User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 5:39:13 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I use a nuke on Detroit is that discriminatory enough for you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Discriminate vs indiscriminate weapons If I use a nuke on Detroit is that discriminatory enough for you? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 7:51:35 AM EDT
[#2]
According to the landmark decision D.C. v. Heller the basis of the Second Amendment is self-defense.
That case decided that the government is not permitted to prohibit Americans from possessing the weapon chosen by most Americans for self-defense. Since most Americans do not choose nuclear weapons for self-defense, the government can prohibit Americans from possessing those weapons without violating the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 7:55:32 AM EDT
[#3]
many cannons and mortars were privately owned during the Revolution and I believe in the War of Northern Aggression and Spanish American War.
that pretty much says it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:02:00 AM EDT
[#4]
It means anything and everything that can be used as a weapon. No further limits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:48:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to the landmark decision D.C. v. Heller the basis of the Second Amendment is self-defense. That case decided that the government is not permitted to prohibit Americans from possessing the weapon chosen by most Americans for self-defense. Since most Americans do not choose nuclear weapons for self-defense, the government can prohibit Americans from possessing those weapons without violating the Constitution. That was indeed the rationale for Heller, but I would argue that the "self-defense against common crime" purpose, while an important use for arms, was not the primary driver behind the drafting of the 2A. We had just fought a war against our own government, prompted by that government's tyrannical actions against the people. The new constitution was established with the express purpose of hemming in the new government on all sides, so that it could not repeat the oppression of the last government. What sense would it have made to tack on a protection for the use of arms in self-defense against normal criminals in such a document? Such a bland and unrelated purpose for the 2A does not comport with its position in the BOR (second only to freedom of speech and the practice of religion) or the frequent attention the founders gave in their writings to the importance of an armed populace in stemming tyranny. Being able to defend oneself from a common highway robber was simply assumed under common law - it would not have been necessary to put in the constitution unless there were more at stake. For modern America, Heller's self-defense purpose for the 2A was certainly a step forward from where we were (that it had no purpose and was effectively vestigial), but it is not the whole truth. The true root of the 2A is to place the citizenry on equal footing with the government and prevent the government from establishing a monopoly on force, which is necessary for any effective tyranny to function. It's time we returned to evaluating the government's actions through that lens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:49:48 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
arms != ordnance This. Words have meaning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:51:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
We hear it all the time from lefties..."If the Second Amendment give you the right to keep and bear arms, then does that include nukes?" So, for the purposes of discussion among ourselves, where, if anywhere, is the line for the Second Amendment to protect your right to bear arms? I would obviously say that there shouldn't be any restriction on rifles, pistols, shotguns or machine guns. I would probably even go so far as to add mortars, cannons and even artillery to the list (if you've got the money, then have at it). I am not so sure about explosives. I don't know if the average moron should have hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, missiles, or anti-aircraft weapons. I would definitely leave WMDs, such as NBC weapons and ICBMs right off. Maybe I'm a bit of a closet anti after all, but I think that weapons of apocalyptic proportions have no place on our streets or in our schools!  There used to be a time in the not so distant past that you could buy dynamite from your local hardware store. As for nukes, no one can realistically afford one, so the issue is sort of moot. To buy a ICBM type nuke with all the supporting infrastructure and controls you're talking north of 100's of millions of dollars. The security you would need would suck up millions a year alone. Can you have a nuke if you are a billionaire? Absolutely. You can even own one today. How you ask? Because if you're a billionaire you can essentially purchase a small country or buy your way into politics. And for what it's worth, the way it's intended that if it's a weapon used widely by the mil, the civies should be allowed to own them. WMD's are not used widely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:58:38 AM EDT
[#8]
