Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/13/2004 5:58:52 AM EST
The post about the woman writing to the newspaper claiming that it only applies to muskets made me wonder what the limits should be, if any.

We are always going to have people who flip out and do crazy stuff. As technology advances they will be able to do more and more damage before other citizens (or the police) are able to stop them. Is this the price we have to pay for freedom?

Most people would agree that nukes shouldn't be in the hands of ordinary citizens, but other than that are there any limits? High Explosives? Explosive Ammunition? AP ammo? Incendiary weapons?

Whats your opinion?

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:59:56 AM EST
The RKBA lies right where my God given Sovereignty lies.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:00:47 AM EST
It ends with the latest technology.
If you're a lawful citizen, you can carry a themonuclear warhead in the back of your truck as far as I'm concerned.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:02:35 AM EST
My opinion about RKBA:

I have the right to keep and bear any arm with which I can protect myself, my loved ones, my property, and in concert with others with similar arms, defend our state and nation.

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:02:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 6:03:23 AM EST by Dino]

Originally Posted By alloy6061:
The RKBA lies right where my God given Sovereignty lies.



except in the case of buyingan MG made after the ban, or one not registered at the time.

except in the case of trying to build a nuke in your basement

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:03:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:04:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By NattyGuard:
It ends with the latest technology.
If you're a lawful citizen, you can carry a themonuclear warhead in the back of your truck as far as I'm concerned.



So if Achmed bin Remallah, Texas native and practicing Muslim, wants to own a nuke, your ok with that?

really?

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:05:57 AM EST
Present restrictions are a little too tight IMO.

I believe any US citizen who can pass the federal background check should be able to own a belt-fed automatic weapon of whatever size he or she can afford.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:06:04 AM EST
To me, it ends with anti-armor, crew served, and indirect fire weapons.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:08:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:08:59 AM EST
Morons and folks breaking the law are no excuse to restrict my Rights and Freedom.


Deal with the problem.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:09:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By NattyGuard:
It ends with the latest technology.
If you're a lawful citizen, you can carry a themonuclear warhead in the back of your truck as far as I'm concerned.



So if Achmed bin Remallah, Texas native and practicing Muslim, wants to own a nuke, your ok with that?

really?




Arms are pretty much defined as man portable weapons that can be used for personal defense. A nuke ain't too practical for personal defense, so it wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed. Neither is a mortar, an artillery piece, or an RPG a personal defense weapon.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:11:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By NattyGuard:
It ends with the latest technology.
If you're a lawful citizen, you can carry a themonuclear warhead in the back of your truck as far as I'm concerned.



So if Achmed bin Remallah, Texas native and practicing Muslim, wants to own a nuke, your ok with that?

really?




Achmed? He's OK - it's his brother Benwir you've got to keep an eye on.

You really only enjoy the rights you practice - I'm not to worried about Uncle Sugar keeping me (and you) from owning a nuke or chem/bio stuff.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:13:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 6:17:43 AM EST by PBIR]
I believe any US citizen should be able to own any firearm he/she chooses. I further believe that is exactly what the framers of our Constitution intended when the Amendment was penned. Anything actually destructive beyond firearms (eg claymores, at4's, 80mm mortars etc.) should only be legal for those that have a legitimate legal need.

r/s

Dan
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:14:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By NattyGuard:
It ends with the latest technology.
If you're a lawful citizen, you can carry a themonuclear warhead in the back of your truck as far as I'm concerned.



So if Achmed bin Remallah, Texas native and practicing Muslim, wants to own a nuke, your ok with that?

really?




Arms are pretty much defined as man portable weapons that can be used for personal defense. A nuke ain't too practical for personal defense, so it wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed. Neither is a mortar, an artillery piece, or an RPG a personal defense weapon.



An anti-armor weapon isn't useful for personal defense? Could come in handy when you're being "not assaulted".
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:14:57 AM EST
Arms are arms. From .17 Hornet to Howitzer 105mm. If I can afford to own my own Dreadnaught class Orbital Battlestation, then so be it.

There really isn't all that much, beyond obtaining the fissionable material, to stop ANYONE from making their own nukes right now. Your average terrorist would be much more likely to buy one, like they are trying to do now even with the laws, than to try and make one.

Are YOU, as an Islamic extremist, really gonna wanna screw with a country where your Bill Gates and Oprah Winfreys may have their own ICBM's?

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:21:16 AM EST


It ends with the latest technology.
If you're a lawful citizen, you can carry a themonuclear warhead in the back of your truck as far as I'm concerned.



For debate...
What if such person, however lawabiding, is not intelligent enough/good enough memory, or what not and falls behind of the upkeep of such a (presumably) complicated device, and the warhead gets all rusty in the truck, and detonates in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. Being themonuclear and all.. say the yield is 1 megaton.. so.. everything in 5 miles of said Wal-Mart is pudding.

