Does the 2nd Amendment protect suicide vests?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:09:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Does the 2nd Amendment protect suicide vests?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Does the 2nd Amendment protect suicide vests?  (Read 1822 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 17, 2015, 12:42:10 AM »

In the aftermath of the Paris attack, we've had Republicans try to tie French gun control to the scale of the terrorist attack in Paris.  The logic is, if the terrorists/bad guys can get their hands on a weapon, so should everyone in the general public.  It's the old line, a bad guy with a gun, something something good guy with a gun.

There's also a strain in 2nd Amendment absolutism today that says that the 2nd Amendment protects all weapons, not just firearms.  So, under that theory, the government can ban any type of weapon from public ownership and sale. 

Since it has been revealed that every Paris terrorist had an explosive suicide vest, does that raise the same argument from Republicans?  Do you think people should be able to go to the gun shop and guy a suicide vest?  If not, why?  And, do you differ on the ownership of AK-47s?
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2015, 12:52:20 AM »

I won't speak for everyone, but I think for me it only extends to what you could use in reasonable self defense.  I personally don't oppose an assault rifles ban, but it's easier to include them under the self defense bubble than it is these vests.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2015, 01:03:11 AM »



Anyway, actual case of the militia clause being relevant; suicide vests have no reasonable use case for a legal civilian militia.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2015, 07:13:06 AM »

Imagine the legaleze on the "warning" label on a suicide vest!  Oh that would be fun.


Suicide vests are explosives, explosives ain't guns.  Anybody that thinks explosives should be available to the general public (and uses the 2nd Amendment as the reason they should be legal) doesn't know what they are talking about.  Like most gun control fundies.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2015, 07:25:36 AM »

I won't speak for everyone, but I think for me it only extends to what you could use in reasonable self defense.  I personally don't oppose an assault rifles ban, but it's easier to include them under the self defense bubble than it is these vests.

It would be a pretty hardcore way to defend yourself against a mugging though.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2015, 12:53:00 PM »

Suicide vests aren't arms so no. A common militiaman would not carry a suicide vest. Would you like to dust off the silly "nukes" hypothetical next?
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2015, 01:59:14 PM »

Arms = weapons. Second amendment talks about arms, not firearms. It's not silly to ask the question.

Though your answer that the Amendment should only be interpreted to allow individual ownership of what an individual militiaman might carry is certainly interesting. Are we willing to follow that logic all the way through to its conclusion?
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2015, 02:03:17 PM »

People think it protects them against suicide bombers apparently.

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/9458288-74/monday-county-office#axzz3rfuYTYMX
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2015, 03:10:59 PM »

Arms = weapons. Second amendment talks about arms, not firearms. It's not silly to ask the question.

Though your answer that the Amendment should only be interpreted to allow individual ownership of what an individual militiaman might carry is certainly interesting. Are we willing to follow that logic all the way through to its conclusion?

When the Constitution was drafted "arms" specifically referred to weapons which could be carried and were used while being held. Consider Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (which immediately preceded the Constitution). It requires States to stockpile both "arms" and "field pieces". Field pieces are artillery; special weapons of war requiring multiple men to operate. The 2nd Amendment however, is a protection only of "arms", which were smaller, lighter weapons personally carried and operated by individual soldiers. One of many ratification debates touching on this subject was whether or not the government should have a standing army. The compromise Constitutionally enshrined the militia as a separate unit of  national defense. Separate, but on par with. Which is why I believe the term "arms" extends to those handheld weapons common to an ordinary infantryman.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2015, 04:45:42 PM »

In the aftermath of the Paris attack, we've had Republicans try to tie French gun control to the scale of the terrorist attack in Paris.  The logic is, if the terrorists/bad guys can get their hands on a weapon, so should everyone in the general public.  It's the old line, a bad guy with a gun, something something good guy with a gun.

There's also a strain in 2nd Amendment absolutism today that says that the 2nd Amendment protects all weapons, not just firearms.  So, under that theory, the government can ban any type of weapon from public ownership and sale. 

Since it has been revealed that every Paris terrorist had an explosive suicide vest, does that raise the same argument from Republicans?  Do you think people should be able to go to the gun shop and guy a suicide vest?  If not, why?  And, do you differ on the ownership of AK-47s?

The point is that people should be able to defend themselves.  Not sure how you missed that.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2015, 05:00:38 PM »

Reasonable is subjective, because what one person sees as reasonable might not be see as reasonable to another. With that said, a suicide vest has no self-defense purpose for obvious reasons, so it would not fall under the second amendment.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2015, 05:22:02 PM »

Reasonable is subjective, because what one person sees as reasonable might not be see as reasonable to another. With that said, a suicide vest has no self-defense purpose for obvious reasons, so it would not fall under the second amendment.

There is nothing about self-defense in the Second Amendment.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2015, 05:29:01 PM »

Yes, obviously.

Which is why it's nonsense and should be repealed.

