PDA

View Full Version : What should the limit for the 2A be as far as weaponry goes?


selfshrevident
12-12-2012, 8:47 PM
Since we know that the 2A essentially gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, what should be the limit, in military firepower context, to the type of weaponry we should be able to own? The militia in theory should be allowed to own actual military weaponry, but should the guy down the street be able to buy hand grenades and keep them under his bed?

I sometimes get this brought up in my face while discussing gun politics so I wanted other opinions on this as I'm sure others have had this asked of them as well. You always have a**bags like piers morgan bring up "well you wouldn't want your neighbor to own a tank now would you!?" Should we be allowed to own tanks? Jets? Backpack nukes? Machine guns? RPG's? I honestly struggle with the idea of where the line gets drawn during a debate- people will bring up these examples and say "see! you believe in gun control!"

I heard Scalia say one time that he believes that the 2A only applies to weapons that can be carried on the person. That's at least his interpretation of it.

RMP91
12-12-2012, 8:51 PM
Nukes, WMDs, NBC agents, (maybe) explosives.

I think that if you can carry it on your back, you can have it.

jdberger
12-12-2012, 8:54 PM
The Second Amendment doesn't "give" you anything. It simply enumerates an already existing right.

It's pretty generally agreed that protected arms are those that a militiaman would be expected to have with him when mustering for drill. Rifle, possible grenades, handgun. Crew served weapons wouldn't be included. Those include tanks...or nuclear weapons. It does include some machine guns.

lazyworm
12-12-2012, 8:54 PM
I'd draw the line at nuclear weapons, chemical and the like.

It doesn't matter if it's a knife or a tank, if you hurt somebody with it, you're still liable.

mag360
12-12-2012, 8:56 PM
Any weapon that requires an entire government to operate, aka nuke. If I had the money I should be able to buy my own f-22 and patrol the skies above my ranch.

Stewdabaker23
12-12-2012, 8:57 PM
Hell yeah we should tanks, should we be allowed to own the massive rounds those things fire off of course not!!! We should be allowed to own pretty much any weapon except for the obvious ones that would pose a national security threat...bombs, rocket launchers, grenades, and other things like it.

curtisfong
12-12-2012, 9:09 PM
Ridiculous question.

The question isn't what arms are ok, but what laws that regulate them are constitutional, and the levels of scrutiny they are under to prove that

1) they are effective
2) they are constitutional

Answering the OP's question is falling into the anti-gun mindset's trap.

DON'T DO IT.

Think carefully about the criterion for what laws, specifically, are constitutional, and what rules you would use to classify them.

PhalSe
12-12-2012, 9:11 PM
In my opinion the right should include the right to own anything that can be stored safely and legislation about appropriate storage may be ok if reasonable. For example I dont think chemical weapons or nukes could be safely stored by an individual, but large explosives might be required by law in appropriate manners. The right to carry should include weapons appropriate to self defense, namely those that can be targeted by an individual at an individual. This would exclude explosives but include rifles and pistols, although honestly it would be a rare individual looking to carry a rifle for self defense.

I think the courts will likely determine the right is not as expansive as that.

Meplat
12-12-2012, 9:24 PM
Anything that is a tactical weapon including crew served weapons should be covered by the 2nd, and that is making some concessions. At the time the Bill of Rights was written individuals owned cannon; cannon are crew served weapons. Individuals owned ships of war; ships of war were the ultimate strategic weapons of the day.

If you think it is the law that keeps nukes out of private hands, think again, it is cost and availability of certain components.

For the purpose of arguing with antis use the strategic v tactical cut off point. And point out that in your opinion any weapon that is too heinous to be possessed by the individual; like atomic, chemical, and biological weapons, is also too heinous to be used by government. They should only be possessed by government as a deterrent to their use by others.

buster1960
12-12-2012, 9:25 PM
I like to think of myself as a realist. That beeing said, I think I should be able to have anything that LEO's can have.

Tango_Whiskey
12-12-2012, 9:29 PM
NBC: Nuke, Bio. & Chemical.

SanPedroShooter
12-12-2012, 9:32 PM
I agree that the the question is something of false argument that gun grabbers use.

I would say that anything a cop has, I should have too. And do for the most part. In a lot of ways better than what a department might issue. More choice anyway.

Or how about anything your modern infantry soldier carries. That would fit a historical definition.

DannyInSoCal
12-12-2012, 9:40 PM
Anything you can afford...

Arisaka
12-12-2012, 9:50 PM
Troll thread

tommyfly
12-12-2012, 9:51 PM
anything you can afford, should be legal.

The thugs down town probably couldn't afford a crate of hand grenades.

senorpeligro
12-12-2012, 9:54 PM
Limit?

POLICESTATE
12-12-2012, 9:59 PM
You should be able to own and bear anything you can carry.

jdberger
12-12-2012, 10:01 PM
anything you can afford, should be legal.

The thugs down town probably couldn't afford a crate of hand grenades.

You're aware that the drug business is a multi-billion dollar industry, right?

Squid
12-12-2012, 10:03 PM
No limit, just like back in days of founding fathers.

If it becomes a problem, restrict immigration, not the rights of Americans.

Any restrictions should be on ACCIDENTALLY dangerous items, like you wouldn't want to allow some super-toxic motor oil on a attack jet than might leak and spray a bunch of people.

Maybe a ban on DU rounds.

Drivedabizness
12-12-2012, 10:03 PM
The Second Amendment doesn't "give" you anything. It simply enumerates an already existing right.

It's pretty generally agreed that protected arms are those that a militiaman would be expected to have with him when mustering for drill. Rifle, possible grenades, handgun. Crew served weapons wouldn't be included. Those include tanks...or nuclear weapons. It does include some machine guns.

This

Except the Constitution envisioned (strongly) no standing armies. Today, we face a scenario where recalcitrant officers/soldiers might obey orders to tyranize the citizenry.

It is more important to recognize that even our win in the 7th recognizes that resistance to tyranny is a lawful purpose.

Bottom line - might makes right and the winner writes the history.

But note that your standing army also has nukes. So if you want to exercise your right to resist you'd better have a plan to survive the first 5 minutes. (doesn't mean you need your own ... read betwen the lines)

taperxz
12-12-2012, 10:12 PM
Who's car would you risk your life stealing? A guy with a 9mm handgun or an old lady with an RPG?

fizux
12-12-2012, 10:14 PM
NBC: Nuke, Bio. & Chemical.

aka NoBody Cares.
I can't wait for Home Depot to start carrying promasks/MOPP4 so that everyone can fully appreciate how much fun it would be to wear in Sacramento in July.

fizux
12-12-2012, 10:17 PM
Who's car would you risk your life stealing? A guy with a 9mm handgun or an old lady with an RPG?

You actually have to aim those. Now, the guy with a hand grenade and nothing to lose...

pbreed
12-12-2012, 10:40 PM
If one purpose of the 2nd is to resist government tyranny, then any restriction short of the restriction the government places on itself should be invalid.

So if gov has F-18's you should be able to buy an F-18.

Now to quote the ex Senator Senunu from NH, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.... so how to logically draw the line here is very very hard....

Safety1st
12-12-2012, 10:47 PM
Anything you can afford...


^^^^^ +1

MASTERLAB
12-12-2012, 10:50 PM
Nukes and biochemical should not be allowed

MOAB, cruiser and battleships, c4, RPG, etc. Are all good to go.

armygunsmith
12-12-2012, 11:12 PM
Ridiculous question.

The question isn't what arms are ok, but what laws that regulate them are constitutional, and the levels of scrutiny they are under to prove that

1) they are effective
2) they are constitutional

Answering the OP's question is falling into the anti-gun mindset's trap.

DON'T DO IT.

Think carefully about the criterion for what laws, specifically, are constitutional, and what rules you would use to classify them.

Correct!

QQQ
12-12-2012, 11:13 PM
If the government owns it, the people should be able to own it. Anything else is hypocrisy.

MikeinnLA
12-12-2012, 11:43 PM
I don't care what weapons you own, just like I don't care what other tools might be in your garage. A gun is merely a tool, like a hammer or an axe. Now, you misuse this tool and then there are laws to deal with that. Until you do, you should be FREE to own it. Free, get it? Like "Land of the......".:whistling:

Mike

Fellblade
12-12-2012, 11:56 PM
Once upon a time, private citizens owned state of the art naval warships and field artillery.

Green Ice Dragon
12-13-2012, 1:24 AM
UNLIMITED... POWEERRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Translation: No limits.

mosinnagantm9130
12-13-2012, 1:33 AM
Funnily enough, it's easier to get a tank here in Cali than it is a handgun (provided you have a spare 70k or so to spend on a T-72)

Once upon a time, private citizens owned state of the art naval warships and field artillery.

...and they still can, at least as far as field pieces go. There are always plenty of them on gunbroker.

myk
12-13-2012, 3:48 AM
I've always wanted my own M1 Abrams. Does it come in black?

adrenaline
12-13-2012, 4:11 AM
An anti's favorite go to question. I just had a gun control argument on FB recently and it ended up here. I basically said no restriction like many of you are saying. He then said...not even nukes?

I said that if you think about it logically, the 2nd amendment was to defend the homeland against tyranny (both foreign and domestic). A nuke doesn't serve or fit this well as you would end up with land that was unusable to patriots that claimed it after its usage. It is perfect for remote destruction of a land we don't plan on inhabiting. So...not 2A stuff.

lilro
12-13-2012, 4:12 AM
We should be allowed to own any arms that can hit a target responsibly. Nothing that inherently causes collateral damage. No nukes, mortars, etc.

Basically anything the local police is allowed to have, the average citizen should have available.

the86d
12-13-2012, 4:40 AM
We should be allowed to own any arms that can hit a target responsibly. Nothing that inherently causes collateral damage. No nukes, mortars, etc.

Basically anything the local police is allowed to have, the average citizen should have available.

I am in this same boat.

adrenaline
12-13-2012, 5:03 AM
I am in this same boat.If we had a strong people run militia with the proper tools, do you think our government would so easily discard the constitution today? They don't fear "we the people". When the government doesn't fear the people, you have tyranny.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

Sometimes peace isn't about actually hitting something (target), it is about being prepared for war.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Just imagine a cold war between the government and the people. Not a single shot fired.

451040
12-13-2012, 5:14 AM
Suitcase nukes. Gotta keep in mind "bear".

cdtx2001
12-13-2012, 5:42 AM
If the .gov can own them so should I.

The Soup Nazi
12-13-2012, 6:14 AM
If someone has the resources to create a WMD, chances are they might have the resources to resist government influences or laws against possessing WMDs.

Tarn_Helm
12-13-2012, 6:55 AM
The Second Amendment doesn't "give" you anything. It simply enumerates an already existing right.

It's pretty generally agreed that protected arms are those that a militiaman would be expected to have with him when mustering for drill. Rifle, possible grenades, handgun. Crew served weapons wouldn't be included. Those include tanks...or nuclear weapons. It does include some machine guns.

Agreed.

Whatever a soldier typically carries as an individual, I should be "allowed" to "keep and bear"--and obtain from the government at cost.

:cool2:

CSACANNONEER
12-13-2012, 7:04 AM
You should be able to own and bear anything you can carry, trailer, tow, drive, fly, sail or operate in it's stationary position.

Fixed it for ya.

artoaster
12-13-2012, 7:17 AM
Individual small arms that in a community could constitute a militia if organized and well regulated.

Handguns, rifles, shotguns. We lost select fire in NFA which does not serve the individual as much as a small unit when suppressive fields of fire might be used.

Currently, debates over features and cosmetics on semi-automatics is distracting as the press and anti-gun sentiments fuel unstable elements in our society causing random incidents of insane criminal acts that only stir up an already nervous audience.

Here's a tip though. Don't join the audience.

pHredd9mm
12-13-2012, 7:44 AM
The 2A did not place limits on us citizens... it placed limits on the guv'ment!

not-fishing
12-13-2012, 8:10 AM
For hundreds of years the Second Amendment was only limited by what you could buy. People often choose to forge history. In the Revolutionary war some individuals had cannon. In the Civil war some individuals had machine guns.

And that's the way it should be.

And the point of nukes is a straw man argument. Who's going to spend the tens of billions for a nuke other than a Country?

I'd rather have a Fokker D7 with twin 7.92mm spandau's. It's something I could actually fly, lands anywhere, easy on fuel and ammo (slow rate of fire).


RCB3ZTxNg1c

command_liner
12-13-2012, 8:36 AM
For hundreds of years the Second Amendment was only limited by what you could buy. People often choose to forge history. In the Revolutionary war some individuals had cannon. In the Civil war some individuals had machine guns.

And that's the way it should be.

And the point of nukes is a straw man argument. Who's going to spend the tens of billions for a nuke other than a Country?

I'd rather have a Fokker D7 with twin 7.92mm spandau's. It's something I could actually fly, lands anywhere, easy on fuel and ammo (slow rate of fire).


RCB3ZTxNg1c

Mostly correct. But I think we can have nukes too.
Tens of billions was required to develop the first nukes -- and the first
computers. We know a lot more now.

Based on what I know, I could build a low yield nuke. That is 1940s technology. Despite the international obfuscation effort, it is simply
not that hard to do.

Wiz-of-Awd
12-13-2012, 8:41 AM
The Second Amendment doesn't "give" you anything. It simply enumerates an already existing right.

It's pretty generally agreed that protected arms are those that a militiaman would be expected to have with him when mustering for drill. Rifle, possible grenades, handgun. Crew served weapons wouldn't be included. Those include tanks...or nuclear weapons. It does include some machine guns.

...as defined by Man.
"Rights" as we understand them, do not exist in nature outside of the human explanation of such.

Rights are things created by Mankind, and as such defined and detailed within documents we create - based on our beliefs and ideals.

A.W.D.

vantec08
12-13-2012, 8:43 AM
Since the entire point of the 2nd was so that citizens cant be outgunned with small arms by the standing army, any small arm the army uses would qualify.

YubaRiver
12-13-2012, 8:51 AM
I like thinking about the constitution and its end goals, IE Curtis's post.

Where it gets black and white for me- If someone can carry on them old school WMD's (smallpox, anthrax, etc), that is not okay.

It doesn't work towards the goal of stopping tyranny.

Uxi
12-13-2012, 9:16 AM
I think NBC probably needs an Amendment to be strictly legal and I'm sure many of us would happily endorse it.

Context in passage and ratification definitely included crew served weapons as well as small arms of the day. Best analogy I've read was that a handgun is to a diary and as a tank or battleship is to a printing press. The latter are expensive and require a bunch of people to opreate, but the government has no business infringing on either.

ap3572001
12-13-2012, 9:34 AM
Since we know that the 2A essentially gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, what should be the limit, in military firepower context, to the type of weaponry we should be able to own? The militia in theory should be allowed to own actual military weaponry, but should the guy down the street be able to buy hand grenades and keep them under his bed?

I sometimes get this brought up in my face while discussing gun politics so I wanted other opinions on this as I'm sure others have had this asked of them as well. You always have a**bags like piers morgan bring up "well you wouldn't want your neighbor to own a tank now would you!?" Should we be allowed to own tanks? Jets? Backpack nukes? Machine guns? RPG's? I honestly struggle with the idea of where the line gets drawn during a debate- people will bring up these examples and say "see! you believe in gun control!"

I heard Scalia say one time that he believes that the 2A only applies to weapons that can be carried on the person. That's at least his interpretation of it.

TO ME, 2A is about being able to legally carry loaded firearms CCW. As far as what You should be able to own, I would say the type of firearms that are found in a typical police vehicle and a duty belt of an LEO. A pustlol like a Glock 22 , an AR and an MP5. I would not even care to own anything more potent.

winnre
12-13-2012, 9:47 AM
Let's put it this way. It's OUR country.

bohoki
12-13-2012, 10:24 AM
i think special permits should be required for explosive projectiles

other than that i guess anything under 16" bore and under 10,000 fps should be ok

IVC
12-13-2012, 10:28 AM
The question is asked incorrectly. Any civil right is in its core unlimited, then we place restrictions based on affecting other people's rights.

The real question is "What types of weapons should the government have the right to prohibit or limit/regulate and to what extent?"

Restrictions and prohibitions on nukes, chemical weapons and any other weapons of mass destruction are all easy to justify (it's still up to those who want to prohibit them to formulate the reason lest they want them to be unrestricted).

A good rule of thumb is that anything a police officer would carry is suitable for urban environment and cannot be prohibited in urban areas to possess or carry. Anything on top of that a soldier would carry is suitable for possession, but might be restricted in urban areas.

Spaceghost
12-13-2012, 11:41 AM
They all ready do, they just figured it's much cheaper, and easier to influence the politicians that are all ready in charge of such weapons. Plus, the added benefit of not getting their hands dirty.


Would you enjoy it if the only people who can own (* see footnote below) heavy weaponry (like aircraft carriers with a complement of jets, C130 gunships, nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, satellites used for imagery and command and control, armed drones and the required control infrastructure) are people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison? Would you still be in favor of unrestricted private ownership of weapons?

Footnote: When I say "can own" above, I don't mean there are legal restrictions, I simply mean "have enough money to own, staff, maintain and operate". After all, I have enough money to own a collection of small arms (caliber ranging from .22 to .45), enough to fill my safe, I can afford operating them (even though ammo has gotten pretty expensive lately), and I can afford the staff for it, which in my case means regular trips to the one-eyed gunsmith to keep them going.

Also note that a large fraction of the arguments brought forth above rely on the collectivist interpretation of the 2A: The right to keep and bear arms is justified because of the need to form well-regulated militias, often justified in the discussion above by the need to overthrow the government.

stix213
12-13-2012, 12:03 PM
Anything the .gov has should be fine, with the limit of no chem/bio/nukes. Also anything that can explode a building should be more highly regulated, better background checks, with requirements on proper storage.

Meplat
12-13-2012, 12:23 PM
If someone has the resources to create a WMD, chances are they might have the resources to resist government influences or laws against possessing WMDs.

Actually chemical and Bio are low tec and low cost; all you need is knowledge.

IVC
12-13-2012, 12:28 PM
Would you enjoy it if the only people who can own (* see footnote below) heavy weaponry (like aircraft carriers with a complement of jets, C130 gunships, nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, satellites used for imagery and command and control, armed drones and the required control infrastructure) are people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison? Would you still be in favor of unrestricted private ownership of weapons?

They cannot have a private army. A single person cannot operate any of those weapons systems. Deploying a drone would most likely be akin to booby trap - illegal, and for the same reasons.

However, a meaningful discussion cannot be based on extremes like these. Saying "then they can have aircraft carriers and nukes" is the same as a counter-argument of "then they will ban knives and sharp objects." There is no common sense in exaggerating talking points to the extremes.

Meplat
12-13-2012, 12:40 PM
Mostly correct. But I think we can have nukes too.
Tens of billions was required to develop the first nukes -- and the first
computers. We know a lot more now.

Based on what I know, I could build a low yield nuke. That is 1940s technology. Despite the international obfuscation effort, it is simply
not that hard to do.

A Urainium bomb is silly simple to make; the hold up is obtaining and enriching the Uranium. A Plutonium bomb is trickier as regards the triggering of the fissile material, but modern computer Tec makes that a lot easier to accomplish. And Plutonium is a natural by-product of nuclear power reactors.

Sleep well.

tcrpe
12-13-2012, 12:41 PM
Whatever you can afford. Except CBR.

mossy
12-13-2012, 12:41 PM
your wallet.

Meplat
12-13-2012, 12:45 PM
...as defined by Man.
"Rights" as we understand them, do not exist in nature outside of the human explanation of such.

Rights are things created by Mankind, and as such defined and detailed within documents we create - based on our beliefs and ideals.

A.W.D.

Is that your own assessment or is it derived from some particular school of philosophy?

Meplat
12-13-2012, 1:02 PM
I think NBC probably needs an Amendment to be strictly legal and I'm sure many of us would happily endorse it.
Context in passage and ratification definitely included crew served weapons as well as small arms of the day. Best analogy I've read was that a handgun is to a diary and as a tank or battleship is to a printing press. The latter are expensive and require a bunch of people to opreate, but the government has no business infringing on either.

As I stated in post #9 NBC should be off limits for citizens AND governments. The only reason any government should be allowed by its citizens to possess NBC warfare weapons is as a deterrent to other governments or groups that may have them; and I am not even sure it is wise or necessary to have the B or C components, I think the threat of a robust nuclear response is as good a deterrent as can be had.

Meplat
12-13-2012, 1:14 PM
Would you enjoy it if the only people who can own (* see footnote below) heavy weaponry (like aircraft carriers with a complement of jets, C130 gunships, nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, satellites used for imagery and command and control, armed drones and the required control infrastructure) are people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison? Would you still be in favor of unrestricted private ownership of weapons?
Footnote: When I say "can own" above, I don't mean there are legal restrictions, I simply mean "have enough money to own, staff, maintain and operate". After all, I have enough money to own a collection of small arms (caliber ranging from .22 to .45), enough to fill my safe, I can afford operating them (even though ammo has gotten pretty expensive lately), and I can afford the staff for it, which in my case means regular trips to the one-eyed gunsmith to keep them going.

Also note that a large fraction of the arguments brought forth above rely on the collectivist interpretation of the 2A: The right to keep and bear arms is justified because of the need to form well-regulated militias, often justified in the discussion above by the need to overthrow the government.

People like George Soros and Warren Buffett are few. “The people” are many. That is why we cannot balance the budget on the backs of the rich. By the same token the people could form coalitions and have infinitely more WMD’s than Soros and all of his ilk put together.

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-13-2012, 1:14 PM
In 1775, if you could afford the most advanced weapon available to any military, you could own it yourself.

The same applies today.

Meplat
12-13-2012, 1:18 PM
They cannot have a private army. A single person cannot operate any of those weapons systems. Deploying a drone would most likely be akin to booby trap - illegal, and for the same reasons.

However, a meaningful discussion cannot be based on extremes like these. Saying "then they can have aircraft carriers and nukes" is the same as a counter-argument of "then they will ban knives and sharp objects." There is no common sense in exaggerating talking points to the extremes.

The UK is considering it.

Legasat
12-13-2012, 1:21 PM
Since we know that the 2A essentially gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, what should be the limit, in military firepower context, to the type of weaponry we should be able to own?

The only "reasonable" limit to me would be no NBC weapons. People have owned tanks for years.

Wiz-of-Awd
12-13-2012, 1:31 PM
Is that your own assessment or is it derived from some particular school of philosophy?

My own assessment.

Such concepts as "rights" exist for only one animal on this planet, the human animal. All else in nature lives and dies by a very simple set of rules, or shall we say consequences.

A.W.D.

Calzona
12-13-2012, 3:02 PM
Any weapon that requires an entire government to operate, aka nuke. If I had the money I should be able to buy my own f-22 and patrol the skies above my ranch.

This.

Freq18Hz
12-13-2012, 3:03 PM
Death Star + Squadron of Tie Fighters + Lightsabers.


-Freq

frankm
12-13-2012, 3:17 PM
Whatever a standard infantryman would carry.

CAL.BAR
12-13-2012, 3:28 PM
Given that none of us are scared of guns and weapons, nor are we scared of other having those same weapons, the multitude of answers (many of which are MORE RESTRICTIVE than even CA law allows for right now - (i.e. "anything a soldier can carry - thus eliminating the .50 cal MG and the like) illustrates why we have so many gun control debates in this country. If even the "gun nuts" can't decide where to draw the line, how can the "others" who have no interest in or knowledge of guns other than they are afraid of them

IPSICK
12-13-2012, 3:48 PM
Similar thread I created during the height of SB249

2nd Amendment means I have right to keep and bear... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=602828)

Some of the things said in that thread convinced me to adjust my relatively conservative mindset towards the types of weapons we should have.

Meplat
12-13-2012, 3:51 PM
My own assessment.

Such concepts as "rights" exist for only one animal on this planet, the human animal. All else in nature lives and dies by a very simple set of rules, or shall we say consequences.

A.W.D.

I disagree; but it is a complicated discussion and off topic so we can save it for another time. It is a trivial point anyway.

skyscraper
12-13-2012, 4:31 PM
Should there be limits? Yes or no.

If yes, what limits?

Jason P
12-13-2012, 4:40 PM
You're aware that the drug business is a multi-billion dollar industry, right?

That's only because some dumb@$$es decided to prohibit something fun & profitable. That didn't work before, isn't working now:

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

scrubb
12-13-2012, 5:37 PM
Ridiculous question.

The question isn't what arms are ok, but what laws that regulate them are constitutional, and the levels of scrutiny they are under to prove that

1) they are effective
2) they are constitutional

Answering the OP's question is falling into the anti-gun mindset's trap.

DON'T DO IT.

Think carefully about the criterion for what laws, specifically, are constitutional, and what rules you would use to classify them.

This is a great question. Why can we not see what the opinions of others are? To some, a shotgun, a 30-06, and a 9mm might be all that should be permitted, to others, they want 50 cal BMGs. This is important to discuss to see what others on calguns think. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, as everybody has a different opinion of what should or should not be allowed.

Dragunov
12-13-2012, 5:40 PM
I agree that the the question is something of false argument that gun grabbers use.

I would say that anything a cop has, I should have too. And do for the most part. In a lot of ways better than what a department might issue. More choice anyway.

Or how about anything your modern infantry soldier carries. That would fit a historical definition.I agree with you. If a cop can have it, I should be able to have it also. I draw the line at explosives unless you can PROVE you trained with them. We are already allowed to have chemical weapons. Bug spray, mace, pepper spray, etc. ANY non-lethal chemical should be allowed, including black eggs, cayanne pepper balls, squirt bottles filled with alcohol and cayanne pepper powder, etc. I'm happy with semi-auto firearms, although I believe you should be allowed 3 round burst weapons. I personally don't want one, but I should have the option of owning one if I want.

Actually, I think every person over the age of 18 should be issued an M4 and 500 rounds of ammo by Unkey Sam.

No registration or paperwork on ANY firearm.

Same with knives..... Any size and concealed. Fixed handle, folder, etc.

Nunchaku, PR24 (tonfa), baton, asp etc should be legal, as should a short Iklwa.

There would be FAR less violence or crime, if the bad guy didn't know whether the good guy was armed or not.

aklover_91
12-13-2012, 5:51 PM
Given that none of us are scared of guns and weapons, nor are we scared of other having those same weapons, the multitude of answers (many of which are MORE RESTRICTIVE than even CA law allows for right now - (i.e. "anything a soldier can carry - thus eliminating the .50 cal MG and the like) illustrates why we have so many gun control debates in this country. If even the "gun nuts" can't decide where to draw the line, how can the "others" who have no interest in or knowledge of guns other than they are afraid of them

This, pretty much. Regulation only begins when something is a verifiable public safety risk just sitting there, and prohibition should never be on the table. I could see requiring I have an explosives magazine up to a certain spec to own live ordnance, I can't see a good reason why I should be prohibited from having them. Complying with basic storage practices would completely mitigate the public safety risk. Not that this wouldn't make it legal to require a permit for say, a live RPG7D launcher; it would just require safe storage practices for a live PG7V warhead. You can make an argument that high explosives pose a safety risk if not stored properly, you can't make a good argument that a piece of 40mm pipe with a trigger is dangerous just sitting there.

As to whether it can be used safely (and there's absolutely no reason you couldn't use a howitzer or an RPG or a mortar in a safe manner, we know this because private individuals already do) it's irrelevant. I have the right to 'keep and bear arms', not the right 'to keep arms, but only those that I can bear upon my person'. Just because it would be impractical to carry on my person or operate on a garden variety target range, doesn't mean I don't have the right to own it.

Historical precedence for owning state-of-the-art arms of the day aside, how would you even delineate individual weapons from crew served weapons without being incredibly arbitrary?

I couldn't have something like a 1919 or an M2HB because those are crew served, but I could cook up a belt fed .50 for the commercial market and sell it as an individual weapon, or slap an 80 round drum in an M82 and it wouldn't fit what we'd call 'crew served'. Where's the clear point of demarcation?

In point of actual reality, most 'crew served' weapons can be operated by an individual just fine, they're just maned by several individuals for the sake of efficiency.

Saying 'YOU CAN HAVE THIS THING BUT I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE A NEED FOR THAT THING SO NOPE, SHOULD MAYBE BE PROHIBITED' is exactly the same bit of mental gymnastics used to justify 'I support the second amendment, people have the right to hunt', whether you want to admit it or not.

tommyfly
12-13-2012, 5:58 PM
You're aware that the drug business is a multi-billion dollar industry, right?

and the drug cartels already have their boys armed with automatics and RPG's.

The thugs that can afford them already have them anyway

RMP91
12-13-2012, 6:00 PM
Remake this thread, but with a poll. It'll work out a lot better that way.

aklover_91
12-13-2012, 6:01 PM
You're aware that the drug business is a multi-billion dollar industry, right?

Because a pipe bomb wrapped up with ball bearings or bb's is terribly hard to put together, right?

Meplat
12-13-2012, 7:26 PM
Should there be limits? Yes or no.

If yes, what limits?

Yes. NBC warfair, and government should also be restrained in the use of same.

Nodaedul
12-13-2012, 7:37 PM
The 2A was made for citizens to protect themselves from govt so technically we should be able to buy anything the government can. This causes an obvious problem if anybody can buy a world ending device.

curtisfong
12-13-2012, 7:38 PM
This is a great question. Why can we not see what the opinions of others are?

Because it simply isn't relevant w/o also explicitly outlining a rule that would be integrated into legislation that would reflect that list perfecly.

To some, a shotgun, a 30-06, and a 9mm might be all that should be permitted, to others, they want 50 cal BMGs. This is important to discuss to see what others on calguns think. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, as everybody has a different opinion of what should or should not be allowed.

Again, to even ANSWER the question w/o addressing the question of

1) the actual proposed restriction
2) efficacy of said restriction
3) level of scrutiny said restriction could prevail against

is falling into an anti-gun, emotional, illogical, legally vacuous mindset.

Just say no to polls like this. They're counterproductive on EVERY level until people are ready to discuss the meta-rules.

skyscraper
12-13-2012, 7:45 PM
It's just a discussion bro.

Horton Fenty
12-13-2012, 8:05 PM
Guns to me are like knives, cars, planes and such. If you can afford it then I think you should be able to have it.

Grenades and other explosives should be a controlled item.

Nukes, chemical, biological and other mass destruction toys should be a definite no no.

tcrpe
12-13-2012, 8:16 PM
It just occurred to me, Assad is now using Scud missiles against the citizenry.

They should have Scud missiles, too.

Drivedabizness
12-13-2012, 8:17 PM
We should be allowed to own any arms that can hit a target responsibly. Nothing that inherently causes collateral damage. No nukes, mortars, etc.

Basically anything the local police is allowed to have, the average citizen should have available.

Respectfully - this is just plain wrong

The patriots that founded this Country cast their own (and stole) cannon - the "biggest weapons" of their era

lilro
12-13-2012, 8:28 PM
Respectfully - this is just plain wrong

The patriots that founded this Country cast their own (and stole) cannon - the "biggest weapons" of their era

Respectfully - you just plain disagree. There is no "right" or "wrong" in opinion.

Are you suggesting we manufacture our own (and steal) nukes - the "biggest weapons" of our era?

morfeeis
12-13-2012, 8:46 PM
As an American the only limit on what type of firearm i can buy should be my bank account, my wife and how cool it'll look when posted on calguns (in that order).

the donald
12-13-2012, 8:56 PM
i have said if you can put a bad guy and good next to each other, take out the bad guy without hurting the good guy it is good to go.

if you can't then there should be some restrictions on it and required training. (similar to CCW)

if it can take out a whole block then restrictions similar to that of the explosives people on TV shows like mythbusters.


and city destroyers should not be allowed.

morfeeis
12-13-2012, 9:25 PM
i have said if you can put a bad guy and good next to each other, take out the bad guy without hurting the good guy it is good to go.

if you can't then there should be some restrictions on it and required training. (similar to CCW)

if it can take out a whole block then restrictions similar to that of the explosives people on TV shows like mythbusters.


and city destroyers should not be allowed.
Why?

advocatusdiaboli
12-13-2012, 9:41 PM
Also note that a large fraction of the arguments brought forth above rely on the collectivist interpretation of the 2A: The right to keep and bear arms is justified because of the need to form well-regulated militias, often justified in the discussion above by the need to overthrow the government.

You are wrong right there so just stop. The Militia was only the government's main reason for RKBA for their immediate purposes having just fought a war—it was not the only reason the right was codified. Not even close. Self-defense was another key reason and the most fundamental one. And SCOTUS has upheld it recently.

So if your entire question and premise are built on an antiquated idea that RKBA is only for militia purposes, then we should all just ignore it. You have a low post count and we know the antis are in here. ANd here you are baiting a debate about limits. Hmmm.

call-in
12-13-2012, 10:52 PM
Should there be limits? Yes or no.

If yes, what limits?

I think it really boils down to that. Now, if there should be limits, who will set and enforce them? The government that the people might have to overthrow?

bloodhawke83
12-13-2012, 10:52 PM
Nukes.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

email
12-13-2012, 11:09 PM
If it can take out more than a city block with one shot, that's excessive .

There's the line...

BigFatGuy
12-13-2012, 11:12 PM
Anything up to an including a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

philobeddoe
12-13-2012, 11:15 PM
Shall not be infringed. What part of that permits restrictions?

Eldraque
12-13-2012, 11:20 PM
anything except nuclear. Or triggered explosives like C4, dirty bombs etc.

rocket launchers okay, machine guns okay, tanks ok

just because they are legal wouldnt mean people could buy them. that stuff is EXPENSIVE. talking tens of thousands of dollars per rocket, tanks are in the millions

If we stopped occupying foreign countries and brought our troops home to fortify our own country, it would be fine

nicki
12-14-2012, 12:06 AM
I view that the second amendment actually imposes a "duty" on all of us to own, maintain and drill with arms suitable for modern warfare.

Certainly civilians should be able to own guns, even full autos. I do draw the line on explosives.

I would like to see us bring back the "militia" and start to reduce the size of our military and various federal 3 letter agencies in the process.

IMHO, I would really like to see significant reductions in NBC type weapons because the potential for accidents could result in the end of mankind.

During the cold war, we were a computer glitch away from extinction.

Nicki

10mm
12-14-2012, 12:09 AM
Don't limit my rights:mad:

phrogg111
12-14-2012, 2:14 AM
I don't know how many of you people have dealt with explosives before, but that stuff is SCARY. An explosive charge can go off at any time, especially if it's stored wrong - like "under your neighbor's bed" as the original poster of this thread said.

If you have a gun, and you load it, it only goes off if something hits the primer, which detonates the powder, which creates gas, which pushes in all directions, which launches a bullet out of the barrel of the gun, which engages the rifling, which ONLY GOES IN THE DIRECTION THE GUN IS POINTED.

If you have a grenade, and you store it in your garage, it could go off if it gets hot then gets cold again. This can kill any number of people and cause any number of problems - from house fires to hearing damage of neighbors.

It is too easy to be negligent with explosives. As a result, a $200 tax on each explosive device, a registration requirement with serial numbers, and a mandatory storage and security method is not too bad of an idea.

I think that "ordinance" is not always covered under "arms". That's my opinion, anyway.

I think that some of the "common sense" laws should apply - no felons with guns, no domestic offenders with guns, etc. However, "arms" are for the justifiable use of force. All other uses are secondary.

That's right - the 2nd amendment isn't about target shooting, or hunting, or "sporting". It's about justifiable homicide. This is not my opinion, because this is fact.

unusedusername
12-14-2012, 2:28 AM
anything except nuclear. Or triggered explosives like C4, dirty bombs etc.

rocket launchers okay, machine guns okay, tanks ok

just because they are legal wouldnt mean people could buy them. that stuff is EXPENSIVE. talking tens of thousands of dollars per rocket, tanks are in the millions

If we stopped occupying foreign countries and brought our troops home to fortify our own country, it would be fine

An AK pattern rifle with automatic fire is $100 or less depending on where in the world you live. They are expensive here due to regulations...

A "good" RPG can be had for $500 or less, again depending on where you live. They can be much cheaper if you don't mind that some of them detonate instead of launching.

A "working-ish" tank can be had for less then the cost of a new BMW in some parts of the world as well. I see many BMWs driving around in the bay area.

I'm not saying that we should not be allowed access to these items, but your thoughts on the cost for these items is a bit off...

True, top of the line stuff is expensive, but a lot of Mosins sell in the US also.

Springfield45
12-14-2012, 9:23 AM
Phased Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, Phasors and Disruptors. That is until someone invents them then I think they should be legal.

Springfield45
12-14-2012, 9:26 AM
It should all so be illegal to have concealed artillery of 155mm.

NissanPreRunner
12-14-2012, 9:32 AM
Or how about having a barrel shroud? You know, that shoulder thing that goes up.

jorgyusa
12-14-2012, 11:24 AM
Heller was mostly about self defense and not the militia. The militia argument is not at the core of the right. Any weapon that can be used for self defense by an individual is protected and can't be banned. I don't think that weapons that cause mass damage of innocents and property are protected because that is not for self defense. That puts full automatics in a gray area. I think some automatics are probably protected but many are not. I doubt that hand grenades would be protected under this analysis.

I definitely agree with the comments made that the 2nd amendment does not grant the right but is there to protect the right from government infringement. The right to self defense predates the constitution and is a fundamental (or natural) right. The framers believed these rights came from God. An Atheist might view these as having emanated from some natural universal truth. Whatever, we got them and have to get the governments to stop suppressing them. Arguing over whether WMD's and tanks are protected is a waste of time. They never will be.

Jorgy

"The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave." James Burgh, Whig 1774

RobinGoodfellow
12-14-2012, 11:29 AM
Any firearm should be OK.

Items classified as artillery, maybe not. No weapons of mass destruction.

radioman
12-14-2012, 12:18 PM
It's an answer we have, "in common use". that's not to hard to understand, is it?

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-14-2012, 1:02 PM
It's an answer we have, "in common use". that's not to hard to understand, is it?

No not hard to understand but it would be real difficult to define.

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-14-2012, 1:03 PM
Any firearm should be OK.

Items classified as artillery, maybe not. No weapons of mass destruction.

Please define WMD?

ZigZags
12-14-2012, 1:10 PM
They already do a fine enough job with it. Feds shouldn't do anything and should let the states decide for themselves how they want to regulate and translate the 2a

radioman
12-14-2012, 3:26 PM
They already do a fine enough job with it. Feds shouldn't do anything and should let the states decide for themselves how they want to regulate and translate the 2a

WHAT? Are you out of your mind?:facepalm:

radioman
12-14-2012, 3:36 PM
No not hard to understand but it would be real difficult to define.

