• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

At the time the 2cd Amendment was written

Casper said:
Not sure what the point is in mentioning Nukes, SAM's, or Tanks has to do with the 2nd, none are allowed as it stands now and I see no one pushing to own them? We are talking about personal firearms, not military tactical arms.
Click to expand...
i was trying to get them to understand what an "Army" looked like in those days.
 
CaughtInThe said:
i was trying to get them to understand what an "Army" looked like in those days.
Click to expand...
Ok, but most did not own cannons either so what do they look like now? Personally I don't want or need whatever weapon systems the military has, I would be fine with being able to have the same weapons the Police have.
 
Casper said:
Ok, but most did not own cannons either so what do they look like now? Personally I don't want or need whatever weapon systems the military has, I would be fine with being able to have the same weapons the Police have.
Click to expand...
i'm trying to get them to understand the mood of the country then, how we fought wars, who fought for us, how they were armed and which countries we worried about invading/re-invading us.

and how the leaders/military leaders of the new USA had to prepared for that.
 
CaughtInThe said:
i'm trying to get them to understand the mood of the country then, how we fought wars, who fought for us, how they were armed and which countries we worried about invading/re-invading us.

and how the leaders/military leaders of the new USA had to prepared for that.
Click to expand...
Ok. Now apply that today, but do not just limit yourself to scenarios of war with foreign advisories but also apply it to possible civil war or self defense both relevant to todays situation and in the past.
 
Casper said:
Ok. Now apply that today, but do not just limit yourself to scenarios of war with foreign advisories but also apply it to possible civil war or self defense both relevant to todays situation and in the past.
Click to expand...
well, that's not what the discussion was.

it started with me saying that Daniel Boone was alive when the 2nd was written and my point has always been "what else could they do? take people's guns right after a revolutionary war (with so many unknowns) and people needing their firearms for everyday like (since Kroger and Food Lion hadn't made it to much of the country)".

and that's always been my point. there was no way there were gonna take people's firearms because they were extra critical then (re-invasion, feeding one's family, etc). hell, we didn't even have a standing Army for awhile.

now, if a new country was established in 2021 and it was extremely modern, i could almost see the new government banning lots of things that couldn't be banned 100 years before a light bulb was invented.
 
CaughtInThe said:
well, that's not what the discussion was.

it started with me saying that Daniel Boone was alive when the 2nd was written and my point has always been "what else could they do? take people's guns right after a revolutionary war (with so many unknowns) and people needing their firearms for everyday like (since Kroger and Food Lion hadn't made it to much of the country)".

and that's always been my point. there was no way there were gonna take people's firearms because they were extra critical then (re-invasion, feeding one's family, etc). hell, we didn't even have a standing Army for awhile.

now, if a new country was established in 2021 and it was extremely modern, i could almost see the new government banning lots of things that couldn't be banned 100 years before a light bulb was invented.
Click to expand...
Could the government ban firearms, probably, would it get rid of firearms, nope. There simply is no valid cause to remove firearms from the Law Abiding People.
 
Casper said:
Could the government ban firearms, probably, would it get rid of firearms, nope. There simply is no valid cause to remove firearms from the Law Abiding People.
Click to expand...
oh, i 100% agree. that's why i laugh every time this argument comes up (mainly to scare people into voting a certain way).
 
General question for the class,

What would our forefather say about the 2nd amendment today now that we have armies and guns that can shoot 600 rounds a minute? (rather than one shot ever 20 seconds)
 
noonereal said:
General question for the class,

What would our forefather say about the 2nd amendment today now that we have armies and guns that can shoot 600 rounds a minute? (rather than one shot ever 20 seconds)
Click to expand...

"Cool, bro!"
 
Casper said:
Not sure what the point is in mentioning Nukes, SAM's, or Tanks has to do with the 2nd, none are allowed as it stands now and I see no one pushing to own them? We are talking about personal firearms, not military tactical arms.
Click to expand...
Actually, both SAMs and Tanks may be, and are, owned by private citizens.



Nuclear weapons can, and have, been built by private individuals. However, they all lacked the fissionable material. It is that fissionable material that is considered a controlled substance and not available to civilians. A nuclear weapon is useless without that fissionable material, but if you want to build one - you can legally.

All arms are covered under the Second Amendment, including explosives, missiles, mortars, etc. Just because the military uses a weapon does not mean civilians may not use that very same weapon as well. The Second Amendment makes no distinction between "military" and "civilian" arms. The Second Amendment protects our individual right to ALL arms.
 
Rich2018 said:
And not theft ?

So if guns were illegal, why wouldn't seizing them not be "Enforcing the law" ?
Click to expand...

There's an amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. That is the law of the land.
 
Glitch said:
Actually, both SAMs and Tanks may be, and are, owned by private citizens.



Nuclear weapons can, and have, been built by private individuals. However, they all lacked the fissionable material. It is that fissionable material that is considered a controlled substance and not available to civilians. A nuclear weapon is useless without that fissionable material, but if you want to build one - you can legally.

All arms are covered under the Second Amendment, including explosives, missiles, mortars, etc. Just because the military uses a weapon does not mean civilians may not use that very same weapon as well. The Second Amendment makes no distinction between "military" and "civilian" arms. The Second Amendment protects our individual right to ALL arms.
Click to expand...

