PDA

View Full Version : xxxx


sjm9877
01-02-2013, 12:52 PM
xxxx

email
01-02-2013, 12:53 PM
Nukes.

stix213
01-02-2013, 12:55 PM
No WMD's, and strict storage requirements for explosives and anti-air missiles.

madmike
01-02-2013, 12:55 PM
No line at all.

Renaissance Redneck
01-02-2013, 1:00 PM
I believe that a good argument can be made that "the people" should be able to possess any individual weapon that would be the "normal" infantry weapon of the time/era. This would seem to satisfy the 2nd given its justification; "a well regulated militia ....". Each person, as a member of the militia, should be REQUIRED to own a personal infantry weapon, and be well-trained (read "regulated" in 2A-speech) in its use.

I would say this would include fully automatic assault weapons and light machine guns, and short barreled rifles.. One could conceivably include crew-served weapons, artillery, armor, etc. etc., but that would be a more difficult argument.

M-16? GTG
SAW? GTG
M-14? GTG
etc. etc.

kaligaran
01-02-2013, 1:03 PM
Again?

:beatdeadhorse5:

pHredd9mm
01-02-2013, 1:06 PM
"The People" should have the ability to own anything the "government" has. Only then will we be able to hold in check an oppressive guvment. During the Revolution against the British, most of the arms, from muskets to cannons, including war ships, were privately owned.

Cpt
01-02-2013, 1:06 PM
Troll?

artoaster
01-02-2013, 1:16 PM
I see the 2A in the light of what the founders probably thought back in that period of time.

The rifleman is the vital part. He is a member of large army, a small unit or he is an individual capable of defending himself and others. Therefore, the rifle is the arm of the people.

The cannon is a crew served weapon and due to high cost, size, weight, and impractibility as an individual's carry weapon not considered as something protected as an individual's right.

The particular function of small arms, rifles, shotguns, and handguns was not considered in the drafting of the 2A. By that I mean whether single-shot muzzle or breach loaded, revolver, semi- auto or even fully automatic.

It would be reasonable to believe that the writers of the constitution in 1787 would have been keen to accept any rifle that was the most efficient in battle and if there were detachable magazine semi-autos or select fire weapons developed and in use by the world's armies of the day none of them would have been excluded because of the way they functioned.

mud99
01-02-2013, 1:16 PM
Any weapon which any domestic law enforcement agency is allowed to buy/use/own, as these are the weapons which could be readily deployed against civilians.

I do not include the military in my definition as they are supposed to only operate outside of the USA, and I do believe their is a line somewhere which people would agree should not be crossed.

phrogg111
01-02-2013, 1:18 PM
I think explosives are nasty stuff. They can kill anyone they're near at any time because of a small mishap. If they're stored wrong, they detonate.

They've been registered so long that we actually could succeed in taking them, so they're well controlled. I think there should be standards on security, but there should be explosive weapons for people. Maybe just storing them with local police to start handing out to ex-military guys would work, if there were volunteer training programs for such things.

Firearms? Stringent background checks - which take 5 seconds with a computer - and everything is allowed. Cities can ban residents from owning machine guns (current ones grandfathered), but not people passing through. Use of a machinegun in a murder is a mandatory life sentence. Mass murder with more than three reliable witnesses is a mandatory immediate death sentence.

Fix our mental health systems. That'll stop crime. Gun control is not crime control, so there's no reason for us to take away our own freedoms.

Keystone
01-02-2013, 1:41 PM
No WMD's, and strict storage requirements for explosives and anti-air missiles.

That where I sit. "Game changers" that could end up disrupting world government in a single instance, shouldn't be in the hands of private individuals.

CitaDeL
01-02-2013, 1:41 PM
The 2nd amendment clearly says " shall not be infringed". So where do you draw the line? Tanks, Full Auto Rifles, Full Auto Pistols, Explosives,

I believe a responsible law abiding person should have no limits. But who makes that decision? The Government, A Mental Health Doctor, Local Sheriff.