if you can stroke the check AND store them safely, have at it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:01:10 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was indeed the rationale for Heller, but I would argue that the "self-defense against common crime" purpose, while an important use for arms, was not the primary driver behind the drafting of the 2A. That makes no difference at this point. The Fine Nine has ruled. History is irrelevant. In the recent case of Friedman v. Highland Park the Seventh Circuit ruled that an ordinance which prohibited possession of "assault weapons" was constitutional. The court noted that the ordinance did not prohibit residents from possessing pistols and that they could exercise their right to self-defense without the need for "assault weapons". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:15:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BobtheGreat, I must say, excellent post. Thank you for your contribution. I am a believer in balance, in all things. One must also balance his moderation from time to time, with an extreme or two. I stand with you, and liberty, on this issue. It was put very simply earlier in the thread- we must have all means available that might be used against us. Thank you. A little extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, to borrow a phrase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:20:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, call me a big government Lib, but I don't think you should have a nuclear weapon or an anti-aircraft missile without a background check and a good safe. Sorry, but I'm not budging. I am good with that actually. I am with you that individuals shouldnt have nukes or biologicals. Period. Some weapons should be trusted only to governments. Nukes and biologicals fall in that group. You should have the ability to use and store securely any lesser weapon, and you should have a clean record to buy it. I am even good with other measures being required, like onboard geolocation devices or even armory storage under guard and such things. As in private armories that you pay to rent room in or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:21:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That makes no difference at this point. The Fine Nine has ruled. History is irrelevant. In the recent case of Friedman v. Highland Park the Seventh Circuit ruled that an ordinance which prohibited possession of "assault weapons" was constitutional. The court noted that the ordinance did not prohibit residents from possessing pistols and that they could exercise their right to self-defense without the need for "assault weapons". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That was indeed the rationale for Heller, but I would argue that the "self-defense against common crime" purpose, while an important use for arms, was not the primary driver behind the drafting of the 2A. That makes no difference at this point. The Fine Nine has ruled. History is irrelevant. In the recent case of Friedman v. Highland Park the Seventh Circuit ruled that an ordinance which prohibited possession of "assault weapons" was constitutional. The court noted that the ordinance did not prohibit residents from possessing pistols and that they could exercise their right to self-defense without the need for "assault weapons". A rather defeatist point of view, if you are serious, but I suspect you are being sarcastic. In actuality, the opinion of nine lawyers is not a divine decree, and they can be (and have been) wrong. Decisions like Kelo or Wickard v Filburn exist, yet they do not change the underlying truth of their respective issues. The same is true of Heller, despite the decision going "our way." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:25:27 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am good with that actually. I am with you that individuals shouldnt have nukes or biologicals. Period. Some weapons should be trusted only to governments. Nukes and biologicals fall in that group.  Sorry, but that part's pretty funny, considering which entities are consistently responsible for the bloodiest atrocities throughout history. Yep - governments.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:27:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, but that part's pretty funny, considering which entities are consistently responsible for the bloodiest atrocities throughout history. Yep - governments.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am good with that actually. I am with you that individuals shouldnt have nukes or biologicals. Period. Some weapons should be trusted only to governments. Nukes and biologicals fall in that group. Sorry, but that part's pretty funny, considering which entities are consistently responsible for the bloodiest atrocities throughout history. Yep - governments.And it is normal chaps like you and me that do that violence. A king on a hill never scragged a million useless eaters or whatever. He had fellers like you and me to do it for Jesus and the faderland or whatever. Most of those normal guys could be trusted not to go on a mass murder spree at their home town mall. Same as you and me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:34:40 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Philosophy is important. It is the reasoning behind the principles that we each hold. Philosophically, I believe that no free person should ever be denied the use of arms. That is my philosophy, honest and complete. However, practicality is also important. Should a person be allowed to walk into a Walmart, plunk down their credit card and walk out with a weapon? Most "reasonable" people would say no. For what we would call "small arms" (rifles, carbines, shotguns, handguns, machine guns, etc.) I would say yes, you should. I would have no objection to someone walking into Walmart saying "Gimme that one!" and walking out with a Colt Commando, with no paperwork required beyond signing your credit card receipt. Most people would call that psychotic. But, even I, as an "absolutist", feel the need to draw some lines. We live in a world with evil. We have seen, truly, tragedies committed by evil people with weapons that I believe our founders had full in mind of being beyond government regulation. We have seen terrorists use jet liners as cruise missiles, something that no one ever envisioned (truly and act of evil genius). So, as a practical person, and an empathetic person, I believe that lines must be drawn and balance must be found. I would ban nuclear (biological and chemical) weapons and I would require background checks and safe storage requirements for anti-aircraft missiles. If that makes me a big government commie, then that's what it makes me. I think that 99% of the world would call me a psycho, but judge me as you will. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Philosophy is important. It is the reasoning behind the principles that we each hold. Philosophically, I believe that no free person should ever be denied the use of arms. That is my philosophy, honest and complete. However, practicality is also important. Should a person be allowed to walk into a Walmart, plunk down their credit card and walk out with a weapon? Most "reasonable" people would say no. For what we would call "small arms" (rifles, carbines, shotguns, handguns, machine guns, etc.) I would say yes, you should. I would have no objection to someone walking into Walmart saying "Gimme that one!" and walking out with a Colt Commando, with no paperwork required beyond signing your credit card receipt. Most people would call that psychotic. But, even I, as an "absolutist", feel the need to draw some lines. We live in a world with evil. We have seen, truly, tragedies committed by evil people with weapons that I believe our founders had full in mind of being beyond government regulation. We have seen terrorists use jet liners as cruise missiles, something that no one ever envisioned (truly and act of evil genius). So, as a practical person, and an empathetic person, I believe that lines must be drawn and balance must be found. I would ban nuclear (biological and chemical) weapons and I would require background checks and safe storage requirements for anti-aircraft missiles. If that makes me a big government commie, then that's what it makes me. I think that 99% of the world would call me a psycho, but judge me as you will. You may hold whatever beliefs you wish, but philosophy and practicality are only at odds if you accept the premise that by banning certain things, you can prevent people from harming each other. This is untrue, but if you accept it, the entire debate becomes simply a difference of opinion on what things should be banned. The people who would object to your example of buying a Colt Commando at Walmart are fundamentally arguing the same point as those who say "well, only governments can be trusted with nuclear weapons." It's simply a difference in degree, based on a premise that is fundamentally flawed. Quoted:
I am not afraid of freedom. I am afraid of lunatics. Lunatics will be lunatics with whatever arms are available to them, right down to box cutters. We cannot stop them with bans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:36:25 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Discriminate vs indiscriminate weapons This is my feeling. I don't want my neighbor having anthrax spores or some shit. Fuck that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:38:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Sure
If you have the infrastructure and security in place, why not? It would seem to me that a private citizen would be much less likely to ever want to employ them that a state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:38:23 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Discriminate vs indiscriminate weapons interesting point I always refer to primary source documents of cannon and armed ship being loaned to the Continental Army/Navy by private citizens. The founding fathers were certainly aware of private citizens owning them when they wrote the 2A |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:40:12 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And it is normal chaps like you and me that do that violence. A king on a hill never scragged a million useless eaters or whatever. He had fellers like you and me to do it for Jesus and the faderland or whatever. Most of those normal guys could be trusted not to go on a mass murder spree at their home town mall. Same as you and me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am good with that actually. I am with you that individuals shouldnt have nukes or biologicals. Period. Some weapons should be trusted only to governments. Nukes and biologicals fall in that group. Sorry, but that part's pretty funny, considering which entities are consistently responsible for the bloodiest atrocities throughout history. Yep - governments.And it is normal chaps like you and me that do that violence. A king on a hill never scragged a million useless eaters or whatever. He had fellers like you and me to do it for Jesus and the faderland or whatever. Most of those normal guys could be trusted not to go on a mass murder spree at their home town mall. Same as you and me. The psychology of those who actually carry out a tyrant's atrocities while believing themselves blameless for it is an interesting topic all to itself. Yet, that the king himself does not do the dirty work in no way absolves him of responsibility for it. Nor does it make it acceptable for the king to impose a monopoly on the arms necessary to perpetrate such events, while denying his people those same arms to resist it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:41:44 AM EDT
[#20]
Nuclear weapons are stupid and the argument that citizens should be able to own them is stupid and the argument that the second amendment applies to them is stupid.
Arms would relate to basic military usage handguns, shotguns, rifles, machine guns, personal carried RPG/grenade launchers and whatever is deemed necessary to repress a modern military force. A liberal will never understand this and balk at its necessity. We are already limited on ownership of 2/5s of this list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:44:46 AM EDT
[#21]
If I had a nuke, would it keep people from fucking with me?