Said warhead owner may have good given right have such device, but should others suffer because of his God given incompetence? hat
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:33:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:36:02 AM EST
Militia weapons - i.e. basic infantry weapons. Small arms.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:39:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 6:39:54 AM EST by 82ndAbn]
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:39:47 AM EST
small arms.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:41:25 AM EST

from : Gun Cite

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.


I tend to agree.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:54:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By ANGST:
from : Gun Cite

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.


I tend to agree.



i agree also
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:59:14 AM EST
Any problem with unarmed tanks? Always did want to get my hands on a armored scout vehicle...
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:05:30 AM EST
Ships of war, cannons, mortars, were privately owned at the time......the court case that last discussed this said military arms in use. The court found against a man for a sawed-off shotgun, because it was not military issue.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:05:48 AM EST
Anyone remember privateers and letters of marque. Civilians owning ships of war and cannons, etc. When did this change? Better question, why should it?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:10:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By hound:
Ships of war, cannons, mortars, were privately owned at the time......the court case that last discussed this said military arms in use. The court found against a man for a sawed-off shotgun, because it was not military issue.



Of course, shotguns were used much in WWI, it's just that there was no defense attorney present...
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:10:37 AM EST
I like the Guncite definition.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:14:20 AM EST
It should be remembered that some of the Colonial Militias had organic Cavalry and Artillery Units. The concept of the citizen soldier was to be able to compete evenly with current level government controlled army units. And aviation is just an extension of the ground forces, as well, and should be allowed. At a bare minimum I'd say anything used by a squad - to include grenades, belt fed, mortar and light anti-tank stuff - should be included in allowed civilian equipment.

Our current federal law stops you at .50 caliber, rightly or wrongly. A militia so limited would unfairly have trouble dealing with a tyrannical governments's military today, it would seem to me.

The current equivelant to the Revolutionary War musket is the M16 or AK - and everyone should have one or more.

Good point on former convicts. I heartily agree that if you are too dangerous to walk around loose in public - YOU DON'T - period. Incarcerated or executed. If you are a free man, you must be truely free.

Warmly, Col. Colt
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:26:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:31:47 AM EST
I personally believe any small arm up to 20mm with a NICS check, artillery and small arms up to 90mm with a license received, FREE, if you pass the same sort of background check as for an NFA firearm (and which the issuing agency must complete within thirty days). High explosives in small quantities like grenades unregulated, larger quantities and rocket-propelled with the same or similar free license as for >20mm small arms. Nukes... no.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:38:55 AM EST
Where does it end?

For me it does not even really begin to empower me, God gave me the right and the wisdom to know how and with what force to protect myself and my family.

The state does nothing for me that I do not already pay for in taxes.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:41:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Infantry Weapons would include:

Pistols
Semi-automatic pistol
Rifles
Semi-automatic rifles
Automatic rifles
Shotguns
Semi-automatic shotguns
Sub machine guns
Machine guns
Heavy machine guns
Hand Grenades
Hand grenade launchers
Automatic hand grenade launchers
Recoilless rifles
Rocket propelled grenades
Rocket launchers
Light anti-tank missles
Medium ant-tank missles and launchers
Land mines
Flame throwers
Every variety of munitions to accompany each weapon system

That's what a militia can handle and every man is a member of the militia.




+1

This is why I consider myself a moderate Libertarian.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:47:49 AM EST
I'm fine with any individually targetted hand-carryable weapon.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:51:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By hound:
Ships of war, cannons, mortars, were privately owned at the time......the court case that last discussed this said military arms in use. The court found against a man for a sawed-off shotgun, because it was not military issue.



Of course, shotguns were used much in WWI, it's just that there was no defense attorney present...



Really? Sawed off shotguns were used in WWI? Google WWI shotguns, none of what you will get are sawed off shotguns.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:52:46 AM EST
It seems reasonable to me that it would include any system that a single soldier could man, and that which could be used safely.

A single soldier is not in complete control of a nuke, so a nuke would be out.


ktm500
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:01:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 8:06:05 AM EST by LonesomeHawk]
I think that we the people have the right to arm ourselves with anything, and every that the U.S. army has. In that way only, can the citizens mantain a balance of power with the government.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:10:05 AM EST
Where does the rkba end? At the farthest reaches of man's engineering abilities.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:13:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By ANGST:
from : Gun Cite

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.


I tend to agree.



I would agree with that as well

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:13:53 AM EST

Where does RKBA end?


In the grave.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:15:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By NattyGuard:
It ends with the latest technology.
If you're a lawful citizen, you can carry a themonuclear warhead in the back of your truck as far as I'm concerned.




