PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Amendment means I have right to keep and bear...


IPSICK
08-01-2012, 1:15 PM
Discussion in the understanding 2nd Amendment thread has gotten me wondering what people think they are allowed to have as far as arms. Figured a poll might get started on an answer.

451040
08-01-2012, 1:25 PM
I would set the limit at 10 megatons. What need does any citizen have for a Tsar Bomba?









:rolleyes:

BlindRacer
08-01-2012, 1:25 PM
Discussion in the understanding 2nd Amendment thread has gotten me wondering what people think they are allowed to have as far as arms. Figured a poll might get started on an answer.

I bolded what I think is the problem. It's not what we are 'allowed', but it's our right as law abiding citizens, and human beings. There is no crime in the ownership, and proper use of anything from airsoft, to 22's, to 50bmg's, to explosives, to attack helicopters. The crime is only there if something is used wrongfully, and affects another person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I believe everything is up for grabs, as long as the person is a law abiding citizen. This is the only way that a citizenry could stand against an oppressive government.

foxtrotuniformlima
08-01-2012, 1:28 PM
I believe that as an individual citizen, i have the right to possess a long arm in any configuration and a handgun in any configuration. I do not think the Founding Fathers wanted every citizen to keep a cannon in their yard nor a warship down at the marina but I do believe they wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves against whatever may try to harm them be it another county or those inside their country trying to put them back into the position they were in while under British rule.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 1:28 PM
Good question, and a tough one.

I voted up to semi-auto, with the only reason to this being...

Too many people out there that don't handle a revolver safely, let alone something that has much more potential for damage such as burst or full auto.

Training and practice are required at some level to be safe when handling firearms and allow those around you to remain safe as well.

A.W.D.

DVSmith
08-01-2012, 1:29 PM
Nukes... and lots of them!

adampolo13
08-01-2012, 1:29 PM
NO INFRINGEMENT!!!

IPSICK
08-01-2012, 1:32 PM
I bolded what I think is the problem. It's not what we are 'allowed', but it's our right as law abiding citizens, and human beings. There is no crime in the ownership, and proper use of anything from airsoft, to 22's, to 50bmg's, to explosives, to attack helicopters. The crime is only there if something is used wrongfully, and affects another person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I believe everything is up for grabs, as long as the person is a law abiding citizen. This is the only way that a citizenry could stand against an oppressive government.

I agree with you mostly but you can see how our opposition can see us as wackos if we say and believe such things.

What I should have added is "should all of this be unregulated excepting for the prevention of acquisition of arms by criminals and the mentally ill?"

Or is there a reasonable regulation up to a certain point? For instance, any semi-auto is good to go provided you are not a criminal or mentally ill. Then increments of regulation from there. Again, such as full auto requires tax stamp and quals then incrementally higher as you go up the arms chain?

odysseus
08-01-2012, 1:34 PM
Good question, and a tough one.

I voted up to semi-auto, with the only reason to this being...

Too many people out there that don't handle a revolver safely, let alone something that has much more potential for damage such as burst or full auto.

Training and practice are required at some level to be safe when handling firearms and allow those around you to remain safe as well.


Wait - let's work that logic. You say you voted only for semi-auto as a Constitutional 2-A Right. However, then you go into training for fear of people not being able to handle full auto firearms (which actually is misplaced over any firearm regardless of fire rate).

Well hmmm... what you are saying though is that the State might have power to regulate some conditions on them, but that the right remains for all people to have fully automatic weapons if they abide by the conditions? Yet you voted that as a Constitutional Right, they don't have right to them.

Why are you being so convoluted?

Chosen_1
08-01-2012, 1:38 PM
IMO, anything bearable. (yes, RPGs included :43:)

howbobert
08-01-2012, 1:42 PM
If I could afford it, I should be able to own what ever I like. End of story.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 1:43 PM
Wait - let's work that logic. You say you voted only for semi-auto as a Constitutional 2-A Right. However, then you go into training for fear of people not being able to handle full auto firearms (which actually is misplaced over any firearm regardless of fire rate).

Well hmmm... what you are saying though is that the State might have power to regulate some conditions on them, but that the right remains for all people to have fully automatic weapons if they abide by the conditions? Yet you voted that as a Constitutional Right, they don't have right to them.

Why are you being so convoluted?

So sorry you think of my response as convoluted...

Well, this is really the core problem behind the issue now isn't it.
The answer is not so simple.

Unfortunately, the 2A doesn't address -as far I know - that wackos and nut jobs exist in our world and society. Forget about the tyrannical Gov for a minute...

Did the founding fathers forget that there are bad citizens in this world?
Did they just figure that bad people/citizens should have arms too?

I was thinking the other day, is there anything in our constitution that addresses this? Did our founding fathers not think about the fact that there are some people out there that simply should not have arms - for the safety and well being of society?

I think we can all agree that a certain individual from CO should not have had access to arms, but he did...

It seems odd that they would not have addressed that.

A.W.D.

M. D. Van Norman
08-01-2012, 1:51 PM
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects your right to arms in common use.

Your natural right to arms has no theoretical limit.

thenodnarb
08-01-2012, 1:53 PM
So sorry you think of my response as convoluted...

Well, this is really the core problem behind the issue now isn't it.
The answer is not so simple.

Unfortunately, the 2A doesn't address -as far I know - that wackos and nut jobs exist in our world and society. Forget about the tyrannical Gov for a minute...

Did the founding fathers forget that there are bad citizens in this world?
Did they just figure that bad people/citizens should have arms too?

I was thinking the other day, is there anything in our constitution that addresses this? Did our founding fathers not think about the fact that there are some people out there that simply should not have arms - for the safety and well being of society?

I think we can all agree that a certain individual from CO should not have had access to arms, but he did...

It seems odd that they would not have addressed that.

A.W.D.

Murderers where put to death if they weren't killed during their crime. That is how they dealt with it.

Uxi
08-01-2012, 1:55 PM
I think an Amendment would probably needed to prohibit NBC/WMB, but would probably support it. As it is, no limits.

odysseus
08-01-2012, 1:59 PM
No need to say your sorry, I am not expecting it, just making conversation.

The answer to your point is the Founding Father's lived in a time of bad people too. However Liberty is something much more linear with a reasonable and peaceful people than autocracy, as one can understand better by way of the philosophers of the time (and still of our time) in the age of Enlightenment.

A people always live with crazies. Even in tyrannical and autocratic systems promising larger protection, people are still victims of crazy people. That's the truth. These limits are theoretical only to law abiding, reasonable people. Unreasonable people care not for any of it anyway. The point being that fear of this at the strike against Liberty for reasonable law abiding people is nonsensical. The right is natural, and as a force of nature woven everywhere anyway like it or not.

So sorry you think of my response as convoluted...

Well, this is really the core problem behind the issue now isn't it.
The answer is not so simple.

Unfortunately, the 2A doesn't address -as far I know - that wackos and nut jobs exist in our world and society. Forget about the tyrannical Gov for a minute...

Did the founding fathers forget that there are bad citizens in this world?
Did they just figure that bad people/citizens should have arms too?

I was thinking the other day, is there anything in our constitution that addresses this? Did our founding fathers not think about the fact that there are some people out there that simply should not have arms - for the safety and well being of society?

I think we can all agree that a certain individual from CO should not have had access to arms, but he did...

It seems odd that they would not have addressed that.

A.W.D.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 1:59 PM
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects your right to arms in common use.

Your natural right to arms has no theoretical limit.

How do we define common?
Should this include a full auto M4, or is a semi-auto carbine more common?

A.W.D.

Chosen_1
08-01-2012, 2:06 PM
How do we define common?
Should this include a full auto M4, or is a semi-auto carbine more common?

A.W.D.

Full autos are uncommon because they are heavily regulated. If they weren't regulated, it wouldn't make sense for people to drop $1000 on an AR 15 when an M4A1 would be the same price, thus making them common.

Also note the second part of his statement.

NoJoke
08-01-2012, 2:07 PM
I can better answer the question if you can provide more info on who is attacking me?

A Boar?
A heard of Boars?
A mid-trip drug addict?
A heard of mid-trip drug addicts?

Invaders, either foreign or domestic?

:confused:

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 2:15 PM
Full autos are uncommon because they are heavily regulated. If they weren't regulated, it wouldn't make sense for people to drop $1000 on an AR 15 when an M4A1 would be the same price, thus making them common.

Also note the second part of his statement.

You mean this part?
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects your right to arms in common use.

Your natural right to arms has no theoretical limit.

Since the 2A supposedly reaffirms our natural right, then there is no limit.
Right?

That's where we as a people have to step in and make some hard decisions.
Such as "Full autos are uncommon because they are heavily regulated"

So, back to the OP's question. An almost impossible one to answer simply.

A.W.D.

Hopalong
08-01-2012, 2:35 PM
I believe that the spirit of the amendment as the Founding Fathers saw it

Was to have a level playing field.

That is, the citizen is armed, as his adversary may be armed.

So, guess how I vote?

Remember what they had just gone through with the British

When the British left Boston for Lexington and Concord

They were after the stores of gunpowder, cannon and arms

The British had previously been thwarted at Salem, Portsmouth, Newport, Providence and New London as well

These stores were referred to by Loyalists as "the King's powder"

And by the Patriots as "the militia's powder"

It seems obvious to me what militia means

And also obvious that most folks either don't know or forgot

A valuable lesson in American History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm

GaryV
08-01-2012, 2:40 PM
I believe that as an individual citizen, i have the right to possess a long arm in any configuration and a handgun in any configuration. I do not think the Founding Fathers wanted every citizen to keep a cannon in their yard nor a warship down at the marina but I do believe they wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves against whatever may try to harm them be it another county or those inside their country trying to put them back into the position they were in while under British rule.

In fact, they put a specific prohibition against this one right in the Constitution. It's pretty clear from their various writings and the regulations surrounding the militia that they enacted that they never intended the 2nd Amendment, as it applies to private individuals, to apply to crew-served weaponry, but the individual arms of a soldier/militiaman.

lophed
08-01-2012, 2:40 PM
Plenty of people have collections of tanks, cannons, mortars, and such (even those that still are fully functional). I don't believe any of those collectors /owners have ever sought to cause harm with them. Responsible use of all arms is already well regulated.

IPSICK
08-01-2012, 2:49 PM
...
So, back to the OP's question. An almost impossible one to answer simply.

A.W.D.

Not looking for simple answers because there likely are none.

Here's something I'd like to propose or add as well. What is the relationship between rights and responsibility? I'd like to choose "up to nuclear option" but even something closer to the middle like "up to burst/full-auto" option begs the question whether individuals can be responsible for the destructive capacity of these weapons.

Rule #4 of basic firearms safety comes to mind here. If you are firing full auto, can you be responsible for the destructive path of each round fired? Are you aware of your target and what is beyond it?

I'd trust the overwhelming majority of everyday citizens to make sound decisions with there arms but it's not likely they have much control/responsibility over the destructive path of explosives/nuclear devices and even full-auto weapons to a point.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 2:55 PM
Not looking for simple answers because there likely are none.

Here's something I'd like to propose or add as well. What is the relationship between rights and responsibility? I'd like to choose "up to nuclear option" but even something closer to the middle like "up to burst/full-auto" option begs the question whether individuals can be responsible for the destructive capacity of these weapons.

Rule #4 of basic firearms safety comes to mind here. If you are firing full auto, can you be responsible for the destructive path of each round fired? Are you aware of your target and what is beyond it?

I'd trust the overwhelming majority of everyday citizens to make sound decisions with there arms but it's not likely they have much control/responsibility over the destructive path of explosives/nuclear devices and even full-auto weapons to a point.

Precisely why I mentioned:

"Since the 2A supposedly reaffirms our natural right, then there is no limit.
Right?

That's where we as a people have to step in and make some hard decisions."

A.W.D.

Bhobbs
08-01-2012, 2:55 PM
In fact, they put a specific prohibition against this one right in the Constitution. It's pretty clear from their various writings and the regulations surrounding the militia that they enacted that they never intended the 2nd Amendment, as it applies to private individuals, to apply to crew-served weaponry, but the individual arms of a soldier/militiaman.

The US government issued letters of marque during the War of 1812 authorzing private citizens to use their ships for war. It wouldn't do much good to send unarmed private ships against enemy warships.

jwkincal
08-01-2012, 2:55 PM
In fact, they put a specific prohibition against this one right in the Constitution. It's pretty clear from their various writings and the regulations surrounding the militia that they enacted that they never intended the 2nd Amendment, as it applies to private individuals, to apply to crew-served weaponry, but the individual arms of a soldier/militiaman.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

It says "No State," which in the Constitution is a discrete and separate entity from "Person," which is further clarified by:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution makes no such prohibition (owning warships) on the People of the United States.

M. D. Van Norman
08-01-2012, 3:07 PM
Since the 2A supposedly reaffirms our natural right, then there is no limit. Right?

Supreme Court sez: “right to arms in common use protected” … blah, blah, blah … “longstanding regulations presumptively constitutional” … blah, blah, blah …

The constitutional question has been asked and answered for anyone paying attention. All that is left is matters of degree.

However, your natural right to arms—the one you have by virtue of being an able-bodied human being—has no theoretical limit. If you can deploy thermonuclear explosives, hypervelocity interplanetary missiles, or other weapons of mass destruction, no one can stop you.

GaryV
08-01-2012, 3:16 PM
The US government issued letters of marque during the War of 1812 authorzing private citizens to use their ships for war. It wouldn't do much good to send unarmed private ships against enemy warships.

The question isn't whether you may have such things, but whether you have a right to such things. It's quite a different thing to say that the government allowed it than it is to say that the government is powerless to regulate it. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 3:30 PM
The question isn't whether you may have such things, but whether you have a right to such things. It's quite a different thing to say that the government allowed it than it is to say that the government is powerless to regulate it. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

Isn't this the real debate?

I may have that which I have the right to?

2A says I have the right to keep and bear arms, therefore I may have them?
Also, "shall not be infringed" - or interpreted as "allowed" and not regulated?

A.W.D.

tpc13
08-01-2012, 3:31 PM
It's call oppression. The government want to maintain people that are mindless. They love it when we do not fight back. We are only to blame for they work for us. We just need to band together by donating money and our time to I fluence people who either do not care or don't understand.
For example take a poll of 20 people and ask them what an assault weapon is by CA decimation. Most if, not all do not know or understand. They just say we should not have assault weapons but have no legit reason. Keep educating people on what it means and what the 2 nd amendment stands for is how we win.

Legasat
08-01-2012, 3:40 PM
My theoretical definition is "anything you can get your hands on".

My practical definition as defined by SCOTUS is "anything you can carry".

XD40SUBBIE
08-01-2012, 3:44 PM
My theoretical definition is "anything you can get your hands on".

My practical definition as defined by SCOTUS is "anything you can carry".


I would like to amend that and say anything you can own, carry, control responsibly. If that means a nuke - so be it. :)

DonFerrando
08-01-2012, 4:22 PM
Unfortunately, the 2A doesn't address -as far I know - that wackos and nut jobs exist in our world and society. Forget about the tyrannical Gov for a minute...

I think it very much addresses this in that it guarantees the right to self defense.

You're approaching the issue from the anti-gun angle: we need to outlaw all people from accessing certain weapons so the criminals won't have access to them. As gets pointed out on these and other forums a hundred times a day this thinking is flawed because:

1. Criminals and people with mental issues are already prohibited from owning firearms period
2. By definition criminals do not follow the law and will continue to have access to such weapons one way or another, any further regulation will simply diminish the ability of the law abiding public to defend themselves against criminals.

Thus any such all-inclusive legal solution is to be rejected by anyone who values their personal freedoms, their individualism, their self determination, independence, personal responsibility and their ability to self defense. It is simply a matter of finding the lowest common denominator which usually is as simple as: to each their own. If you don't like owning weapons past semi-auto that's fine by me as long as you don't mind of I do. Otherwise you'd telling me what is right for me and what isn't and that's where we'd have a problem.

curtisfong
08-01-2012, 4:27 PM
Not again.

The question isn't what arms you think you should have, the question is BY WHAT STANDARD should gun restrictions be judged constitutional. Every time I see a poll like this, I despair that people really don't understand the constitution or the law.

And I'm not even a lawyer.

IPSICK
08-01-2012, 4:28 PM
I would like to amend that and say anything you can own, carry, control responsibly. If that means a nuke - so be it. :)

So how do you "responsibly" control the blast radius of a nuke should you decide to deploy one you are fortunate to have in your possession?

banpreso
08-01-2012, 4:32 PM
with power comes responsibility. so it's up to what you can control, maintain, keep safe from theft, your weapons getting into the wrong hands, etc.

so the limit is up to each person's level of responsibility. that's why batman and ironman can have all the cool toys and nobody has a problem with them :D

IPSICK
08-01-2012, 4:35 PM
Not again.

The question isn't what arms you think you should have, the question is BY WHAT STANDARD should gun restrictions be judged constitutional. Every time I see a poll like this, I despair that people really don't understand the constitution or the law.

And I'm not even a lawyer.

Unfortunately, public perception or outcry can guide legislation which sets those standards. I'm asking the question because non-gun owning people in the general public, see comments like "nukes are good to go" and then think of us (gun-owners) as wack jobs. They don't ask or understand questions of constitutionality which is how anti's believe they can bar weapons in common use such as the AR. Theoretically, any arms necessary to preserve the security of our society should be good to go.

Fellblade
08-01-2012, 4:37 PM
Two things on my "when I win way too much in the lottery" list:
- P-51 Mustang
- M3 Stuart

It would be neat if they weren't neutered, but I don't really expect it. Of course, I don't expect to ever be able to afford them either.

curtisfong
08-01-2012, 4:40 PM
The problem is, just posing the question in this way makes your position a weak one. You need to establish timeless meta rules, or the gun-grabbers will take your contemporary position and hold it against you later. See also "the framers could never have predicted modern assault weapons[sic]". And, no matter what absolute, "weapon is ok" based position you choose, some anti-gunner will say it is too extreme... unless you come up with a general scrutiny metric that everybody can agree on.

Anybody who truly believes the 2nd amendment confirms a natural, fundamental right should refuse to answer the question as you put it.

Icypu
08-01-2012, 4:57 PM
We already have the right to own fighter jets. People own private mig and trainers now. You just can't own any old US military jets.

IPSICK
08-01-2012, 4:58 PM
We already have the right to own fighter jets. People own private mig and trainers now. You just can't own any old US military jets.

I'm talking about ones armed with air to surface and/or air to air missiles.

SilverTauron
08-01-2012, 6:55 PM
Discussion in the understanding 2nd Amendment thread has gotten me wondering what people think they are allowed to have as far as arms. Figured a poll might get started on an answer.

If someone is a law abiding citizen, why not let them buy a nuclear bomb?

BTW, I am completely serious in this question. We already know bad people are not deterred by laws, so someone with the desire to nuke a city and the will to do so won't care that its illegal to own it. Since nukes aren't much fun to use at the range, the average Joe has no practical use for owning one. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, just like the typical car owner has no practical use for a McClaren MP12C supercar ,yet anyone with the money can own one.

Funny thing is, cars have killed more people globally than nuclear weapons ever have, and they aren't a protected right under the Constitution. :D

CBruce
08-01-2012, 7:12 PM
I believe the 2nd ammendment protects the rights of the people to form a militia to combat a government that has become tyrannical. To that effect, any weapon that can be used for self-defense, repel a foreign invader, or combat governmental forces is acceptable.

Up to tanks, fighter jets, RPGs, grenades, explosives, etc. Whatever armament is effective and appropriate for combatting the current military strength in that particular scenario.

I do not view the same a protection for weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. as those are ineffective at directly confronting the government or its supporting forces without needless collatoral damage to the civilian population.

sorensen440
08-01-2012, 7:18 PM
I don't believe in limiting freedom

CitaDeL
08-01-2012, 7:23 PM
I picked up to burst and/or full-auto firearms... though I really believe that it applies to anything I can carry/bear. So stinger missiles and RPGs are also included.

GaryV
08-01-2012, 7:35 PM
Isn't this the real debate?

I may have that which I have the right to?

2A says I have the right to keep and bear arms, therefore I may have them?
Also, "shall not be infringed" - or interpreted as "allowed" and not regulated?

A.W.D.

Not what I said at all. The comment in question was in response to a statement that people must have had possession of certain types of weapons in order to do certain things. The point is that just because they were allowed to have them at that point doesn't automatically mean that they had a right to them. One does not follow from the other.

The debate is "To what weapons do we have a right?" Simply stating that some people at some point in time possessed certain weapons is not evidence of any right to those weapons, only that, at the time, they were allowed to by the government of the time to possess them.

It wasn't a statement about whether or not such a right existed, but a criticism of the example as being at all relevant to demonstrating the existence of that right. Just because there was no law prohibiting possession at that time does not in any way imply that they were possessed by right rather than by government permission.

Just because I own a TV doesn't automatically mean I have a right to own a TV, or that the government couldn't regulate my ownership of TVs in the future. Likewise, just because people owned warships in the past in no way implies that they had a right to own them, or that the government had no authority to regulate them. All it proves is that the government didn't choose to regulate them at that time, in that context. It says nothing about their authority to do so or lack thereof.

Burbur
08-01-2012, 7:37 PM
I believe that as an individual citizen, i have the right to possess a long arm in any configuration and a handgun in any configuration. I do not think the Founding Fathers wanted every citizen to keep a cannon in their yard nor a warship down at the marina but I do believe they wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves against whatever may try to harm them be it another county or those inside their country trying to put them back into the position they were in while under British rule.

If individuals did not have artillery and warships, The Revolutionary War would have ended a lot differently.

I think the Founding Fathers would disagree with you.

IPSICK
08-01-2012, 7:42 PM
I believe the 2nd ammendment protects the rights of the people to form a militia to combat a government that has become tyrannical. To that effect, any weapon that can be used for self-defense, repel a foreign invader, or combat governmental forces is acceptable.

Up to tanks, fighter jets, RPGs, grenades, explosives, etc. Whatever armament is effective and appropriate for combatting the current military strength in that particular scenario.

I do not view the same a protection for weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. as those are ineffective at directly confronting the government or its supporting forces without needless collatoral damage to the civilian population.

Thank you for your post. Megatons of reason and logic IMHO.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 7:50 PM
People, let's think for a minute...

For those who vote "up to and including a nuke" (perhaps even a bit further down the list):

If we are reasonable in our thinking, it's conceivable that even the Founding Fathers may know better than to extend 2A this far.

The thought of limitation or regulation of arms may never have been considered as necessary or "right" at the time of the Bill of Rights, simply because "Man" at that time likely could not conceive of such destructive force as is available today.

I challenge you all to try and think - for a moment - like a person of that time. Ask yourself, if weapons such as nuclear warheads existed at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, would you consider them an "Arm" rightfully owed to any Tom, Dick or Harry - just because?

The potential for utter destruction and loss of life afforded to us today in the form of weaponry was inconceivable back in the early days of this country. If we honor the Founding Fathers and their wisdom, I think we also owe a bit of respect to prudent, and thoughtful decision making in our interpretations.

A.W.D.

Anchors
08-01-2012, 8:07 PM
I think people should be able to have whatever your average infantryman or SWAT team guy has/can have on his person.
You don't want me to have flashbangs, then you don't get to have them either.
Cannons and horses were the RPGs and HUMVEEs of their day.

