Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss Clueless Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to ban ‘high capacity, rapid-fire magazines’ at the General Forum; Originally Posted by jimbo No necessity for 20 year old scotch either. We tried banning scotch. Didn't go well. The ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2018, 09:21 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,137
Thanks: 1,436
Thanked 2,192 Times in 1,733 Posts
Default Re: Clueless Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to ban ‘high capacity, rapid-fire magazin

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
No necessity for 20 year old scotch either. We tried banning scotch. Didn't go well.

The NRA was nowhere near the Florida school or the Las Vegas concert. Two nut jobs were. Neither was the second amendment, which doesn't address necessity.

NRA wasn't at Boston, Orlando, 9-11, either. Nut jobs were.
The Second Amendment does not expressly protect the right to bear firearms. It expressly protects the right to bear "arms" which is a general category and it was left to Congress to determine, based upon pragmatic reasons, which arms are protected. The late Justice Scalia expressly stated that the right to keep and bear arms does not imply any type of firearm to be carried any place at any time in his written opinion of Heller v DC.

A removable magazine is an accessory to a firearm and is not a part of the firearm. Firearms that use removable magazines can still be fired without the magazine although they fundamentally become a single shot firearms. Accessories to arms are not protected at all by the Second Amendment.

There's no pragmatic reason for large capacity magazines. They're not required for any purpose related to a firearm that would be protected by the Second Amendment and, as noted, they're an accessory to a firearm outside of the protections of the Second Amendment. Under the Constitution all external magazines could be banned and even the internal capacity for ammunition of a firearm can be regulated without creating any infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as long as those laws are based upon a pragmatic threat to the public safety.

The analogy to Scotch fails because this isn't about banning the Scotch but instead is about regulating what type of container it comes in. A better analogy would be explosive devices. Generally speaking firecrackers are not prohibited by law in many places because they don't represent a danger to life but bombs, that are just larger explosive devices, are banned under federal law. The Second Amendment does not protect a "right to possess bombs (large explosive devices)" even though bombs can be used as a form of arms in self defense.

You're correct. The "NRA wasn't at Boston, Orlando, 9-11, either" and it wasn't being shot or blown up where people were being rapidly murdered so the NRA should STFU because they're not the one's being shot at or blown up and murdered.
__________________
I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU
BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT FOR YOU

Last edited by ShivaTD; 03-11-2018 at 09:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2018, 09:44 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,137
Thanks: 1,436
Thanked 2,192 Times in 1,733 Posts
Default Re: Clueless Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to ban ‘high capacity, rapid-fire magazin

BTW I opposed the "assault weapons bans" that were based upon appearance criteria. Appearance is unrelated to functionality of the firearm and the same appearance criteria of "it's scary looking" was arguably true for both those that wanted to ban the firearm and those that wanted to own the firearm.

Appearance is not a legitimate foundation for regulation or prohibition.

Large capacity magazines for high velocity semiautomatic rifles is a functionality criteria.

Functionality is a legitimate foundation for regulation or prohibition.
__________________
I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU
BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT FOR YOU
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2018, 11:36 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,772
Thanks: 8,309
Thanked 6,885 Times in 4,163 Posts
Default Re: Clueless Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to ban ‘high capacity, rapid-fire magazin

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The Second Amendment does not expressly protect the right to bear firearms. It expressly protects the right to bear "arms" which is a general category and it was left to Congress to determine, based upon pragmatic reasons, which arms are protected. The late Justice Scalia expressly stated that the right to keep and bear arms does not imply any type of firearm to be carried any place at any time in his written opinion of Heller v DC.

A removable magazine is an accessory to a firearm and is not a part of the firearm. Firearms that use removable magazines can still be fired without the magazine although they fundamentally become a single shot firearms. Accessories to arms are not protected at all by the Second Amendment.

There's no pragmatic reason for large capacity magazines. They're not required for any purpose related to a firearm that would be protected by the Second Amendment and, as noted, they're an accessory to a firearm outside of the protections of the Second Amendment. Under the Constitution all external magazines could be banned and even the internal capacity for ammunition of a firearm can be regulated without creating any infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as long as those laws are based upon a pragmatic threat to the public safety.

The analogy to Scotch fails because this isn't about banning the Scotch but instead is about regulating what type of container it comes in. A better analogy would be explosive devices. Generally speaking firecrackers are not prohibited by law in many places because they don't represent a danger to life but bombs, that are just larger explosive devices, are banned under federal law. The Second Amendment does not protect a "right to possess bombs (large explosive devices)" even though bombs can be used as a form of arms in self defense.

You're correct. The "NRA wasn't at Boston, Orlando, 9-11, either" and it wasn't being shot or blown up where people were being rapidly murdered so the NRA should STFU because they're not the one's being shot at or blown up and murdered.
The second amendment expressly protects the right to keep and bear arms. Arms being anything from rocks and sticks to heavy ordnance. Firearms are a subcategory of arms using fire as a propellant, but more commonly used to define those arms capable of being carried and operated by one (or two) people. So yes, the amendment protects firearms. You've got it backwards.