Then yeah, we should be able to own nukes if we can afford them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:58:00 AM EDT
[#22]
OP's question is one I've considered. First... Is there a line? Secondly... If there is a line, where is it? These quotes are two of literally thousands, from our founders on the subject.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington “Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of the American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tench Coxe Every terrible implement of the soldier..... So giving consideration to the perspective these men might have had, it seems clear that swords, rifles, pistols, canons were the implements of the day. People will argue that technology has improved some of these items. (The old musket vs. AR15 argument.) However, today's rifle is still a rifle. A pistol is still a pistol. And, they are still the implement of the soldier. Obviously tanks and nukes had yet to be invented. I don't think you can extrapolate that nukes would be considered implements of the soldier. But tanks? I think canons were an implement of the soldier. If you put a canon on a wagon, does that change anything? No. So an argument can be made that tanks were implements of the soldier. Just some thoughts.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:19:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nuclear weapons are stupid and the argument that citizens should be able to own them is stupid and the argument that the second amendment applies to them is stupid. Arms would relate to basic military usage handguns, shotguns, rifles, machine guns, personal carried RPG/grenade launchers and whatever is deemed necessary to repress a modern military force. A liberal will never understand this and balk at its necessity. We are already limited on ownership of 2/5s of this list. Choke yourself. The US nuclear arsenal is what kept the commie hoards out of the US for 70 years or so, and still going. I do agree that the argument of personally owned nukes is stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:24:01 AM EDT
[#24]
Original intent most certainly included privately owned cannon and similar, don't see why the same shouldn't apply today. The necessity and reasoning for the 2nd amendment certainly hasn't changed, regardless of how loud one political faction yells that it has.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:27:55 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, here's the thing. Take a group like ISIS. OK, a nuke is $200,000,000 let's say. They've got more than that, and it would be a good investment from their point of view. I'm sure they'd be able to find someone willing to go in to The Nuke Shop, plunk down the $200,000,000 and have his nuke loaded into the back of a truck and then hauled out to New York. So what, do you have NICS checks and 4473s for nukes and VX gas only? Or do we make nukes and chemical weapons NFA items, with sheriff's sign off and a $200 tax stamp? Isn't that infringing on the right of someone to keep and bear arms? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You used to be able to buy explosives from the hardware store, and they aren't that hard to make or at least it didn't appear that way a few days ago. I see no reason why people can't buy the same toys, if it weren't forbthe price tags and maintenance on them. As far as nukes go very few could afford them or would want to devote themselves and their money to protect them from theft. When the BOR was written cannons and ships were privately owned so why not now? I would love to have a Coast Guard Cutter and all of it's armaments. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Well, here's the thing. Take a group like ISIS. OK, a nuke is $200,000,000 let's say. They've got more than that, and it would be a good investment from their point of view. I'm sure they'd be able to find someone willing to go in to The Nuke Shop, plunk down the $200,000,000 and have his nuke loaded into the back of a truck and then hauled out to New York. So what, do you have NICS checks and 4473s for nukes and VX gas only? Or do we make nukes and chemical weapons NFA items, with sheriff's sign off and a $200 tax stamp? Isn't that infringing on the right of someone to keep and bear arms? The problem is a nuke does not cost $200,000,000, or any where close to that. Nothing in the 2nd says if it exists, the government has to sell it to you for cost, or tell you how to build it. So now, you have to build a nuke from scratch... as in buy the uranium mine and work from there. Then you have to convince a ridiculous number of engineers to work for you to design a whole refining and manufacturing industry. And then you have to convince all the blue collar workers that you will pay them enough for the risk of you have having a nuke is worth it too. Then you have to deal with the waste products. It is the kind of project that I doubt even Bill Gates could afford even if he wanted to devote the rest of his life toward. There is a reason many governments do not have nukes, and it is not because they don't want them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:34:37 AM EDT
[#26]
It's a silly thing to bring into an argument. If someone has the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon, a law is not going to stop them any more than it stops convicted felons from obtaining handguns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:36:08 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Choke yourself. The US nuclear arsenal is what kept the commie hoards out of the US for 70 years or so, and still going. I do agree that the argument of personally owned nukes is stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nuclear weapons are stupid and the argument that citizens should be able to own them is stupid and the argument that the second amendment applies to them is stupid. Arms would relate to basic military usage handguns, shotguns, rifles, machine guns, personal carried RPG/grenade launchers and whatever is deemed necessary to repress a modern military force. A liberal will never understand this and balk at its necessity. We are already limited on ownership of 2/5s of this list. Choke yourself. The US nuclear arsenal is what kept the commie hoards out of the US for 70 years or so, and still going. I do agree that the argument of personally owned nukes is stupid. You're kidding, right? We have plenty of Commies in this country. The nukes kept us from getting nuked or from having to fight the Russians. It didn't stop them from coming here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:39:26 AM EDT
[#28]
sure. Why not?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:48:42 AM EDT
[#29]
Pretty simple. If the people can't have nukes then the .gov can't either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:48:42 AM EDT
[#30]
It's not an interesting question to me. I put on the same level as reducing every "limited government" argument to anarchy, just so you can say "Gotcha! You're not ideologically pure after all, therefore I'm right and you're not! Ha Ha!"
Fedora tipping intensifies, basically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:49:00 AM EDT
[#31]
I personally believe that the 2A was meant to apply to common 'small arms' used by the military. Machine guns, handguns, rifles etc. Possibly grenades, RPG's and such if you get checked out and you're proven not to be a nutcase.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:49:13 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A rather defeatist point of view, if you are serious, but I suspect you are being sarcastic. In actuality, the opinion of nine lawyers is not a divine decree, and they can be (and have been) wrong. Decisions like Kelo or Wickard v Filburn exist, yet they do not change the underlying truth of their respective issues. The same is true of Heller, despite the decision going "our way." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That was indeed the rationale for Heller, but I would argue that the "self-defense against common crime" purpose, while an important use for arms, was not the primary driver behind the drafting of the 2A. That makes no difference at this point. The Fine Nine has ruled. History is irrelevant. In the recent case of Friedman v. Highland Park the Seventh Circuit ruled that an ordinance which prohibited possession of "assault weapons" was constitutional. The court noted that the ordinance did not prohibit residents from possessing pistols and that they could exercise their right to self-defense without the need for "assault weapons". A rather defeatist point of view, if you are serious, but I suspect you are being sarcastic. In actuality, the opinion of nine lawyers is not a divine decree, and they can be (and have been) wrong. Decisions like Kelo or Wickard v Filburn exist, yet they do not change the underlying truth of their respective issues. The same is true of Heller, despite the decision going "our way." I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being realistic. As a retired attorney I've known what is happening for quite some time. I see you haven't absorbed the lesson which was most recently repeated last June. No rational person thinks that the men who drafted the 14th Amendment intended that it required states to recognize marriage between two men or between two women. No rational person thinks that the men who ratified the 14th Amendment intended that it required states to recognize marriage between two men or between two women. Despite those facts the Fine Nine ruled that the Amendment did require that of which those who drafted it and those who ratified it never imagined. The conclusion is inescapable: The intention of those who drafted the Constitution and the Amendments is irrelevant. The intention of those who ratified the Constitution and the Amendments is irrelevant. What is relevant is the decision of a majority of justices. The Fine Nine have ruled concerning the basis of the Second Amendment. It is now settled law. That part of Heller will not be overturned. Get used to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:16:11 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to the landmark decision D.C. v. Heller the basis of the Second Amendment is self-defense. That case decided that the government is not permitted to prohibit Americans from possessing the weapon chosen by most Americans for self-defense. Since most Americans do not choose nuclear weapons for self-defense, the government can prohibit Americans from possessing those weapons without violating the Constitution. A ruling which makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:33:30 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A ruling which makes no sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
According to the landmark decision D.C. v. Heller the basis of the Second Amendment is self-defense. That case decided that the government is not permitted to prohibit Americans from possessing the weapon chosen by most Americans for self-defense. Since most Americans do not choose nuclear weapons for self-defense, the government can prohibit Americans from possessing those weapons without violating the Constitution. A ruling which makes no sense. The ruling that self-defense is the " ... central component of the right ..." is based on the bare assertion that, " ... most (Americans) undoubtedly thought it was more important for self-defense and hunting." It might be a coincidence that changing the basis of the right to self-defense solves the difficult problem of upholding the regulation of civilian possession of weapons used by the military without continuing to rely on the discredited Miller case.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:07:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, no. They did not privately own Line of Battle ships. They did own armed merchant ships that would be considered "below the rates." Brigs, schooners, armed with a dozen 6 lb guns. Maybe something as large as a 6th rate (28 x 12 lb gun frigate or the like), but still of merchant ship construction - lighter scantlings, thinner hull. An actual warship would pound them to matchsticks in short order. The point was for self defense against pirates, and if a privateer, for commerce raiding. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
People owned fleets of these. They could, and did, destroy whole cities. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/cannons-pirate-ship-15546413.jpg Actually, no. They did not privately own Line of Battle ships. They did own armed merchant ships that would be considered "below the rates." Brigs, schooners, armed with a dozen 6 lb guns. Maybe something as large as a 6th rate (28 x 12 lb gun frigate or the like), but still of merchant ship construction - lighter scantlings, thinner hull. An actual warship would pound them to matchsticks in short order. The point was for self defense against pirates, and if a privateer, for commerce raiding. True, but not because they were forbidden to own them. It was cost prohibitive for businessmen and citizens to own Line of Battle ships. That is why nation states owned them and not citizens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:10:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being realistic. As a retired attorney I've known what is happening for quite some time. I see you haven't absorbed the lesson which was most recently repeated last June. No rational person thinks that the men who drafted the 14th Amendment intended that it required states to recognize marriage between two men or between two women. No rational person thinks that the men who ratified the 14th Amendment intended that it required states to recognize marriage between two men or between two women. Despite those facts the Fine Nine ruled that the Amendment did require that of which those who drafted it and those who ratified it never imagined. The conclusion is inescapable: The intention of those who drafted the Constitution and the Amendments is irrelevant. The intention of those who ratified the Constitution and the Amendments is irrelevant. What is relevant is the decision of a majority of justices. The Fine Nine have ruled concerning the basis of the Second Amendment. It is now settled law. That part of Heller will not be overturned. Get used to it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A rather defeatist point of view, if you are serious, but I suspect you are being sarcastic. In actuality, the opinion of nine lawyers is not a divine decree, and they can be (and have been) wrong. Decisions like Kelo or Wickard v Filburn exist, yet they do not change the underlying truth of their respective issues. The same is true of Heller, despite the decision going "our way." I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being realistic. As