Piers Morgan losing it again

Quote from Tsing Tao:

I don't mind Ivan if you prefer that moniker.

I was arguing that the Constitution has two real interpretations for arms- one on the state level (in terms of a militia) and one on the personal level, where "arms" is obviously meant to be "guns" or "firearms". bigarrow pointed out that this could be cannons and warships, etc. I responded that that could be on the militia level, yes, but there's no way the founders would mean "arms" for individuals meant military machinery of any sort.

bigarrow provided a source that detailed how privateers had been used in wars or other military engagements (was an interesting read). These privateers were singular owners of ships and other large scale objects (armed as such, incidentally to protect themselves from pirates, etc) and were hired to supplement military engagements accordingly.

My sole point was the Forefather's intent of the word "arms" in usage to generally mean "guns" on the individual level.
More...

I agree with this. The right to bear arms I think was constructed just in case the Redcoats came back into town. Citizens would need a way to fight house by house at the front, and as word spread, towns would need to readily form militias. I think the founders also felt that British money could touch the infant government and possibly turn them, so the citizens needed to be ready for that too.
 
Quote from achilles28:

What do you think they meant? Your physical arm? You fucking idiot?

Ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you know what "arms" means, moron?
More...
http://www.answers.com/topic/arms-7

"Arms" is an all-encompassing term.

Besides, you still didn't answer my question:
Quote from Brass:

Since these guns are approved by the Second Amendment to protect yourself from the government, and the government NOW has stuff to make your weapons look like pop guns, how are you going to protect yourself from the government in the manner that the framers of the Constitution had intended? Does not the spirit of this outdated law, assuming you need to protect yourself from the government, imply that you should have the same "weapons of the day" so that you can protect yourself from an evil government in an effective way? That's what they intended, isn't it?
More...
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

I thought they were semi-automatic, not automatic.
More...
If you refer to my few preceding posts, you will note that I referred to both automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the general discussion about weapon ownership, and that I don't think either should be in civilian hands for the simple reason that they are not needed to protect one's home, or for that level-playing-field "sport," hunting. In any event, I understand that one of the perp's weapons was capable of firing a hundred rounds in one minute. And you will note that "semi-automatic" has something of an "automatic" nature to it by definition.
 
Quote from Brass:

If you refer to my few preceding posts, you will note that I referred to both automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the general discussion about weapon ownership, and that I don't think either should be in civilian hands for the simple reason that they are not needed to protect one's home, or for that level-playing-field "sport," hunting. In any event, I understand that one of the perp's weapons was capable of firing a hundred rounds in one minute. And you will note that "semi-automatic" has something of an "automatic" nature to it by definition.
More...

So just so I understand your point, and I apologize if you're repeating yourself. You think that semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be in the hands of civilians for the reason that they are not needed to protect one's home.

Ok, your opinion is noted. I would agree that automatic weapons are not needed to protect one's home. But semi-automatic weapons are just about everything I can think of in the world of firearms except maybe a shotgun or bolt-action rifle. So you're really saying guns should not be in the hands of civilians, right?

Or do you agree with shotguns for home defense?
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

...Ok, your opinion is noted. I would agree that automatic weapons are not needed to protect one's home. But semi-automatic weapons are just about everything I can think of in the world of firearms except maybe a shotgun or bolt-action rifle. So you're really saying guns should not be in the hands of civilians, right?

Or do you agree with shotguns for home defense?
More...
There are revolvers, as well. I don't think they're semi-automatic. You know I'm anti-gun, so my opinion will register on the more extreme side of control. I'm not suggesting it will ever go that way, that's just my view of how it ought to be. However, in my eyes, to the extent that some semi-automatic weaponry can be modified to full auto, it's an outlier event just waiting to happen.

I'm still waiting to hear from achilles, who seems to think that the Second Amendment necessarily only refers to hand guns and rifles in its use of the word "arms." As I noted earlier, along with a link to a proper definition, "arms" is an all-inclusive term and is not limited to hand guns and rifles. Surely he's heard of the term "arm's race," and I doubt he thinks it means a bunch of guys seeing how fast they can run while carrying rifles and pistols.

And, in his defense of the validity of the Second Amendment in the present day, achilles appears to not yet have had time to address another post I wrote yesterday:
Quote from Brass:

Since these guns are approved by the Second Amendment to protect yourself from the government, and the government NOW has stuff to make your weapons look like pop guns, how are you going to protect yourself from the government in the manner that the framers of the Constitution had intended? Does not the spirit of this outdated law, assuming you need to protect yourself from the government, imply that you should have the same "weapons of the day" so that you can protect yourself from an evil government in an effective way? That's what they intended, isn't it?
More...
So as I imagine you can infer, it would appear that the spirit of the Second Amendment has run its course and is now little more than a relic of the past used as an excuse for people who actually want guns for other reasons than those actually intended by the Amendment. With any luck, achilles will find a moment to collect and share his thoughts.
 
Quote from Brass:

Since these guns are approved by the Second Amendment to protect yourself from the government, and the government NOW has stuff to make your weapons look like pop guns, how are you going to protect yourself from the government in the manner that the framers of the Constitution had intended? Does not the spirit of this outdated law, assuming you need to protect yourself from the government, imply that you should have the same "weapons of the day" so that you can protect yourself from an evil government in an effective way? That's what they intended, isn't it?
More...

You don't need the same weapons. the whole point is having a means to fight back. Firearms make all men equal. Let's just say our leadership decided to get all totalitarian on us, what are they going to do? Are they gonna use military fighters and tanks to kill there own people and destroy infrastructure? Nothing would be accomplished except total destruction. Nope, they are will go door to door like we do/did in Iraq/Afghanistan. We could have never set a boot on the ground in either country and just bombed them to dust and we would eventually have gotten everyone we wanted to.. but no one would accept that. So our troops have to risk their lives fighting on the ground against armed guys. they are just guys with guns and they have stuck around for a decade. Get it?

By the way, the military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, there is no doubt that the founders intended for the population to be armed. the point being confiscation will never happen in the USA without bloodshed. Remember, we already had a civil war.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

-- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.

-- Edward Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979

Every American would sleep in uncontested peace at night with a full auto at their bedside.

-- me, 2012

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

-- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

read the rest, it is damn hard to miss the underlying concept. http://catb.org/~esr/fortunes/rkba.html
 
Quote from Brass:

Unequal firearms necessarily make them unequal, all else being equal.
More...

Guess you didn't have time to read the whole post. I'll try to make this short.. if every private citizen is armed the only way to disarm them would be to wage war, instead of conquest you would have annihilation. What would be gained? Who would support that?

I would stake my life, literally, on the military, at least partially, not backing the wannabe dictator(s) the day confiscation was ordered. The second amendment is LAW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top