My point is you are either for or against the 2nd. I have been enjoying firearms for most of my life. In my opinion a semi auto rifle or pistol is just as dangerous as full auto. There are well trained individuals that can take a revolver and shoot faster and more accurate than most shooters can with a semi auto handguns.

There will be no end to the laws restricting firearms. Once we gave up the first inch they have asked for more. We don't have much left, in my opinion anyway.

So where do you draw the line?

Do you believe in the 2nd?
Or
Do you believe in the 2nd except for???

I think the line has already be drawn for us. The other part of the sentence you quoted specifies that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

So, with that in mind, the 2A applies to arms that you can keep and carry.

/thread

stix213
01-02-2013, 1:55 PM
I think explosives are nasty stuff. They can kill anyone they're near at any time because of a small mishap. If they're stored wrong, they detonate.

They've been registered so long that we actually could succeed in taking them, so they're well controlled. I think there should be standards on security, but there should be explosive weapons for people. Maybe just storing them with local police to start handing out to ex-military guys would work, if there were volunteer training programs for such things.


Yeah my idea of "strict storage requirements" for explosives that I already mentioned would involve ATF agents allowed to randomly show up and inspect their storage condition. They must be in a strong locked safe, and otherwise kept in an intelligent manner. Probably not allowed in apartment buildings.

curtisfong
01-02-2013, 1:56 PM
Stupid thread. AGAIN.

The question is that of what *specific* legislation is constitutional, not which arms you want to ban.

aileron
01-02-2013, 2:42 PM
People just don't know there history.

Cannons were the reason for the march on Lexington and Concord. The whole damn start of the revolutionary war that created America was over cannons and gun powder!

http://www.concordma.com/magazine/spring05/cannons.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord

So what does that tell YOU about the 2nd amendment? Well for one it opens up a huge swath of questions about what is a well regulated militia?

Another thing leading to your question is how were explosives and cannons handled?

Explosives, by magazines.

Like this one.
http://www.halseymap.com/Photos/thumbnails/OldPowderMag_650x650.jpg

http://www.halseymap.com/flash/window.asp?HMID=17

You'll note that during the revolution the British never found the powder stored in that magazine which totaled over 100,000 pounds!

Cannons and other such things were owned by the local militia and the town they were procured for. Kinda like a group by thingy only housed and owned by the town proper/militia for regular drill and defense.

If such things were in operation today. Then grenades / anti-tank / MANPAD weapons would be held in the same type places as our national guard armories hold our .gov weapons. But alas you would have a regular standing militia that would keep watch over it. You couldn't just go in and take one home unless the country was under attack. There would be record keeping for its use and storage. If anything there would be training and drills in their use and seldom would you ever get to use one in training. Maybe they would allow you to procure your own for training (still stored in the magazine though; you're not taking it home) so you could use it but generally it would be a group ownership thing. Mostly because of cost.

Now weapons like muskets, pistols and yes rifles (The Kentucky Rifle, the deadliest weapon of its time. If the gun banners were around then they would wet their pants at its deadliness. LOL.) were kept at home.

The Militia is missing in action. Disbanded by purposeful and willful neglect and just plain neglect. Try to restart them and you will have a major problem on your hands with the government. They would freak out.

sjm9877
01-02-2013, 2:51 PM
....

myk
01-02-2013, 4:28 PM
I draw the line at "arms." I don't consider a howitzer, tank, F-15E, aircraft carrier or rail gun on a warship something I need to own. I should be able to own and operate fully automatic weapons and anything else the government and LE brandishes on a daily basis without question. We've been living under "infringement" for decades, folks...

Sakiri
01-02-2013, 5:33 PM
Any weapon which any domestic law enforcement agency is allowed to buy/use/own, as these are the weapons which could be readily deployed against civilians.

I do not include the military in my definition as they are supposed to only operate outside of the USA, and I do believe their is a line somewhere which people would agree should not be crossed.

Mostly this.