As for tanks, you cannot have an operating main gun from what I understand, I claimed the same as you one time, but got slammed and looked into it.
A nuke without fissionable material is not a nuke it is just a bomb.
Not thinking you can own a SAM, will have to look that one up. It says Bear Arms, not thinking you can Bear a Tank or Artillery Piece, thoughprivate citizens did own them back at the founding, so who knows. Same goes for mortars.
Explosives are controlled unless you make them and the ingredients for most are also controlled, OKC made that change.
Anyway.. Welcome back, I may be one of the only Libs that wondered where ya went. Weather getting nasty up there now? Always amazes me how often you guys are having better weather than the lower 48.
 
Casper said:
As for tanks, you cannot have an operating main gun from what I understand, I claimed the same as you one time, but got slammed and looked into it.
A nuke without fissionable material is not a nuke it is just a bomb.
Not thinking you can own a SAM, will have to look that one up. It says Bear Arms, not thinking you can Bear a Tank or Artillery Piece, thoughprivate citizens did own them back at the founding, so who knows. Same goes for mortars.
Explosives are controlled unless you make them and the ingredients for most are also controlled, OKC made that change.
Anyway.. Welcome back, I may be one of the only Libs that wondered where ya went. Weather getting nasty up there now? Always amazes me how often you guys are having better weather than the lower 48.
Click to expand...


You can have flame throwers though

IDK but I imagine the ban on explosives rule out owning any kind of missile with an explosive warhead, so out go SAMs and anti-tank missiles.
 
Casper said:
As for tanks, you cannot have an operating main gun from what I understand, I claimed the same as you one time, but got slammed and looked into it.
A nuke without fissionable material is not a nuke it is just a bomb.
Not thinking you can own a SAM, will have to look that one up. It says Bear Arms, not thinking you can Bear a Tank or Artillery Piece, thoughprivate citizens did own them back at the founding, so who knows. Same goes for mortars.
Explosives are controlled unless you make them and the ingredients for most are also controlled, OKC made that change.
Anyway.. Welcome back, I may be one of the only Libs that wondered where ya went. Weather getting nasty up there now? Always amazes me how often you guys are having better weather than the lower 48.
Click to expand...
It depends on the type of FFL you have. Anyone with a Type 7, 8, 9, or 10 FFL may own fully functional fighter aircraft, tanks, missiles, canons, artillery, machine guns, explosives, etc., etc. Those with a Type 11 FFL may also import those destructive devices. If you don't own an FFL at all, you can still buy fighter aircraft, tanks, etc., but they will have the "destructive devices" removed or rendered inoperable before you can own it. All "destructive devices" are controlled by the BATFE.

The "to keep and bear arms" part of the Second Amendment can be interpreted multiple ways, including "to own" or "to possess." It does not necessarily mean that the arm in question must be portable as in "to carry."

A nuclear weapon without its fissionable material isn't really a weapon. The conventional explosives used to start the chain reaction is not sufficiently large enough to do much damage, assuming it was otherwise functional and detonated.

---------

The Winter has been warmer than normal. We haven't dropped below +10°F yet, and are currently expecting to be in the +30°Fs for the next week. We still have a few inches of snow on the ground, but it is melting fast. We've had maybe a total accumulation of 12" of snow since October, but only about 3" remain on the ground.

They predicted a huge blizzard yesterday with 90+ mph winds and more than a foot of snow. Instead, we got ~1" of rain, and winds in the 5 to 10 mph range. They couldn't have been further off the mark if they had tried.

This is only true for the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Alaska is a very big State and has a wide variety of weather patterns which can be substantially different depending on one's geographical location. It is not uncommon for Juneau to enjoy a +20°F overcast day while Fairbanks is experiencing -50°F clear and sunny day, for example.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
It depends on the type of FFL you have. Anyone with a Type 7, 8, 9, or 10 FFL may own fully functional fighter aircraft, tanks, missiles, canons, artillery, machine guns, explosives, etc., etc. Those with a Type 11 FFL may also import those destructive devices. If you don't own an FFL at all, you can still buy fighter aircraft, tanks, etc., but they will have the "destructive devices" removed or rendered inoperable before you can own it.
Click to expand...

I imagine the cost of a Type 11 FFL is prohibitive for most people.
 
Rich2018 said:
I imagine the cost of a Type 11 FFL is prohibitive for most people.
Click to expand...
Cost can restrict peoples rights. That is only 1 problem with licensing rights. What is next. Shall we charge people for the right to free speech? The marriage license was used to restrict interracial marriage. The government has a horrid history when it comes to doing the right thing.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Cost can restrict peoples rights. That is only 1 problem with licensing rights. What is next. Shall we charge people for the right to free speech? The marriage license was used to restrict interracial marriage. The government has a horrid history when it comes to doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Republicans would love to charge people for the right to vote.

You make a good point though.
 
BahamaBob said:
You ever hear of the poll tax? Democrats love to tax everything.
Click to expand...


Yes and interestingly one was introduced in Britain, in the 1980's, by the right of center Conservative party (as the "Community Charge")
Everyone paid the same - I loved it as it reduced my local taxes significantly, especially my property tax (where I lived in my house alone, so therefore paid half of what a married couple with no kids in an identical property would pay)

The Socialist Labour party hated it and whipped up national resentment towards it and after a few years it was repealed

So I would think the Republicans would be 100% FOR a poll tax, with the Democrat party solidly against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom