or do is going to make any difference in the outlooks of Piers Morgan, Bob Costas or Jason Whitlock. Just like nothing these guys say is going to change the outlooks of us gun people. What’s the point? Might as well watch that new Gangnam video. Twice the fun and no boogeyman involved.
thing is, if anyone else that hasn’t truly become set in their opinion on rights/restrictions. They can be swayed by logic.
Mind you, the reader of this site have already formed opinions either way long ago…
I love this woman!
I second. Nice to see somebody put that blowhard Morgan in his place.
Dear Piers,
Are you even a citizen of the United States of America?
No?
Then STFU!
+1+
Probably still bitter about that whole freeing ourselves from the Queen’s iron hand thing back in the day. Of course Brits don’t like our 2nd amendment, they would still be oppressing us today if we didn’t have one, just they do to Northern Ireland.
Last time I checked, the first amendment was written with letters and small scale printing in mind, not media conglomerates, social networking, and cell phones; the fourth was made with people searching you with their hands in mind, not high tech x-ray scanners or machines that can electronically strip you bare. Times change and the technology changes with it, and I should not have to use 18th century weaponry because of it. +1 for this woman!
Wow, Brits don’t like the Constitution? Crazy. I wonder how they feel about the Declaration of Independence.
Bazinga!
http://instantrimshot.com/
They’re still mad that they got their asses handed to them in the Revolutionary War.
…and saved them in two others.
And God help you if you mention the war of 1812 as though it wasn’t some sort of great moral victory for the British.
Just literally made me burst out laughing.
Haha well played.
Whenever I get in a conversation at work with someone who is for gun control in some way, shape, or form the idea of where does the line get drawn gets brought up by them. It usually happens when it looks like that they can’t come up with anything to counter your logic so they resort to, “where’s the line then, should we be allowed to have grenades, tanks, nukes?!” It can also come up if trying to defend automatic weapons, which as much as I would like to shoot them, I have a hard time defending the idea. The defense to their jump to the extreme is I say the line is with indescrimnate weapons. I semi-automatic firearm is discriminate fire. It hits what you point at. Grenades damage an area and make no distinction between good, bad, or property. Discrimnate weapons should have no restrictions.
Don’t even bother with that kind of argument. Just ask them straight up:
“Do you think I should go to federal prison for ten years where I’ll be raped, tortured, and possibly even killed for owning something I’ve never used in a crime and never will?”
If they answer no, inform them that’s the current penalty for violating a plethora of various federal gun control laws.
If they answer yes, they’re a scumbag not worth talking to.
That’s a clever answer, and I like the thought, but it’s still an opinion, though a reasonably considered one.
Another answer is that if the government can have it, then anyone should have it. With respect to the “OMG!” that often elicits…
People already control tanks, nukes, and mega super bombs with laser guidance. The Government, like soylent green, is made of people.
The difference is that if an individual uses a tank to smash up a freeway, they are condemned and subject to punitive actions.
Where as when the people in Government use tanks (paid for with other peoples money) to smash up a country, they get pensions and parades.
Given the choice, I am less afraid of the handful of people who actually have the interest and the independent financial resources to maintain nuclear weapons, than I am the unaccountable sociopaths who control them now.
This ties in with the idea that anti-gun people are not anti-gun. They love guns when they are used by some people (the Government) to disarm others (everyone else).
I think people should own whatever they want and can afford, but if you set off a grenade and damage someone else’s person or property you will be held responsible for your actions.
I don’t care if my neighbor has a tank so long as they don’t drive over my roses.
That’s my $.02 anyway.
+1 I am with you New Chris. The rational, moral sensibilities of the MAJORITY of people is what controls the means of violence. The few who don’t have those sensibilities have always been with us and always will be. We must deal with them, but not be tyrannized by their excesses.
Chris that’s such perfect logic, but the antis don’t even want crime response to have to exist anymore. They want to change societal nature itself by restricting absolutely everyone they view as a potential threat to “prevent” the unstoppable factor of crime. Antis don’t want to work within the scope of the “antiquated” Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those documents are a hindrance to the control over every aspect of our lives they either want to have or will unknowingly create shortly after we’ve all been disarmed.
Tanks, UZI’s, and Nukes are equivalent?
No, they’re not. They provide indiscriminate fire. I think that’s where the line should be. Well, an UZI not so much, but grenades, tanks, and nukes ya.
Are tanks indiscriminate?