I don't know much about tanks with cannons, but since I'm cool with people having a ma-duece and I'm pretty sure having an armored vehicle is generally legal already, I don't see why you can't have an armored HUMVEE with a .50 on top of it. (that would be awesome).

<Sarcasm>
...Of course, that has no purpose in hunting or skeet shooting, thus not protected by the Constitution (which is generally accepted as being a guide for sportsmen):troll:...if only the government was supposed to be made up of real citizens and people of this country and not a protected, elite, ruling class;)
</Sarcasm>

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects your right to arms in common use.

Your natural right to arms has no theoretical limit.

I get what you're saying and I'm with you on this.

City Hunter
08-01-2012, 9:59 PM
Voted no limits.

I'm not worried about nukes. Doesn't the Department of Energy own and/or control the production of nukes? Even if the DoE wanted to sell, wouldn't you need a Bill Gate-sized bank account to buy one?

ssaction
08-01-2012, 10:21 PM
The Constitution makes no such prohibition (owning warships) on the People of the United States.

But there is a financial element that make owning warships prohibitive. Ask the Russians. They have been selling theirs off.

:Pirate:

ssaction
08-01-2012, 10:23 PM
I think people should be able to have whatever your average infantryman or SWAT team guy has/can have on his person.
You don't want me to have flashbangs, then you don't get to have them either.
Cannons and horses were the RPGs and HUMVEEs of their day.
.

I agree. The government has a bit more technical advantage today than in 1775.

Fellblade
08-01-2012, 11:17 PM
I don't know much about tanks with cannons, but ...

<Sarcasm>
...Of course, that has no purpose in hunting or skeet shooting, thus not protected by the Constitution (which is generally accepted as being a guide for sportsmen):troll:...if only the government was supposed to be made up of real citizens and people of this country and not a protected, elite, ruling class;)
</Sarcasm>

Maybe not skeet, but trap?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vho5eTabWQI

jwkincal
08-02-2012, 7:39 AM
So how do you "responsibly" control the blast radius of a nuke should you decide to deploy one you are fortunate to have in your possession?

The better US Devices have in-situ programmable variable yield (called "dial-a-yield," believe it or not) so that's not the moot rhetorical question you may believe it to be. Some of the tactical-yield packages are specifically designed for small area of effect; airbase-sized and stuff like that.

I do not view the same a protection for weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. as those are ineffective at directly confronting the government or its supporting forces without needless collatoral damage to the civilian population.

What if an oppressive government was using offshore resources (aircraft carrier) for its nefarious purpose? Wouldn't the stalwart rebels be entitled to strike at such an asset using nuclear weapons if they were available?

Would George Washington have used such an instrument to interdict at sea the resupply and/or reinforcement of British troops in 1776?

I'm not worried about nukes. Doesn't the Department of Energy own and/or control the production of nukes? Even if the DoE wanted to sell, wouldn't you need a Bill Gate-sized bank account to buy one?


...and there's always this. If you truly understand how challenging the production of a nuclear device is, you simply couldn't rationally harbor fears of "people owning" them.

The WMDs of the 18th century were large bodies of troops (i.e. standing armies) and they WERE used for genocide and civilian slaughter and other such atrocities... now read your Constitution again and see whom is prohibited from having them?

IPSICK
08-02-2012, 7:58 AM
Good job jwkincal!

I still remain skeptical about responsibly controlling the destructive force and collateral damages of a nuclear blast, but I do now recall variable yield devices such as the one you describe.

live2suck
08-02-2012, 8:02 AM
If I could afford it, I should be able to own what ever I like. End of story.