All semi auto loaders are in common uses, pistols, riffles and shotguns.

revolvers SA and DA to ar15's and AK47's, all common uses.

tcrpe
12-14-2012, 10:53 PM
I ***was*** talking about the posts in this thread (and the "Big Elephant" thread), where a majority of the posters uses the argument that the gun rights are needed to enable the population to form a militia to overthrow an unjust government. This is not an observation about what was said in 1789, it is about what is being said in 1789.

Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you. And he was there.

steadyrock
12-15-2012, 1:14 AM
This argument includes a fallacy not present during its original drafting. Principally, that the "arms" available to the government and the "arms" available to you and I aren't the same. In 1776, they were. Any corn farmer with enough money could have strolled down Main Street in Olde Town Philadelphia to the armory, and picked himself up a cannon. That was principally the heavy munition of the day, right? That is why they simply included one term "arms" in the 2A. It was not conceived at the time that there would be weapons so heinous and so vile that they could be dropped by a robot controlled by a person in a bunker 18,000 miles away and that it could decimate a city of millions in an instant. Yet now we have these. And somewhere along the line, probably shortly after ratifying the BoR, the government began to say "We can have these, but you can not."

For the record, I don't think it's a terribly great idea to let the guy who was responsible for the Tucson murders have his own drone and a dozen 50MT nuclear warheads. Or John Mcafee, for that matter, who could probably at one point been able to afford such things. Even though, frankly, that is in line with the original intent. It's pretty much the only time I will break with a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

So, in my calculus (because you're all so rapt by now), we fall back to the intent backed by the text: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Lots of 50 cent words in there: right, people, keep/bear, arms, infringed. But what is this really saying? In today's English, I think the 2A can be fairly translated as:

You guys need to be able to keep your government or any invading military interest at bay through military means. You're all militiamen if you choose to be. If you choose to be, then some of your arms can go home with you. Bring them back with you for drills and if you're ever called up to serve. Or if you have buddies with guns, talk them into joining us. We're cool and we have an ice cream social every third Thursday. In the meantime, just scope them out and take them to the desert and whatnot and post some pics on FB, but don't use them to go rob banks or intimidate your mailman, because that's not the idea here. So, given that we assume an underlying social contract in which you agree not to be a jerk about your weapons, and we won't make laws that say those weapons can't be kept or used by you because that's stupid. We cool now?

Assuming my translation is close, then we can derive that the same level of arms that were protected then are protected now. They wouldn't have sent cannons home with the guys, they would have kept them in the forts. But the sidearms and rifles they had at the time were the top of what technology made possible at that time. Following that logic, FA rifles, FA sidearms, SBS/SBR/AOW, grenades and other things (as jdberger noted) that could be carried back to a muster should easily fall into the "protected" category. Should I be able to have armored turrets wielding MA-Deuces on each corner of my roof? Probably, but I guess it would take more historical and constitutional research than I want to do in order to determine the historical analog of those devices and determine whether those analogs would have been covered under the notion of "arms taken home by militiamen".

So what about arms acquired by non-militiamen? The same rule would seem to apply. That is: what did the militiaman bring home? Or, put in a more modern context, what does a Marine or soldier carry with them into battle? The answer would be a select-fire rifle, a sidearm including "large capacity" magazines, a long-range precision rig, a short barreled shotgun, grenades, and probably some other stuff along those lines that I don't know of. So, in general, I should be able to (assuming I could personally afford it) waltz down any regular street in America wearing a semi-auto handgun on my hip, a select-fire rifle across my back, two or three grenades pinned to my chest, carrying a long-range rig in my bag and with a SBS strapped to my opposite thigh and draw not a lot of attention, certainly no second looks from LEO. If I cannot do that, then our 2A has been adulterated and we need our attorney friends to firmly uncover and re-establish the original and proper boundaries of that clarification of our rights.

donw
12-15-2012, 8:08 AM
that's the "Catch 22" of the whole 2A "Rights" argument...

the 2A does NOT specify; it specifies only the right to "Own and bear firearms"

keep in mind, the framers had no idea we'd have things like the Vulcan cannon system, chain guns or the civilian MSR's of today. legislators and politicians are acutely aware of this factor and exploit it.

California legislature and this presidential administration do NOT believe in the 2A in the context of SD/HD...remember what obama said during an appearance in PA: "I see a sportsman back there, i'm not going to take away your deer rifle..."

there's a rough road ahead for gun owners...we'd better be prepared.

fizux
12-15-2012, 8:25 AM
It probably should be pointed out that the definition of "NBC" (by treaty) includes pepper spray and CS. Incidentally, hollow point ammo is also banned for traditional military use.

Those items are authorized (by treaty) for domestic/internal law enforcement matters, so they do have some possible 2A use when it comes to defense against a (hypothetical, of course) tyrannical govt.

nick
12-15-2012, 9:56 AM
It probably should be pointed out that the definition of "NBC" (by treaty) includes pepper spray and CS. Incidentally, hollow point ammo is also banned for traditional military use.

Those items are authorized (by treaty) for domestic/internal law enforcement matters, so they do have some possible 2A use when it comes to defense against a (hypothetical, of course) tyrannical govt.

Hollow points aren't banned for military use in the US - we never signed the Hague Convention. The military does use hollow points in some rifle rounds:

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

tcrpe
12-15-2012, 10:00 AM
Thomas Jefferson posts here on Calguns? Cool!

Mockery? :rofl2:

Read my post again. I am *** NOT *** talking about the historical 2A, as enshrined in the BoR. I am talking about what the posters here, on this discussion forum, in a few threads are saying.

There is only one 2nd Amendment. Call it "historical" if it suits your purpose.