I agree some form of regulation is needed, mostly in the form of keeping certain types of people from obtaining firearms. Mostly, the crazy, the felonious, the illegal.

The only thing that should keep a law abiding citizen from obtaining any weapon is cost.

Want a tank? Can you afford it? Sure, go ahead.
Want that cruise missile? Can you afford to buy it? Got a place to put it? Go for it.

"I built this cruise missile to keep those kids from playing ZZ Top."

Cnynrat
01-02-2013, 5:37 PM
I draw the line at "arms." I don't consider a howitzer, tank, F-15E, aircraft carrier or rail gun on a warship something I need to own. I should be able to own and operate fully automatic weapons and anything else the government and LE brandishes on a daily basis without question. We've been living under "infringement" for decades, folks...

This reflects my point of view. Small arms commonly in use by LEOs and our military should be GTG for citizens as well.

donny douchebag
01-02-2013, 5:43 PM
If they're stored wrong, they detonate.

While true of certain primary explosives that's not an accurate statement for most modern secondary ones.

AAShooter
01-02-2013, 5:54 PM
Generally owning inanimate objects should not make your a criminal. Criminal behavior should.

Drew Eckhardt
01-02-2013, 6:38 PM
The 2nd amendment clearly says " shall not be infringed". So where do you draw the line? Tanks, Full Auto Rifles, Full Auto Pistols, Explosives,


None of the above. It says "arms," with no exclusions. In the Founding Fathers' time this meant private warships armed with canon (letters of marquee and reprisal wouldn't have much point without those).


So where do you draw the line?


Where we draw the line for the government.

As collections of individuals governments should have no rights that private citizens don't have by themselves.

If nuclear weapons, nerve agents, and biological weapons are OK for the government they should be fine for the people who make up and live under the government as individuals.

If they're not OK for individuals they shouldn't be permitted for governments comprised of individuals.

myk
01-02-2013, 6:58 PM
None of the above. It says "arms," with no exclusions. In the Founding Fathers' time this meant private warships armed with canon (letters of marquee and reprisal wouldn't have much point without those).



Where we draw the line for the government.

As collections of individuals governments should have no rights that private citizens don't have by themselves.

If nuclear weapons, nerve agents, and biological weapons are OK for the government they should be fine for the people who make up and live under the government as individuals.

If they're not OK for individuals they shouldn't be permitted for governments comprised of individuals.

You're 100% correct, but keep in mind that there are many people in this country and apparently this message board that fully support the idea of a government being in complete control of our lives through the use of superior, exclusive firepower. Obviously, an equivalently armed civilian population would go against such an idea. If the people that fought, sacrificed and died for America's independence could see this now they'd roll in their graves if they haven't already...

JoshuaS
01-02-2013, 10:39 PM
Certainly laws that do not actually impede someone not convicted for a grievous crime from exercising his right to self-defense and to being armed as a member of the militia, are different than ones that bear on the actual ownership and use of guns. E.g., requiring the guns work as advertised, be strong enough to safely shoot the rounds it is chambered in, etc do not go against the 2nd amendment (though in some cases federal laws to these effects could be an overreach of the commerce clause)

Anything that actually hinders you ability to 1) defend yourself personally or 2) be able to be armed appropriately as a member of the militia, both for national defense, but also in the possible situation of a tyrannical government, must be justified under strict scrutinity, just as say laws that incidentally affect religious practices are often (not always!) tested by strict scrutiny.

Certainly a law stating that you cannot carry a rocket launcher in public, except in case of invasion, etc. would hardly be an infringement of notable measure, and would be easy to justify. Cannot carry any weapon in public? Major infringement and even in strict scrutiny hard to ever justify.

Shane916
01-02-2013, 10:49 PM
I draw the line at the Krinker Plinker

wjc
01-02-2013, 10:57 PM
I will not buy a nuke, chemical, or biologic. Everything else is fair game.

