User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 6:59:56 AM EDT
[#1]
The RKBA lies right where my God given Sovereignty lies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:00:47 AM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:02:35 AM EDT
[#3]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:02:53 AM EDT
[#4]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:03:32 AM EDT
[#5]
In fact, we have set such limits. They can be found in the various gun control laws on the books throughout the nation. Those are in fact the limits. Now, at what point to the exceed constitutionality, is the subject of much debate. Her comment about muskets is however rediculous as we don't even classify those as firearms anymore. Now, perhaps we should state that her first ammendment rights end when she is out of direct unaided earshot or can't get her printed on paper writings to folks to read. After all, there were no Radio, television, or internet communications protected by the first ammendment either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:04:52 AM EDT
[#6]
So if Achmed bin Remallah, Texas native and practicing Muslim, wants to own a nuke, your ok with that? really? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:05:57 AM EDT
[#7]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:06:04 AM EDT
[#8]
To me, it ends with anti-armor, crew served, and indirect fire weapons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:08:04 AM EDT
[#9]
Frankly, I struggle with this question. The biggest reason for my struggle is all the idiots at the local ranges. Not to mention the dumb-ass hunters who shoot at anything that moves even if they can not identify (hell, sometimes they don’t even see anything, they shoot the moving bush!). Or my favorite, the cops at the gun store who sweep you with the muzzle of the pistol they are inspecting and then become belligerent when you ask them to not point a weapon at you. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.
If bubba at the range wants to force a .308 into his .243 and pull the trigger, that’s his business (as long as I’m not sitting next to him). But, when bubba is driving around town with a nuke in his truck, well his dumb-ass mistake is going to mess up life for a LOT of people. Let me ponder this question more and get back to ya. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:08:59 AM EDT
[#10]
Morons and folks breaking the law are no excuse to restrict my Rights and Freedom.
Deal with the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:09:35 AM EDT
[#11]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:11:48 AM EDT
[#12]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:13:02 AM EDT
[#13]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:14:55 AM EDT
[#14]
An anti-armor weapon isn't useful for personal defense? Could come in handy when you're being "not assaulted". |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:21:16 AM EDT
[#16]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:33:38 AM EDT
[#17]
Every single person walking the street should be able to own whatever they want to own.
Even ex-cons. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon (i.e. someone who has murdered or maliciously attacked another) then they should remain incarcerated or be executed. All others, grab a weapon. Its your god given right. And your responsibility. This is my own personal opinion and is not intended to reflect AR15.com's views. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:36:02 AM EDT
[#18]
Militia weapons - i.e. basic infantry weapons. Small arms.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:39:06 AM EDT
[#19]
Good answer. I'd have to agree with you on that.  To include everything available to the contemporary Infantryman. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:39:47 AM EDT
[#20]
small arms.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:41:25 AM EDT
[#21]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:54:40 AM EDT
[#22]
i agree also |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 7:59:14 AM EDT
[#23]
Any problem with unarmed tanks? Always did want to get my hands on a armored scout vehicle...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:05:30 AM EDT
[#24]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:05:48 AM EDT
[#25]
Anyone remember privateers and letters of marque. Civilians owning ships of war and cannons, etc. When did this change? Better question, why should it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:10:24 AM EDT
[#26]
Of course, shotguns were used much in WWI, it's just that there was no defense attorney present... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:10:37 AM EDT
[#27]
I like the Guncite definition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:14:20 AM EDT
[#28]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:26:00 AM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:31:47 AM EDT
[#30]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:38:55 AM EDT
[#31]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:41:35 AM EDT
[#32]
+1 This is why I consider myself a moderate Libertarian. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:47:49 AM EDT
[#33]
I'm fine with any individually targetted hand-carryable weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:51:27 AM EDT
[#34]
Really? Sawed off shotguns were used in WWI? Google WWI shotguns, none of what you will get are sawed off shotguns. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 8:52:46 AM EDT
[#35]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:01:01 AM EDT
[#36]
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.
      
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:10:05 AM EDT
[#37]
Where does the rkba end? At the farthest reaches of man's engineering abilities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:13:49 AM EDT
[#38]
I would agree with that as well |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:13:53 AM EDT
[#39]
In the grave. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:15:06 AM EDT
[#40]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:21:30 AM EDT
[#41]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:47:05 AM EDT
[#42]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:50:01 AM EDT
[#43]
I have read several soldiers accounts of WW1 where sawed off shotguns were used. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:55:13 AM EDT
[#44]
so are you saying civilians should be able to own these things? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:05:05 AM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:07:37 AM EDT
[#46]
I like that...seems to stop at crew-served weapons. Anything larger would have to be "owned" by the militia itself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:08:12 AM EDT
[#47]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:39:49 AM EDT
[#48]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:47:32 AM EDT
[#49]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:49:55 AM EDT
[#50]
Pretty much defined by whom? |
|||
|
|
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.