This. +1,000,000

TommyGun
08-02-2012, 8:11 AM
I remember reading somewhere ( i can't remember where exactly) in some type of "companion to the constitution amendments" written at about the same time, that the founding fathers meant any arms up to what is carried by the common infantryman of the time. And that this would apply at all times into the future. So at this time I would feel anything up to the equivalent of a fully auto M4, semi auto handgun and maybe a squad machine gun should be unregulated.

jwkincal
08-02-2012, 8:27 AM
I remember reading somewhere ( i can't remember where exactly) in some type of "companion to the constitution amendments" written at about the same time, that the founding fathers meant any arms up to what is carried by the common infantryman of the time. And that this would apply at all times into the future. So at this time I would feel anything up to the equivalent of a fully auto M4, semi auto handgun and maybe a squad machine gun should be unregulated.

There were a number of essays written at the time in an effort to prop up opinion around the Bill of Rights; this due to the fact that many States would only agree to ratify the Constitution provisioned on the BoR's inclusion therein. Not everyone was on board with the BoR, some actually because of the 2A. The most well-known of these writings are the Federalist Papers, and these have actually been cited by SCOTUS in some of the recent 2A decisions (as context for the language contained in the BoR).

Still and all... those were all basically editorial pieces written by the historical equivalent of modern-day bloggers. They do not define anything legally, and as I said the SCOTUS has used them for context, not guidance.

It also shows that the debate about whether the People of the US should be armed does in fact date back to the time of the framers; and that even after just winning their independence, there were still some framers who didn't like the 2A.

The disarmament lobby is as old as our own. We will never be rid of them and we must always hold the line...

erik_26
08-02-2012, 3:49 PM
No limits.

Suvorov
08-02-2012, 3:57 PM
The reality of the matter is, if you have the money to maintain (or regulate in 18th century speak) a platoon of M1 Abrams MBTs or an F-16 or two, you have enough money that you really don't need the 2nd Amendment.

Nobody in the .gov cares what kind of toys Gates, Buffet, and Soros might have.

Spartanmk1
08-02-2012, 4:12 PM
If you can afford it, buy your self an F-15, and arm it with what you wish.

Granted, you're looking at quite the price tag. 30 million dollar jet, high fuel consumption rates, maintenance personnel, probably noise ordnance violations, arming the damn thing.


If you can afford it, then go for it.

speedrrracer
08-02-2012, 4:16 PM
I think the 2nd Amendment was designed so the population could stand toe-to-toe against a military / government that had turned against the people.

That means whatever the military has, the people were intended to have.

However, the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, nor did they foresee, weapons like hydrogen bombs.

So it's up to us to provide some limits. That's a debate we can have. But the 2nd, originally (imo) was written specifically to prevent ANY limits on private ownership.

Heck, more than that -- it was specifically written to prevent so much as INFRINGEMENT on ownership. I think the intention was that you can't even make me sign my name, or fill out a form, or pay a penny, before letting me own anything I can afford, let alone mess with ownership.

Infringement is such a specific word it's crazy. That word alone provides such clarity that the interpretations I see from some people really screams "Intellectual dishonesty".

Veggie
08-02-2012, 4:16 PM
A lot of people don't understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. How are you supposed to keep in check/overthrow a corrupt government without the same weapons the government has access to?

SickofSoCal
08-02-2012, 4:23 PM
Has anyone here done any in-depth research on the Militia Act of 1903?

Ctwo
08-02-2012, 4:48 PM
Not again.

The question isn't what arms you think you should have, the question is BY WHAT STANDARD should gun restrictions be judged constitutional.


Everyone wants to craft their own personal vision of Utopia. It is unrealistic and futile.

There is no question of "what standard " for gun restrictions. That is my Utopia.

The "hard decisions" that people need to make must be taken at the individual level, again IMHO.

Unfortunately, I stop at nukes simply because of the overwhelming consequences of their use

wjc
08-03-2012, 2:09 AM
Everyone wants to craft their own personal vision of Utopia. It is unrealistic and futile.

There is no question of "what standard " for gun restrictions. That is my Utopia.

The "hard decisions" that people need to make must be taken at the individual level, again IMHO.

Unfortunately, I stop at nukes simply because of the overwhelming consequences of their use

I stop at nukes because I can't afford 'em. I'd like a Tiger tank too but the tune-ups would kill me.