a retired attorney I've known what is happening for quite some time. I see you haven't absorbed the lesson which was most recently repeated last June. No rational person thinks that the men who drafted the 14th Amendment intended that it required states to recognize marriage between two men or between two women. No rational person thinks that the men who ratified the 14th Amendment intended that it required states to recognize marriage between two men or between two women. Despite those facts the Fine Nine ruled that the Amendment did require that of which those who drafted it and those who ratified it never imagined. The conclusion is inescapable: The intention of those who drafted the Constitution and the Amendments is irrelevant. The intention of those who ratified the Constitution and the Amendments is irrelevant. What is relevant is the decision of a majority of justices. The Fine Nine have ruled concerning the basis of the Second Amendment. It is now settled law. That part of Heller will not be overturned. Get used to it. Oh, I understand. They're still wrong, but I understand. We are living under a judicial oligarchy which can redefine the 2A to protect only self-defense related arms, just like they have redefined the commerce clause into its current grotesque caricature, and are now busily redefining the 14th amendment to justify even greater government control over people's lives. I get that part, but I refuse to accept that they have the power to change actual right and wrong. The truth of the 2A's purpose is immutable, notwithstanding anything nine guys in robes say or write. Hell, it could even be duly and lawfully amended away by the states, yet that truth would remain just as vibrantly true as it was in 1789, that the people must be on equal footing with government force to stem its decent into tyranny. The court, or indeed any portion of the government, is powerless to change that truth - even their attempts to suppress it make it all the more obvious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:21:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I refuse to accept that they have the power to change actual right and wrong. You can refuse to accept anything in your mind if that makes some difference to you. Don't act on your inner thoughts if you want to avoid incarceration. Acting on your mental refusal to accept their reality makes a difference to the government. The interesting question is how long it will take before you're prohibited from expressing your inner refusal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:28:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: We hear it all the time from lefties..."If the Second Amendment give you the right to keep and bear arms, then does that include nukes?" So, for the purposes of discussion among ourselves, where, if anywhere, is the line for the Second Amendment to protect your right to bear arms? I would obviously say that there shouldn't be any restriction on rifles, pistols, shotguns or machine guns. I would probably even go so far as to add mortars, cannons and even artillery to the list (if you've got the money, then have at it). I am not so sure about explosives. I don't know if the average moron should have hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, missiles, or anti-aircraft weapons. I would definitely leave WMDs, such as NBC weapons and ICBMs right off. Maybe I'm a bit of a closet anti after all, but I think that weapons of apocalyptic proportions have no place on our streets or in our schools! My response "you do realize that amendment was written at a time when our whole navy was privately owned... So, I want an aircraft carrier... With nukes onboard" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:30:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can refuse to accept anything in your mind if that makes some difference to you. Don't act on your inner thoughts if you want to avoid incarceration. Acting on your mental refusal to accept their reality makes a difference to the government. The interesting question is how long it will take before you're prohibited from expressing your inner refusal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I refuse to accept that they have the power to change actual right and wrong. You can refuse to accept anything in your mind if that makes some difference to you. Don't act on your inner thoughts if you want to avoid incarceration. Acting on your mental refusal to accept their reality makes a difference to the government. The interesting question is how long it will take before you're prohibited from expressing your inner refusal. Acting on those thoughts also includes advocating a constitutional convention to revoke the Commerce Clause and to make it possible to overturn bad decisions by the judicial branch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:41:12 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Acting on those thoughts also includes advocating a constitutional convention to revoke the Commerce Clause and to make it possible to overturn bad decisions by the judicial branch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I refuse to accept that they have the power to change actual right and wrong. You can refuse to accept anything in your mind if that makes some difference to you. Don't act on your inner thoughts if you want to avoid incarceration. Acting on your mental refusal to accept their reality makes a difference to the government. The interesting question is how long it will take before you're prohibited from expressing your inner refusal. Acting on those thoughts also includes advocating a constitutional convention to revoke the Commerce Clause and to make it possible to overturn bad decisions by the judicial branch. Adding new amendments is simply providing grist for the mill. Any amendment must be composed of words. "When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty Chief Justice Roberts* said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." *with apologies to "Mr. Carroll". It's difficult to understand how people can watch the court twist an amendment until it is no longer recognizable and can still think adding an amendment or three will solve the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:18:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can refuse to accept anything in your mind if that makes some difference to you. Don't act on your inner thoughts if you want to avoid incarceration. Acting on your mental refusal to accept their reality makes a difference to the government. The interesting question is how long it will take before you're prohibited from expressing your inner refusal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I refuse to accept that they have the power to change actual right and wrong. You can refuse to accept anything in your mind if that makes some difference to you. Don't act on your inner thoughts if you want to avoid incarceration. Acting on your mental refusal to accept their reality makes a difference to the government. The interesting question is how long it will take before you're prohibited from expressing your inner refusal. It makes all the difference. Keeping a clear foundation is fundamental to resisting the efforts of others to contort the ideas we were founded on for their own benefit. "A" is "A" and nothing else. And there are plenty of completely legal ways to act on my refusal to pretend that tyrannical government actions are legitimate, including political advocacy and having conversations like this one to influence the opinions of others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:22:07 PM EDT
[#42]
The 2nd Amendment was about the perpetual allowance of force parity between the government and the people.
Any restriction whatsoever is a de facto contraindication of the founders' intent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:23:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Founding fathers said arms comparable to taht of the military. Nukes aren't arms. Tanks aren't arms. Big difference not like Libs would understand them anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:28:52 PM EDT
[#44]
How else are we going to fight the Super Mutants?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:33:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 2nd Amendment was about the perpetual allowance of force parity between the government and the people. Any restriction whatsoever is a de facto contraindication of the founders' intent. The founders never would have envisioned weapons which could destroy an entire city or bioweapons which could potentially destroy civilization as we know it. For the sake of simple sanity people can't be allowed to own WMD's. The other issue is with weapons platforms "IE an F15". Some rich nutcase could have a bad day and decide fly around shooting down airliners to blow off some steam. Personally I consider the risks vs benefits of private firearm ownership acceptable. Some nut might shoot up the occasional church/school/theater and kill a few dozen people, but the overall benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks. When you get to the point of weapons platforms/machines of war some nut could kill thousands of people and what are the benefits? Aside from going on a one man war against your govt there's no point in owning a fully armed tank or fighter jet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:42:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The founders never would have envisioned weapons which could destroy an entire city or bioweapons which could potentially destroy civilization as we know it. For the sake of simple sanity people can't be allowed to own WMD's. The other issue is with weapons platforms "IE an F15". Some rich nutcase could have a bad day and decide fly around shooting down airliners to blow off some steam. Personally I consider the risks vs benefits of private firearm ownership acceptable. Some nut might shoot up the occasional church/school/theater and kill a few dozen people, but the overall benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks. When you get to the point of weapons platforms/machines of war some nut could kill thousands of people and what are the benefits? Aside from going on a one man war against your govt there's no point in owning a fully armed tank or fighter jet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The 2nd Amendment was about the perpetual allowance of force parity between the government and the people. Any restriction whatsoever is a de facto contraindication of the founders' intent. The founders never would have envisioned weapons which could destroy an entire city or bioweapons which could potentially destroy civilization as we know it. For the sake of simple sanity people can't be allowed to own WMD's. The other issue is with weapons platforms "IE an F15". Some rich nutcase could have a bad day and decide fly around shooting down airliners to blow off some steam. Personally I consider the risks vs benefits of private firearm ownership acceptable. Some nut might shoot up the occasional church/school/theater and kill a few dozen people, but the overall benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks. When you get to the point of weapons platforms/machines of war some nut could kill thousands of people and what are the benefits? Aside from going on a one man war against your govt there's no point in owning a fully armed tank or fighter jet. Laws against ownership of WMDs make about as much sense as laws against time travel or galactic conquest. People capable of obtaining a nuclear weapon aren't going to be constrained one iota by illegality.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:55:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The founders never would have envisioned weapons which could destroy an entire city or bioweapons which could potentially destroy civilization as we know it. For the sake of simple sanity people can't be allowed to own WMD's. The other issue is with weapons platforms "IE an F15". Some rich nutcase could have a bad day and decide fly around shooting down airliners to blow off some steam. Personally I consider the risks vs benefits of private firearm ownership acceptable. Some nut might shoot up the occasional church/school/theater and kill a few dozen people, but the overall benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks. When you get to the point of weapons platforms/machines of war some nut could kill thousands of people and what are the benefits? Aside from going on a one man war against your govt there's no point in owning a fully armed tank or fighter jet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The 2nd Amendment was about the perpetual allowance of force parity between the government and the people. Any restriction whatsoever is a de facto contraindication of the founders' intent. The founders never would have envisioned weapons which could destroy an entire city or bioweapons which could potentially destroy civilization as we know it. For the sake of simple sanity people can't be allowed to own WMD's. The other issue is with weapons platforms "IE an F15". Some