BassNut
01-02-2013, 10:59 PM
There is no line.

rugershooter
01-02-2013, 11:21 PM
The 2nd amendment clearly says " shall not be infringed". So where do you draw the line? Tanks, Full Auto Rifles, Full Auto Pistols, Explosives,

I believe a responsible law abiding person should have no limits. But who makes that decision? The Government, A Mental Health Doctor, Local Sheriff.

My point is you are either for or against the 2nd. I have been enjoying firearms for most of my life. In my opinion a semi auto rifle or pistol is just as dangerous as full auto. There are well trained individuals that can take a revolver and shoot faster and more accurate than most shooters can with a semi auto handguns.

There will be no end to the laws restricting firearms. Once we gave up the first inch they have asked for more. We don't have much left, in my opinion anyway.

So where do you draw the line?

Do you believe in the 2nd?
Or
Do you believe in the 2nd except for???

Your first sentence says it all " The 2nd Amendment clearly says 'shall not be infringed'". Apparently you don't understand that very well :facepalm:

SilverBulletZ06
01-02-2013, 11:32 PM
If I can carry it, and the soldiers do too, then I should be allowed to own it.

armygunsmith
01-02-2013, 11:35 PM
Again?

:beatdeadhorse5:

Thank you. They should lock or delete these threads.

damoni
01-03-2013, 12:16 AM
I draw the line at "arms." I don't consider a howitzer, tank, F-15E, aircraft carrier or rail gun on a warship something I need to own. I should be able to own and operate fully automatic weapons and anything else the government and LE brandishes on a daily basis without question. We've been living under "infringement" for decades, folks...

WELL PUT! And better treatment for mental health. If the politicians would look at the root cause for the majority of these disgusting mass murders, they all had mental issues! That, ladies and gentlemen, is what needs more control, not firearms. Again, guns don't kill people, PEOPLE do!

Kid Stanislaus
01-03-2013, 12:31 AM
Nukes.

Yeah, I'm sure I'd be a bit uneasy if my neighbor was a decent, responsible and law abiding citizens with a nuke in his garage but he went to the mosque weekly for prayers and theological input!!:D

Kid Stanislaus
01-03-2013, 12:33 AM
Again?

:beatdeadhorse5:

Is horsemeat tasty?:D

wjc
01-03-2013, 12:33 AM
Guys..I still want a Leopard tank.

wjc
01-03-2013, 12:34 AM
Is horsemeat tasty?:D

yes....kinda gamey tho.

Kid Stanislaus
01-03-2013, 12:36 AM
That where I sit. "Game changers" that could end up disrupting world government in a single instance, shouldn't be in the hands of private individuals.

If we don't have "game changers" at our disposal the how do we resist governmental tyranny?:confused:

warbird
01-03-2013, 12:47 AM
the second amendment in my opinion, unless my opinion is proven faulty, was written loose enough by our forefathers to allow us to bear what ever arms the future would hold for us in terms of what one man can use and operate as part of a larger civilian army and to protect himself and his family in a free society. I do not believe the second amendment limits citizens to rifles and handguns of any particular nature but our forefathers did expect us to ise common sense and good judgement as a society under social pressure and not laws. Citizens have to have access to the same weapons criminals and police have if they are to maintain a proper balance to prevent a dictatorship or anarchy from forming.

10mmOutdoors
01-03-2013, 12:49 AM
No line here. If nukes are availabe. I'll take one

myk
01-03-2013, 1:08 AM
Guys..I still want a Leopard tank.

F**k man I'd give a week's pay to drive an M1 Abrams to Wal*Mart as I stock up on Chunky Soup.

Again?