Regular folks (at least those with some spare change) already own tanks. People brought their own cannons to the Revolutionary War and War of Northern Aggression. People still own their own cannons and mortars. And have you ever seen tannerite on youtube? As for full-auto weapons they are only indiscriminate if you don’t know what you’re doing. Work on your Google-fu! Have a nice day! :>)
Regular folks can own trebuchets. I’ve not heard of any laws banning or regulating them, and people can build them for less than the cost of a tricked out AR.
A trebuchet can do a lot of damage.
So, by the logic being applied by the “ban things because our neighbors might be crazy” thinking, there would be thousands of trebuchet related deaths every year.
But there isn’t… why?
I would postulate that just because people have access to massively destructive things, very few use those things maliciously against others.
In this context, how is a tank different from a trebuchet, a catapult, or a ballista?
The best thing is to blame the microphone.
http://www.therightscoop.com/awesome-rush-limbaugh-i-dont-blame-bob-costas-i-blame-the-microphone/
I’m not a huge Rush (Limbaugh) fan, but I enjoyed this particular response from him. The transcript, for those who would rather read it: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/12/04/don_t_blame_costas_blame_the_microphone
[quote]But I think we all need just a cooling-off period before anybody actually gets to say anything using a microphone. (interruption) A waiting period, yes. Absolutely. A waiting period. You apply for your permit to use a microphone and then there’s a waiting period, and you’re monitored. Your background’s investigated. They look into, you know, what kind of nefarious stuff you’ve done in your life and see whether you warrant microphone permission.[/quote]
If we started this program, Limbaugh would totally fail the test, based on his long history of microphone misuse.
UZI’s………… Yes Piers it does, but then again you wouldn’t know what an UZI was even if someone shot you in the a$$ with one.
piers got served!
Seriously, why would anyone listen to Morgan when he is a british citizen talking about American rights? I would love to see every gun control advocate taught how to shoot and then forced to live in high crime areas for a few months without any personnel security. I bet they would all change their minds after a bit in gun control then.
Bravo Carol Roth!
I tend to go by, if the 2nd only applies to muskets, then the 1st only applies to books and newspapers from movable type printing presses and actual vocalized speech. Which would be patently ridiculous.
From the Wikipedia article on Muskets: Musket calibers ranged from 0.5 to 0.8 in (13 to 20 mm). A typical smooth bore musket firing at a single target was only accurate to about 100 to 150 yd …”
Sounds like an interesting option for DGU. Thanks for the idea, Piers.
Piers Morgan is just another not very well made product of Great Britain, like those Brit Sports cars of the 50’s and 60’s. You had to tighten everything up once a week or they broke down. Apparently, no one is tightening Piers up often enough.
Looking for something positive in Morgan’s statement [like using excrement for fertilizer], I realized that 2A advocates have overlooked a potential tactic.
Whether or not the Second covers modern firearms [and I am convinced it does] it certainly covers swords, knives, pikes, cannons…
Perhaps it’s time for a flanking attack on gun-control totalitarians by filing suit in NYC, Chicago, etc., for the right to possess and bear knives, swords, and other lethal toys of that era. I’d love to see Bloomberg’s reaction to that.
And, of course, Peirs’ comments.
As I noted above, ballistas, trebuchets, and catapults are unregulated.
Anyone could build one and fire it into a crowded mall… but this never actually happens.
And if Morgan does not think that muskets are comparable to “high powered” modern firearms, maybe he would volunteer to stand in front of one. Quite frankly, if I was going to get shot, I think I’d rather get hit with a .223 that a 57 caliber soft lead musket ball. And oh yeah, many if not all of the militas formed to fight in the Civil War brought along their own uniforms, muskets and cannon, and were officered by the men who’d paid for the outfitting. And although I am poorly read on the subject, I seem to recall that there were a number of militas formed to join the invasion of Cuba during the Spanish-American War too, and again, the provided their own kit.
Knives are off limits in NYC, although maybe not as fiercely enforced as the gun ban. I got to keep mine as long as it did not show.
Apparently you guys never heard of Carol Roth. She owns Piers Morgan all the time, even on his own show.
I’d never heard of her before this.
As you would expect, he got tons of responses to his pronouncements (including lots of newspaper/printing press analogies), but none were better than hers.
Many Brits (not all) don’t like guns or support the civilian RKBA. However, they seem to have a long ‘proud’ centuries-old history of carrying government-issued guns on behalf of their royalty and upper class elites to oppress and murder native peoples from around the world. The British commoners also have a history of being killed in some stupid fight, on the far side of the world, for a cause that was usually about economic imperialism.
