User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 9:17:34 AM EDT
[#1]
Any arms a person might bring to fight a modern military including aircraft and naval vessels. Many privately owned ships were in service with the colonial army. Planerench out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 9:20:22 AM EDT
[#2]
I always intrepereted it as to protect individual weapons, IE what you could carry on your person, so I suppose anything man portable. I suppose the upper limit being something that is border line transportable, like a M-2hb and tripod.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 9:20:51 AM EDT
[#3]
It says "bear arms" that means everything that "arms" me in my book. Nothing should be excluded, ESPECIALLY the stuff the military/government has.
JMHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 9:42:51 AM EDT
[#4]
[url]https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=2314[/url]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:05:55 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: [url]https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=2314[/url] Vin rules. Send in the Waco Killers was a great read. Scary as hell too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:13:35 AM EDT
[#6]
I voted for 'all of the above', but we must be honest and admit that 'crew-served weapons' could include a whole range of weapons that we should be uncomfortable having in the hands of some folks!
I mean a Boeing 757 laden with aviation fuel on Sept 11th fit the bill as a crew-served weapon! From the founding of our nation through at least the 1930s, cannon and artillery pieces could be acquired by private individuals, IIRC. I can't remember a single instance in which such crew-served weapons were ever used in a criminal enterprise. We don't need howitzers to fend off the JBTs! But they would come in handy! Eric The(ButHowFarDoWeTakeThis?)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:15:02 AM EDT
[#7]
-Support the current ban on assault weapons.
-Prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons. -Ban imports of high-capacity ammunition clips. -Raise the minimum age for possessing a handgun from 18 to 21. -Require that trigger locks be sold with handguns. -Background checks at gun shows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:20:04 AM EDT
[#8]
What part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
If a person can not be trusted in polite society then they should be in jail or dead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:29:42 AM EDT
[#9]
Good post. One of the things that irks me is the de facto obsolesence of the 2nd amendment over time. Advanced weapons technology is restricted to government agents and will never find its way into civilian hands. After 3 or 4 generations, even a Browning 1919 will be like a Krag to us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:30:00 AM EDT
[#10]
If ya want to haul BLU82 around in the back of your truck, it'd be legal in my book.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:34:21 AM EDT
[#11]
dpeacher......read my sig
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:44:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Why are you even asking this question?
Have you not read the second amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:48:28 AM EDT
[#13]
Yes, I'd agree to a point!
But should Mohammad Atta have been able to haul around a suitcase nuclear weapon at will? What if he obtained his US citizenship (which ain't really that hard to do!)? Let him have a daisy cutter so that our streets can look like Jerusalem's? Remember, when suitcase nuclear weapons are outlawed, only the Government and Al Qaeda will have suitcase nuclear weapons! [:D] Eric The(SlowDownNow!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:58:30 AM EDT
[#14]
Any and All
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 11:03:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Do I want to mount .50's on the roof of my house?
Maybe not, but I feel the truth behind the second amendment is to arm the populace against a tyrannical government. Heavy weapons should not be illegal to posess. The SECOND Amendment was SECOND after all! I think it was pretty DAMN important to the founders... it is to me also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 11:09:57 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Have you not read the second amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?? This is exactly how I feel. I try to play nice, I really do, but the myriad of restrictions placed on honest folks by pinhead legislators who wouldn't know a good law if it was shoved up their ass is a contant source of frustration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 11:12:31 AM EDT
[#17]
ETH, you are kidding right? Gun-laws don't make criminals follow them? you KNOW this. Gun-laws are only for law-abiding cits, not crooks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 11:33:51 AM EDT
[#18]
A criminal can get all of these illegally and with less paperwork.
I voted for even crew served weapons out of respect for citizenship. We (and our Rights) are sovereign, (i.e. supreme,) in this land. For those who would claim that a 747 full of fuel should not be allowed I guess we should take John Travolta's toy 707 away. This points up the specious reasoning of what is a weapon. In reality many weapons would not be available to the general public because of government contract restrictions that would forbid their sale without permission. That might include grenades. Besides "molotov cocktails" are pretty decent substitutes. Full auto weapons are not even the standard in the military now so that restriction would be kind of a moot point. And we either need to repeal the XXVI Amendment or allow full citizenship to 18 year olds. There is no place in this country for discrimination of citizens on the basis of age (alcohol and gun laws, fer instance). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 12:57:45 PM EDT
[#19]
I am researching this topic and hope to get a paper done this week on the 2nd Amendment and the war of 1812. It seems that private citizens outfitted armed warships to sail into harms way and made the British come to terms. The European powers imposed the treaty of 1856 and outlawed privateers. Not sure the US was a party to that document. The log of the Brig Yankee out of Bristol RI is something Joyce Lee Malcolm, the historian who wrote nice things about the 2nd amendment should read. If I get it published I will post it here too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 1:07:34 PM EDT
[#20]
If the founding fathers meant the 2nd Amend. to include cannon, well, that answers some of our questions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 1:15:29 PM EDT
[#21]
Post from ARSTAF -
Not sure the US was a party to that document. We weren't! At the time, the United States was not a very strong naval power - we needed some privateers! We didn't sign on to the outlawing of privateers until sometime in the early 20th Century, IIRC. Eric The(LettersOfMarqueAreNice!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 1:20:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Post from hound -
ETH, you are kidding right? Gun-laws don't make criminals follow them? you KNOW this. Gun-laws are only for law-abiding cits, not crooks. So there should be ABSOLUTELY no gun laws whatsoever? If I want to take a licensed, legal full-auto UZI into a bar, courtroom, day care center, [u]wherever[/u] I wish, you are powerless to stop me? Hmmm. I don't think we're going to get a lot of converts if that is going to be our sermon for today! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 3:06:29 PM EDT
[#23]
I voted for law rockets on up.If you look at the laws from before and during the revolution,milita men were required to keep on hand musket,so many pounds of shot,and so much powder.There were crew served weapons at the time (artilery and morters)but every male over 18 was not required by law to have one.And as far as private warships,I think that is covered by letters of marquis,special permission from congress.As for nukes,an aurgument can be made that why should the fed govt have anything denied to the people.Or at least from the states.got to go call my state rep to see about west by god virginia getting our own nuke program [:D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 3:10:02 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Good post. One of the things that irks me is the de facto obsolesence of the 2nd amendment over time. Advanced weapons technology is restricted to government agents and will never find its way into civilian hands. After 3 or 4 generations, even a Browning 1919 will be like a Krag to us. I was thinking about this after I started this thread. Then I realized something I never thought about before. The Second Amendment protects our right to bear ARMS, it doesn't specifically say firearms just arms. Before I would of drawn the line at LAW type rockets, but in light of what Raven points out here I think I've changed my point of view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 3:12:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Well, which ones would a well regulated militia use to defend our communities and our nation? This should be a no-brainer, btu too many years of "compromise" has us thinking wrong.....
Scott |
|
|
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.