:beatdeadhorse5:

Now, normally I'd agree but I'm going to say that I think these sorts of posts should be allowed to come up and be discussed as OFTEN as possible-why? Because many people, guns owners included, need to be educated. I have learned that there are A LOT of people, including gun owners, that do not understand or even accept the spirit of the 2A and what it means for its citizens and this country. The 2A is there to GUARANTEE that our government will never be able to oppress it's people through superior firepower, yet we've got many gun owners, many of them on this board, that feel that common citizens "don't need 30 round 'mags, fully automatic rifles," etc, etc. WRONG, the right to keep and bear arms isn't supposed to be infringed upon yet we've been living this way for decades. Until everyone learns to read, understand and follow the 2nd Amendment as a law, gun ownership will only face increasing discrimination in the years to come...

wjc
01-03-2013, 1:59 AM
F**k man I'd give a week's pay to drive an M1 Abrams to Wal*Mart as I stock up on Chunky Soup.


Indeed.

Now, what would you give to drive a Tiger Mark VI through the Chick-fil-A drive thru.

:43:

FourTenJaeger
01-03-2013, 2:21 AM
Biological weapons have been virtually banned since 1972.

wjc
01-03-2013, 2:37 AM
Biological weapons have been virtually banned since 1972.

Consider "pre-schools". Biggest source of bio-weapons around today.

:D

Calpat
01-03-2013, 5:14 AM
When a well armed group demands that another group "dis-arm" it is a bad thing.

How do I explain to people who have not studied History the things that I see happening?
Dis-armament is always a precursor to Genocide. EXAMPLES.

ROME AND THE DIASPERA (dispersal of the Jews)- dead unkown

United States subdues and dis-arms Native tribes _ Dead 6-12 million. First concentration camps in recorded history.

Turkey dis-arms Armienians - at least one million dead.

NAZIs dis-arm German civilians - Dead 12- 60 million plus!

Japan dis-arms Korea and China - Dead in the unknown millions.

Stalin Dis-arms Rusians - Dead ~60 million plus.

Mao's Communist Chinese dis-armament of the people of China at least 80 million and still counting!

So certain people want to DIS-ARM the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!
THE PRESIDENT!
THE SENATE!
THE COMUNIST CHINESE GOVERNMENT!
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT!
THE BANKERS (WHO FUND THE ELECTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES)!

Does anyone see what the agenda looks to be in this senario of dis-armament of the American people. Please comment below.

TacticalPlinker
01-03-2013, 5:39 AM
I vote this thread be locked and/or deleted... But in the mean time...

I have no idea WTF you people are talking about... Tanks? Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? This s%%t has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. These things are NOT arms, as in they are NOT firearms!

I draw the line at common sense. Examples would be already existing laws lacking legitimate objection such as firearm ownership by felons and those with mental disease or defect, etc...

Banning firearms based on physical appearance, as opposed to function, is an example of reckless disregard for common sense... and the 2nd Amendment.

sjm9877
01-03-2013, 8:46 AM
...

hakenlag
01-03-2013, 9:17 AM
Folks keep asking the same question over and over, presumably expecting a different result.
As always, there is no line.

hakenlag
01-03-2013, 9:21 AM
I vote this thread be locked and/or deleted... But in the mean time...

I have no idea WTF you people are talking about... Tanks? Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? This s%%t has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. These things are NOT arms, as in they are NOT firearms!

I draw the line at common sense. Examples would be already existing laws lacking legitimate objection such as firearm ownership by felons and those with mental disease or defect, etc...

Banning firearms based on physical appearance, as opposed to function, is an example of reckless disregard for common sense... and the 2nd Amendment.

Please show me where the 2nd specifically says "firearms".

Let's review: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Arms are weapons. Knives, arrows, spears, and nukes are arms.

M. D. Van Norman
01-03-2013, 9:48 AM
This question comes up regularly, and my answer is always the same. The right to arms covers any weapon or weapons system that one can deploy without imminently threatening his neighbors. This standard is easy to meet for handguns but a lot less so for anti-stellar gamma-ray laser arrays. ;)

Decoligny
01-03-2013, 9:50 AM
I believe that a good argument can be made that "the people" should be able to possess any individual weapon that would be the "normal" infantry weapon of the time/era. This would seem to satisfy the 2nd given its justification; "a well regulated militia ....". Each person, as a member of the militia, should be REQUIRED to own a personal infantry weapon, and be well-trained (read "regulated" in 2A-speech) in its use.