Piers misses the fact the what the framers had “in mind” with the 2A was that the citizenry could only oppose gov’t tyranny if citizens possessed weaponry equal to that of the regular army. So, yeah, it does have modern military weaponry like tanks, select-fire assault weapons, grenades, semi-auto pistols, etc. “in mind.”
Note that no where in the 2A or in the writings of the time related to it was there any sense of limitation on which weapons the gov’t could have and which weapons average citizens could have…at least nothing I’ve come across.
My take is that the reason the Founders chose the word “arms” is precisely because it is very broad in scope and encompasses every type of “arm” they knew of, every type they could foresee in the future and those they knew they could not yet foresee in the distant future. A testimony to their intelligence.
“Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan, known professionally as Piers Morgan, is a British journalist and television host currently working in the United States.”
wiki
“Carol is a frequent radio, television and print media contributor on the topics of business and entrepreneurship, appearing regularly on Fox News, MSNBC, Fox Business, WGN TV Chicago, among others.”
http://www.carolroth.com/
From the DC Court of Appeals decision in Heller, upheld by SCOTUS:
“The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).”
So if we toss out all the interpretations of 2A and go with SCOTUS, for all intense and purposes all modern guns, i.e. MP5, Uzi, M-16, Galil, on and on are covered under 2A. Why? Because the framers of the constitution did not specify that someone in the colonies could not own a canon, or regulation on the type of musket, or pistol. Because it was explicitly intended that the individual had a right to poses exactly what the military does. Does this included anti aircraft missiles, NUKES, and he likes to put it. I would think yes, although the regulations involved in possessing a nuclear warhead of any type involves numerous international agencies as well. Those who have the money to buy and Apache, or F-16, why not? Forget the millions it costs just to maintain it, much less shoot anything from it, but the point being are those folks really a threat?
The above was the item on page 53 which came up in the SCOTUS oral discussion (Note, the Solicitor General was arguining in support of DCs handgun ban and weapon storage laws):
SCOTUS orals discussion
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre – pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is -it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well –
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”
The above, of course, won’t fit in a tweet. It would also probably cause Piers head to explode as he contemplates he exercises free speech rights over technology unforseen by the founding fathers- yet still protected by the constitution.
Wow ok I had to drill down through all these responses!
Suffice to say it made me giggle this morning over my Coffee and Bagel.
I knew a guy who had a wide range of tanks in CA, but they had to cut and re-weld the breach in order for him to own them.
As far as an Uzi in concerned why not? Folks who pay the tax stamp and file the paper work have that right no?
“As far as an Uzi in concerned why not? Folks have that right no?”
——
Fixed. 😉
I think it’s clear from the wording of the 2nd Amendment that it was meant to ensure an armed populace from which a militia might be raised. Not “musketeers” – “militia”. This means private citizens would be expected to possess the basic kit of an infantryman. The Militia Acts of 1792 support this interpretation.
Hi, Neat post. There is a problem together with your website in internet explorer, could test this? IE still is the market leader and a large portion of folks will miss your magnificent writing because of this problem.
Stupid Eurotrash. Maybe we will use our guns to bail your butts out of another war. Actually, the muslims will probably get ya from within.
Hymmmmn, Being a “Disabled American”, with a Concealed Carry Permit , Also, with a “Class – 3, license”; finding it “Outrageous’, how many of the drivers, here in S.Florida,[ie.] “Miami”, are full of “Road Rage”, and carry Guns, most of the time, “Illegally”!… Wondering, if i Mounted, a 50 caliber, on my Jeep,[ for Added protection, while visiting the Miami Area]; like they have, for the Military; With my Convertible “Top”, up!… Wouldn’t That, be considered,. “Concealed”?….[They allow guns, locked in your Glove Box!… I’d keep the Doors locked!…]. None of my “Policia, Amigos’, had a response!… lol
As far as allowing “Tanks, UZI’s, and Nukes”, tanks and full auto weapons were absolutely fine for folks to own until the gubmint infringed in the 1930’s when they crafted the definition of “destructive devices”. So for around 150 years it was ok, until the gubmint decided it wasn’t. As for Nukes? I might be inclined to draw the line there. I know people that might think it would be cool to hand me their beer and set one off for the 4th of July.
Hymmn, I’m a “Law-abiding Citizen”, with a C.C.P., and i Do carry, a few different Guns!… And, Will Continue, this Practice, for My own Protection, like i’ve done in the past!…. Whether or “Not”, the Second Amendmant is “Repealed”!…. [Fortunately, This”, Will Never Happen!….].