NRA nuts shooting people is terrorism. We just don't say it because they are white.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2015, 05:42:51 PM »

The really big issue to me is the flaw in "original intent," and this question exposes it. When the founders wrote the second amendment, street violence, shooting sprees, AK-47s, UZIs, gangs, tanks, jets, nuclear bombs, suicide bombers, and we could go on (read, contemporary problems), were simply not part of what they could conceive of as "bearing arms." They had gunpowder and matchlock muskets! Or maybe the thing above a matchlock. I'm a Medievalist, so I know they had matchlocks then and in the 15th century, but really, we're talking about muskets and ragtag armies.

Clearly, the answer to the question is "No." Having said that, I am not opposed to private ownership of handguns and rifles. I think more than ever, though, this issue needs to be looked at from a fresher perspective than what the founders offer in the second amendment as applied to today. Good luck, though. The NRA wields a disturbing amount of power, and they are fanatical.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2015, 09:16:55 PM »

Reasonable is subjective, because what one person sees as reasonable might not be see as reasonable to another. With that said, a suicide vest has no self-defense purpose for obvious reasons, so it would not fall under the second amendment.

There is nothing about self-defense in the Second Amendment.

That is true, which is why it should be repealed.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2015, 09:28:11 PM »

The second amendment starts off with a dangling modifier, so it's a little hard to take seriously.  It's even harder to take this question seriously.

No, the founders didn't have suicide vests in mind when they wrote the second amendment, bedstuy.  I'd say that you are probably the only person in the world who thinks that it does, but even you know that you are blowing smoke here, so I'd guess that it's about zero people who draw that conclusion.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2015, 09:30:05 PM »

No, the founders didn't have suicide vests in mind when they wrote the second amendment, bedstuy.  I'd say that you are probably the only person in the world who thinks that it does, but even you know that you are blowing smoke here, so I'd guess that it's about zero people who draw that conclusion.

What weapons did the founders have in mind, angus?
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2015, 09:30:39 PM »

If this strawman burns up any faster, my apartments smoke detectors might go off!
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2015, 09:36:08 PM »
« Edited: November 17, 2015, 09:55:35 PM by angus »

No, the founders didn't have suicide vests in mind when they wrote the second amendment, bedstuy.  I'd say that you are probably the only person in the world who thinks that it does, but even you know that you are blowing smoke here, so I'd guess that it's about zero people who draw that conclusion.

What weapons did the founders have in mind, angus?

Let's assume that they had in mind only weapons that had already been invented, for starters.  James Madison, for example, was a political theorist.  He also studied Latin and religion.  It is unlikely that he had a propensity for theorizing about photon torpedoes or nuclear warheads, or even suicide belts.  I think that it's a safe bet that the other authors could be described similarly.

There are a number of law students and licensed attorneys who post here regularly.  If we wanted to take this thread as a mental exercise, they might have some insight.  The last two high-profile cases were Heller and McDonald.  Both cases strengthened the individual right argument over the collective right theory.  (I think the collective right made more sense to me when I was a university student learning of the constitution, but who knows?  we all evolve and I'm not sure what the current consensus is anyway)  Either way, it is clear that the framers want you--either you collectively via your legislature or you individually, depending upon your interpretation--to be able to protect yourself against the very real possibility of an English invasion.  In that frame of reference, you might ask the question, "What would madison et al. think if I had a device that killed the English invaders but would also kill me?"  I think Madison would tell me to rethink my defense strategy.  He might give me the cell phone number of a good Brown Bess Musket merchant, if cell phones existed.  Of course they didn't, so it would not have occurred to him to provide me with such a number.  Nor would it have occurred to him to advise me regarding suicide vests.

We could look into the Supreme Court opinion in some recent cases.  In McDonald, Alito wrote for the majority opinion and Stevens wrote the dissent.  A careful read of both of their statements would suggest to me (and I assume any literate person, lawyer or not) that, although they disagreed on the particulars of that case, neither of them would consider the suicide vest a fundamental right.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2015, 10:12:21 PM »

Three paragraphs answering a rhetorical question?  And all the while missing the true point of the topic.  Good job!
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2015, 10:35:12 PM »

Three paragraphs answering a rhetorical question?  And all the while missing the true point of the topic.  Good job!

Actually, one paragraph to answer your question, asshole.  Two more to point out that if you wanted to take the topic seriously you could, and quash it in one well-reasoned post.

Good job on your part as well.  

Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2015, 10:37:45 PM »

The profanity is complete unnecessary.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2015, 10:41:10 PM »


LOL.  Indeed, as was the attempted sarcasm to which the profanity was directed. 

As, for that matter, is posting in this thread.  I guess we're all a little bored.  Wink
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2015, 11:31:50 PM »

Does the M1 carbine go all the way up your ass or does the trigger stick out?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2015, 12:31:33 AM »

This topic has actually gone better than I thout it would. That said, it has reached the point where it is better to put it out of my misery. Locking.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.