I would say this would include fully automatic assault weapons and light machine guns, and short barreled rifles.. One could conceivably include crew-served weapons, artillery, armor, etc. etc., but that would be a more difficult argument.

M-16? GTG
SAW? GTG
M-14? GTG
etc. etc.

During the time of the founding fathers, it wasn't uncommon for private citizens to own fully armed merchant vessels. These were the equivalent of warships.
During the War of 1812 it was common for "Letters of Marque" to be issued and these Merchant/Warships would attack and capture merchant ships of the enemy, and take the ship and cargo as a prize, giving a portion to the Government to help support the war.

I think that if a person can afford to outfit his yacht with surface to surface missiles, surface to air missiles, and any other naval weaponry, he should be allowed to do so.

Decoligny
01-03-2013, 9:56 AM
I think explosives are nasty stuff. They can kill anyone they're near at any time because of a small mishap. If they're stored wrong, they detonate.

They've been registered so long that we actually could succeed in taking them, so they're well controlled. I think there should be standards on security, but there should be explosive weapons for people. Maybe just storing them with local police to start handing out to ex-military guys would work, if there were volunteer training programs for such things.

Firearms? Stringent background checks - which take 5 seconds with a computer - and everything is allowed. Cities can ban residents from owning machine guns (current ones grandfathered), but not people passing through. Use of a machinegun in a murder is a mandatory life sentence. Mass murder with more than three reliable witnesses is a mandatory immediate death sentence.

Fix our mental health systems. That'll stop crime. Gun control is not crime control, so there's no reason for us to take away our own freedoms.

You could never succeed in taking all the explosives from the people.

There are too many ways to make explosives out of everyday household chemicals.

Hell, you can make a pipe bomb with nothing more than some plumbing supplies and a few boxes of strike anywhere matches.

1859sharps
01-03-2013, 10:04 AM
During the time of the founding fathers, it wasn't uncommon for private citizens to own fully armed merchant vessels. These were the equivalent of warships.
During the War of 1812 it was common for "Letters of Marque" to be issued and these Merchant/Warships would attack and capture merchant ships of the enemy, and take the ship and cargo as a prize, giving a portion to the Government to help support the war.

I think that if a person can afford to outfit his yacht with surface to surface missiles, surface to air missiles, and any other naval weaponry, he should be allowed to do so.

that maybe true, but that does not mean that is what the founders intended with the 2nd amendment.

For 100% certainty the 2nd covers any weapon/arm that is of use as personal weapons of an infantry soldier. this means rifle, shotgun, handgun. Single shot through full auto. I think you can make a good argument for some machine guns and smaller crew weapons such a m60, m240, m2 type machine guns.

mortars, artillery, explosives, rockets, tanks, bomber, fighters, ships etc may not pass muster. even in historical context.

even the 1st amendment has some limits, as such it's reasonable to concede that the 2nd also has some limits. not all gun control will be found unconstitutional. Not all weapons will be found to be protected by the 2nd. this is reality. we need to deal with and live in reality, not fantasy.

Saying you should be able to own anything the Government has is fantasy, not reality. lets deal in reality.

sjm9877
01-03-2013, 10:09 AM
...

ap3572001
01-03-2013, 10:10 AM
What should be the limit?

What I normally have in a partol car.

An AR with 20/30 round magazines (NOT FULL AUTO), Remington 870 shotgun and a Glock 22 (15 and 22rd magazines).

Sounds reasonable?

Weapons listed above will protect a person VERY WELL.

sjm9877
01-03-2013, 10:16 AM
...

CEDaytonaRydr
01-03-2013, 10:19 AM
No line at all.

^^This

I think you should be able to have a fully operational F-16, if you can afford it. 2A issues aside, the FAA wouldn't even let you fly it. What does that say about regulation in this country! :facepalm:

Moonshine
01-03-2013, 10:28 AM
I want the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range!