Nowhere is it left to Congress to define arms or even less so firearms. Only the first mentions Congress, and it restricts Congress, not the people.

I'm familiar with Heller. Most people, including myself are comfortable with some minimal regulations, at the same time I believe any regulation violates the intent of the second. My concern is incrementalism. The left understands that if you can get .44 's banned it's a small step toward banning .43's and so on.

There is nothing anywhere that defines a removable magazine as being something separate from the arm itself. Many magazines are not removable.
In addition by your own statements restricting/eliminating magazines of any sort absolutely infringes on a right which shall not be infringed. I don't give a crap about the pragmatic, necessity, need, or any other attempt to suggest that somehow the second is about need or any other restriction as to why I want to possess a forearm. That I do is sufficient as long as my use is lawful.

Scotch is a good analogy. Scotch was not banned by prohibition. Alcohol was. But scotch got caught up in the ban. Much like sporting weapons. Banning so called assault weapons or the all inclusive semi autos bans most currently in use sporting weapons. Even revolvers get caught up in the definition. Lest we forget, the AWB banned firearms with two or more of arbitrary components. Thumb hole and folding stocks, suppressors, incorrectly labelled as silencers, pistol grips. Barrel shrouds. None of which added or detracted from the function of the gun.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2018, 11:53 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,368
Thanks: 215
Thanked 5,517 Times in 3,999 Posts
Default Re: Clueless Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to ban ‘high capacity, rapid-fire magazin

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
A removable magazine is an accessory to a firearm and is not a part of the firearm. Firearms that use removable magazines can still be fired without the magazine although they fundamentally become a single shot firearms. Accessories to arms are not protected at all by the Second Amendment.
Which version of the second amendment does that fall under? The 18th century one or the 21st?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2018, 07:37 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,004
Thanks: 2,655
Thanked 1,688 Times in 975 Posts
Default Re: Clueless Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to ban ‘high capacity, rapid-fire magazin

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The Second Amendment does not expressly protect the right to bear firearms. It expressly protects the right to bear "arms" which is a general category and it was left to Congress to determine, based upon pragmatic reasons, which arms are protected. The late Justice Scalia expressly stated that the right to keep and bear arms does not imply any type of firearm to be carried any place at any time in his written opinion of Heller v DC.

A removable magazine is an accessory to a firearm and is not a part of the firearm. Firearms that use removable magazines can still be fired without the magazine although they fundamentally become a single shot firearms. Accessories to arms are not protected at all by the Second Amendment.

There's no pragmatic reason for large capacity magazines. They're not required for any purpose related to a firearm that would be protected by the Second Amendment and, as noted, they're an accessory to a firearm outside of the protections of the Second Amendment. Under the Constitution all external magazines could be banned and even the internal capacity for ammunition of a firearm can be regulated without creating any infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as long as those laws are based upon a pragmatic threat to the public safety.

The analogy to Scotch fails because this isn't about banning the Scotch but instead is about regulating what type of container it comes in. A better analogy would be explosive devices. Generally speaking firecrackers are not prohibited by law in many places because they don't represent a danger to life but bombs, that are just larger explosive devices, are banned under federal law. The Second Amendment does not protect a "right to possess bombs (large explosive devices)" even though bombs can be used as a form of arms in self defense.

You're correct. The "NRA wasn't at Boston, Orlando, 9-11, either" and it wasn't being shot or blown up where people were being rapidly murdered so the NRA should STFU because they're not the one's being shot at or blown up and murdered.
You could not be more wrong. I posted this earlier in another thread and never received a comment on it. I will post it again here as it perfectly refutes your presumption.

Quote:
Previously I’ve examined what the phrase “bear arms” meant in the Second Amendment. The evidence makes it obviously clear it referenced both military and civilian use of weapons.

But what did the word “arms” mean at the time?

Today the word “arms” refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. It’s definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved.

“Arms” comes from Middle English and originated from the Old French word “armes,” which meant “weapons of a warrior.” This word dates back to 1300. “Arms” also originates from the Latin word for “weapons,”arma.” This word was also first used in the 14th Century.

(On a side-note, the word “firearms” popped up around 1640 to describe weapons that used gunpowder compared to other arms like bows and arrows)

It’s clear the meaning allowed for a very broad definition of what constituted “arms.” The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that the “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

The last part of the sentence is very telling. It’s a conditional phrase meant to limit the type of “arms’ allowed by Protestant subjects. The limitation imposed meant that the word “arms” had a definition permitting a very wide range of weapons including those the document’s authors decided could be restricted by law.

From this we can conclude that the word “arms” referred to weapons found among contemporary military arsenals.

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.

Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.

Not that it would matter, since it is a natural right not a privilege granted to us by the government. But it removes this one final argument a gun control advocate might make to justify restrictions.
Tenth Amendment Center | What Does the Word “Arms” Mean in the 2nd Amendment?
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
ban, capacity, clueless, debbie, magazines’, rapidfire, schultz, wants, wasserman, ‘high

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0