I disagree: we have the right to keep and bear arms, not ordnance.

Which is also a great rebuttal to an anti who says we should dismiss the whole RKBA/2nd ammendment in todays world of nuclear weapons, big bombs, etc.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:21:30 AM EST
It's a good question and reasonable people can disagree.
For me, it comes down to the basic and traditional, philosophical concept behind the RKBA. Our Founding Fathers did not invent the idea. It can be traced throughout the history of Western Civilization. The Founders of our country borrowed an existing concept that can be traced back to Athens and Ancient Rome. This concept is that the Freeman is defined by his God given right to defend his own life and the lives of his family. The slave does NOT have this right. The slave is dependant upon the discretion of his Master for his defense (or lack thereof).
This right to self defense has always been a double sided right and duty. The duty part is that it is the duty of the Freeman to render to his country (or sovereign) a willingness to join arms in the common defense of the realm. If Caesar requires the Freeman's assistance, the Freeman must render it.
So, the individual right to self defense can be said to end where the needs of the individual for self defense end. Does one have the right to engage a multiple threat? I would say, "yes."
Does one have the right to threaten the innocent in the course of protecting the self? I would say, "no."
This idea would seem to place some limits upon the force which the individual may wield while at the same time being fairly liberal in basic interpretation.
For me, I would say that individuals should be able to arm themselves with all (non-explosive) small arms. I am comfortable with the idea that there should be extra security checks to partially restrict fully automatic weapons and I am against the possession of arms by felons who are convicted of the kinds of offenses which would indicate a high potential for recidivism (pedophiles and other serious offenders).
I've been in this forum long enough to know that many members will disagree with my views. Some will agree.

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:47:05 AM EST
I like Pat Bucannan's answer. (paraphrasing) "If you don't have to hitch it to a truck to move it" the 2nd Amendment applies.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:50:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By hound:
Ships of war, cannons, mortars, were privately owned at the time......the court case that last discussed this said military arms in use. The court found against a man for a sawed-off shotgun, because it was not military issue.



Of course, shotguns were used much in WWI, it's just that there was no defense attorney present...



Really? Sawed off shotguns were used in WWI? Google WWI shotguns, none of what you will get are sawed off shotguns.



I have read several soldiers accounts of WW1 where sawed off shotguns were used.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:55:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Hand Grenades
Hand grenade launchers
Automatic hand grenade launchers
Rocket propelled grenades
Rocket launchers
Light anti-tank missles
Medium ant-tank missles and launchers
Land mines


so are you saying civilians should be able to own these things?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:05:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By fizassist:
Really? Sawed off shotguns were used in WWI? Google WWI shotguns, none of what you will get are sawed off shotguns.



Ever here of an M97? Google it.

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:07:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By WackyG:
I like Pat Bucannan's answer. (paraphrasing) "If you don't have to hitch it to a truck to move it" the 2nd Amendment applies.




I like that...seems to stop at crew-served weapons. Anything larger would have to be "owned" by the militia itself.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:08:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
Hand Grenades
Hand grenade launchers
Automatic hand grenade launchers
Rocket propelled grenades
Rocket launchers
Light anti-tank missles
Medium ant-tank missles and launchers
Land mines

so are you saying civilians should be able to own these things? hr


Why not? Are you saying your average Third World Camel jockey has more Rights t oown Arms than US citizens? I could care less what you keep in your gun safe... as long as you can do so safely. Harm my property through misuse of your own and you'll find out what kind of arsenal your neighbor has.

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:39:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By hound:
Ships of war, cannons, mortars, were privately owned at the time......the court case that last discussed this said military arms in use. The court found against a man for a sawed-off shotgun, because it was not military issue.



Of course, shotguns were used much in WWI, it's just that there was no defense attorney present...



Really? Sawed off shotguns were used in WWI? Google WWI shotguns, none of what you will get are sawed off shotguns.



No, that's not what I said. I said "shotguns were used much in WWI". Any attorney who was not blind drunk would have been able to convincingly argue the point that barrel length was irrelevant and gotten the NFA kicked out on its ear.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:47:32 AM EST
I think we need to get rid of the import ban, '86 ban, and '34 ban. The only thing I like is being able to verify that I am not selling a gun to a criminal.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:49:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By NattyGuard:
It ends with the latest technology.
If you're a lawful citizen, you can carry a themonuclear warhead in the back of your truck as far as I'm concerned.



So if Achmed bin Remallah, Texas native and practicing Muslim, wants to own a nuke, your ok with that?

really?




Arms are pretty much defined as man portable weapons that can be used for personal defense. A nuke ain't too practical for personal defense, so it wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed. Neither is a mortar, an artillery piece, or an RPG a personal defense weapon.



Pretty much defined by whom?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top