rich nutcase could have a bad day and decide fly around shooting down airliners to blow off some steam. Personally I consider the risks vs benefits of private firearm ownership acceptable. Some nut might shoot up the occasional church/school/theater and kill a few dozen people, but the overall benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks. When you get to the point of weapons platforms/machines of war some nut could kill thousands of people and what are the benefits? Aside from going on a one man war against your govt there's no point in owning a fully armed tank or fighter jet. Applying a risk-benefit analysis to rights is anathema to liberty. Someone will always decide that "if it saves one life, it's worth restricting." The rest of your post is nothing but hoplophobic talking points. Why would a guy using his personally owned F-15 to shoot down airliners be any worse than a guy using his personally owned fertilizer to blow up buildings? Both would be terrible events, but you can't stop all terrible events with bans - ultimately, if somebody is crazy enough or angry enough to kill a bunch of innocents, he's going to do it, and his method won't matter a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 3:00:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anything that an individual can carry into battle. Everything you pretty much listed if you think about it is small arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We the people should have access to all small arms used by the mil. So what exactly is a "small arm"? Rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns I get. RPGs? MANPADS? Anti-tank missiles? Hand grenades? Land mines? Anything that an individual can carry into battle. Everything you pretty much listed if you think about it is small arms. there is no provision in the 2cd limiting us to the possession of "small arms". The term is " Arms"; and as stated, privately held cannon and ships of war were in play at the time of it's writing. The Redcoats at Lexington and Concord were after the Cannon. "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) ETA:Dammit! beat no less than three times with the tench coxe quote! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 3:04:17 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is no provision in the 2cd limiting us to the possession of "small arms". The term is " Arms"; and as stated, privately held cannon and ships of war were in play at the time of it's writing. The Redcoats at Lexington and Concord were after the Cannon. "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) It's about force, not about muskets, or cannon, or thermonuclear warheads, or gravitational disruptor arrays. The people have the God-given right, protected by the 2nd Amendment, to wield whatever level or type of force that government might employ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 3:07:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't say it was the gun's fault. But, if he could have gotten a nuke or a Stinger missile instead of a pistol, then do you think he wouldn't have? I wouldn't blame the nuke, but if Ft. Hood was a smoldering ruin would we be wondering if we should have at least had background checks for nuclear weapons? Look at 9/11. Shooting up malls was too small for them. They hijacked airliners after taking flying lessons for a year. Do you think they would have spent the money for a nuke? No, I am sorry. Call me an anti if you must, but I would be against people owning nuclear weapons completely, and I would support requiring background checks and safe storage laws for people wanting to own anti-aircraft weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK. so Hassan The Terrorist takes the class, plunks down the cash and get's an anti-aircraft missile? "Here is my certificate, give me my missile you American pig-dog!" How many Hassan the Terrorists are buying AKs and killing houndreds of people in malls in America? Or gasoline and fill in the blanks. If you want to kill houndred or even thousands of people, you could do it with what you can find in a Lowes. Well, at least one at Ft. Hood (who was actually Maj. Hassan The Terrorist). The FBI knew what he was. They just set on their hands. That wasnt the guns fault. It was Hasans fault, along with some dipshits in the FBI. I didn't say it was the gun's fault. But, if he could have gotten a nuke or a Stinger missile instead of a pistol, then do you think he wouldn't have? I wouldn't blame the nuke, but if Ft. Hood was a smoldering ruin would we be wondering if we should have at least had background checks for nuclear weapons? Look at 9/11. Shooting up malls was too small for them. They hijacked airliners after taking flying lessons for a year. Do you think they would have spent the money for a nuke? No, I am sorry. Call me an anti if you must, but I would be against people owning nuclear weapons completely, and I would support requiring background checks and safe storage laws for people wanting to own anti-aircraft weapons. Lets say i am an ultra rich billionaire and I want to explore space.... I hire a bunch of scientists, engineers, shipwrights, etc and they make me a large space ship... they even figure out FTL I am going around the universe....do you think I should be able to arm my ship with nukes (or weapons based on the FTL technology that are stronger than nukes)? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
