|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
2nd Amendment protected nukes?
We have a lawmaker on national news threatening the use of nuclear weapons against civilians.
It seems to me that it raises the bar on what is protected by the second amendment does it not? Trying to see the good in his idiocy, could this be grounds to argue we need more than just semi-auto with a functional mag release?
__________________
Quote:
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
if I don't believe any government can be trusted with even one nuke I wouldn't trust any else with one. Id like to repeal the Hughes Amendment and the NFA but Nukes, chemical and biological weapons either shouldn't exist our existing stockpiles should be reduced
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Threads unmerged for clarity on topic.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you sir
Quote:
The idea is, if the government is threatening the use of nuclear weapons... the need for us to have, say, crew-served machine guns increases, or in the case of California, at least a select-fire weapon commensurate with what the federal army would be carrying in a conflict.
__________________
Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Swalwell proves his stupidity every time he opens his mouth. And the population proves theirs by re-electing him time after time.
He should also look into the fact that many U.S. nuclear weapons have safeties built in so they know their location and are prevented from going off in the continental U.S. But I don't think his brain could comprehend that. He just does what Pelosi tells him to do.
__________________
Send Lawyers, Guns and Money - On second thought, hold the Lawyers. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I believe we have a motion on the floor - do I hear a second?
__________________
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Come on guys...I had this separated from a "democrats are stupid" post because I want to have a serious discussion.
Do you think a government official issuing public idle threats raises the bar on what we can have as private citizens?
__________________
Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The second amendment protects all weapons of 'any' kind.
Rocks, pin knives, sling shots, bow and arrow, electric zappers, explosives, sticks with the ends sharpened. Anything that can be used as a weapon is protected by the 2nd amendment. Bearing arms means any type of armament. Not just rifles and handguns. Yes even bombs and nukes. Although at this time it might be kinda hard to carry around a nuke bomb. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
No it doesn't raise the bar at all. See my post just above this one. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
FM 5-26...the proper use and deployment of Nuclear Suppositories...otherwise known as Atomic Demolition Munitions... |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is why restrictions on Destructive Devices, machine gun registration, et cetera have been untouchable. There is a bar set... I am not an attorney so I don't know where that bar is but I know enough to know there is one.
__________________
Quote:
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
In all seriousness..this so-called "official" needs to be charged with sedition, treason, violation of the "posse comitatus" act and any other relevant charge that can be brought against him. It is the height of irresponsibility to suggest the use of nukes on our own soil...against our own people.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The politicians in this country haven't truely represented the people since this countries inception. They feel they are way above us in importance. This dunce you mentioned above just let his mouth run due to inexperience. And in doing so shows everyone what he really thinks. The truely sad part, is that it appears that around 50% of the voters agrees with him. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
If he can threaten nukes, we should be able to, also. Mutually assured destruction kept the Russkies at bay.
We need to keep knucklehead politicians at bay, too.
__________________
NRA Life Member CRPA Life Member Registration is the first step towards confiscation. I identify as Non-Bidenary |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I can't see how it raises the bar at all. What Swalwell said is not a threat. It is merely a ridiculous statement made by a ridiculous person. Swalwell has no say whatsoever in the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, I doubt that he is even authorized to look at them. His threat carries the same level of significance and danger as any one of us threatening their use.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I see the logic there too... but ultimately any law that prohibits its use could be changed by the legislature and that process would start with him...
__________________
Quote:
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
-The short answer is "no."
-A nuclear weapon (or any aircraft bomb or missile for that matter), is not a personal arm, nor is it "for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense." You can argue that they are defensive as a deterrent, but for our purposes here, they are an offensive weapon. -There is already a robust regulation and restriction of DD's, and they have already been deemed constitutional by SCOTUS. We don't need any new angles to get normal, non-jacked up AR15 type rifles. We just need SCOTUS to take one of the many cases coming up, and apply what they have already noted in Heller and McDonald. Quote:
Last edited by mit31; 11-19-2018 at 11:11 AM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|