Does 2nd Amendment entitle Americans to own nuclear and biological weapons?

[Grand Mal]

if thirty or forty million gun owners want a politician or his cohorts dead, that politician is going to die. Pure and simple. and if the military becomes oppressive and 30-40 million guys with firearms fight back, the military will cease to exist

Wow.
Shit just got real, huh?

 

[Grand Mal]

Yeah, good thing the Founding Fathers didn't hise up against the powerful English Army and Navy, huh?

Liberals, all of them. The first effective liberals. The American conservatives, the ones who could afford it, booked passage to Nova Scotia.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Yeah, good thing the Founding Fathers didn't hise up against the powerful English Army and Navy, huh?

I didn't say that. Come talk to me when a squadron of F-18s start strafing your neighborhood. Tell me how that is equivalent to the British army and navy of 1776.

 

[Bullseye]

Liberals, all of them. The first effective liberals. The American conservatives, the ones who could afford it, booked passage to Nova Scotia.

But they were REAL LIBERALS; they believed in personal freedom and responsibility, hard work, family. Today liberals are government worshippers, control by "experts" and a docile, compliant population.

 

[Bullseye]

I didn't say that. Come talk to me when a squadron of F-18s start strafing your neighborhood. Tell me how that is equivalent to the British army and navy of 1776.

Nice equivocation. What song are you tap-dancing to?

 

[Grand Mal]

But they were REAL LIBERALS; they believed in personal freedom and responsibility, hard work, family. Today liberals are government worshippers, control by "experts" and a docile, compliant population.

Listen. This is simple.
It doesn't matter what you say, anyone who doesn't hold liberal values isn't a liberal. Desn't matter what they say, either.
You're pointing at a camel and saying, "Look what horses have become!"
And that's as stupid as it sounds.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Nice equivocation. What song are you tap-dancing to?

You tried to put words in my mouth. I called you on it. All I said was it is ridiculous to think that American civilians have either the stomach or the power to oppose today's police or military.

And just for the record, the next time a bunch of Trump supporters try to storm a government building, they will be gunned down like dogs in the street. Quote me on that.

 

[Linc]

if thirty or forty million gun owners want a politician or his cohorts dead, that politician is going to die. Pure and simple. and if the military becomes oppressive and 30-40 million guys with firearms fight back, the military will cease to exist

Putin approves of your way to destroy America.

 

[Nickyjo]

Bazookas? Are you stuck in the 1950's? Mortars are crew served weapons, so no. Did you ever fire a mortar when you served?

What different does it make how old the weapons are, bazookas, old peacemakers, etc., so long as they can be carried and operated by one person? Wasn't that the point I was responding to?

 

[Linc]

Nice equivocation. What song are you tap-dancing to?

I’m watching your station RT in one of my quads. Just your headlines supporting the invasion.

 

[Glitch]

I can't help but chuckle at those folks who live this fantasy that they are going to save America with their beloved 2nd amendment.

They ignore the history of what happens to people who go up against law enforcement in this country, let alone U.S. military around the world.

I just want to see them defend their freedoms when a couple of flash bang grenades are tossed in their windows.

You mean like we did in 1775, when we rebelled against our government masters and slaughtered the fascist pricks for attempting to seize our firearms in Concord and Lexington? How did that work out, or do you know nothing about American history and how the US came to be?

It is obviously a lesson Democrat filth have failed to learn since they continue to try to seize our firearms at every opportunity. It looks like history may end up repeating itself, since leftist filth never seem to learn.

 

[Questerr]

Cannons, not so much. The way they wrote the amendment only those arms which can be carried by an individual are protected. We have the individual right to keep and "bear arms." Which implies that only those weapons which are portable by a single individual are protected by the amendment. That would exclude artillery pieces (except for maybe light mortars), tanks, heavy machine guns, naval vessels, fighter aircraft, etc. But the Second Amendment would include under its protection light machine guns, grenades, portable AA missiles, and portable AT launchers, etc.

Except that’s not true. Both cannons and armed naval vessels were privately owned in the US when the 2nd Amendment was written. Both were seen as arms individuals had a right to own.

 

[bomberfox]

Go get a cavalry sabre. That satisfies your second amendment rights. There's no mention of guns.

Good thing i actually own one from the civil war

 

[TurtleDude]

Wow.
Shit just got real, huh?

these sort of scenarios are actually studied in some circles

 

[Dayton3]

I mean, if 30-40% of Americans rose up with guns they could overthrow the government right now.

Except the obvious.

1) You can't get a third of all Americans to do something like that.
2) If you could it wouldn't matter whether they had guns or not.

 

[TurtleDude]

Except that’s not true. Both cannons and armed naval vessels were privately owned in the US when the 2nd Amendment was written. Both were seen as arms individuals had a right to own.

your argument is deficient. at the time there were no laws banning such possessions. That does not mean the second amendment would have necessarily prevented such things-as say opposed the tenth amendment. There were no laws against Marijuana either-for example

 

[TurtleDude]

Except the obvious.

1) You can't get a third of all Americans to do something like that.
2) If you could it wouldn't matter whether they had guns or not.

that's most likely true. I believe if the government started violently confiscating guns, you'd get enough people to take out the government that did it

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Except the obvious.

1) You can't get a third of all Americans to do something like that.
2) If you could it wouldn't matter whether they had guns or not.

I mean, I directly said that in this thread. That is most certainly the case and I never claimed otherwise.

 

[Questerr]

your argument is deficient. at the time there were no laws banning such possessions. That does not mean the second amendment would have necessarily prevented such things-as say opposed the tenth amendment. There were no laws against Marijuana either-for example

There were no laws against them because the Founders saw such laws as violations of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

There were no laws against them because the Founders saw such laws as violations of the 2nd Amendment.

really-do you have any proof of that-I believe it is more of a tenth amendment issue-the federal government was never given any such power to do so, so it didn't. Can you find say a case where someone was keeping and bearing cannon and invoked the second amendment? You are trying to prove a negative and you cannot.

 

[Questerr]

really-do you have any proof of that-I believe it is more of a tenth amendment issue-the federal government was never given any such power to do so, so it didn't. Can you find say a case where someone was keeping and bearing cannon and invoked the second amendment? You are trying to prove a negative and you cannot.

So it would be okay for a state to ban ownership of firearms because of the 10th Amendment? Isn’t that massively contradicted by Supreme Court cases?

Court cases prosecuting people for owning weapons like cannons occurred well after the Founders’ time, by which time the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment moved away from originalist intent.

 

[TurtleDude]

So it would be okay for a state to ban ownership of firearms because of the 10th Amendment? Isn’t that massively contradicted by Supreme Court cases?

Court cases prosecuting people for owning weapons like cannons occurred well after the Founders’ time, by which time the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment moved away from originalist intent.

the bill of rights was not incorporated to the states until after the 14th amendment was enacted.

 

[Glitch]

Except that’s not true. Both cannons and armed naval vessels were privately owned in the US when the 2nd Amendment was written. Both were seen as arms individuals had a right to own.

Then they should not have included the words "to keep and bear arms." That implies the arms in question must be bearable. Furthermore, since the amendment is an individual right, the arms in question must be bearable by an individual. To be able to operate weapon systems that require more than one person would make the Second Amendment a collective right, which it isn't.

 

[Questerr]

Then they should not have included the words "to keep and bear arms." That implies the arms in question must be bearable. Furthermore, since the amendment is an individual right, the arms in question must be bearable by an individual. To be able to operate weapon systems that require more than one person would make the Second Amendment a collective right, which it isn't.

A single person can operate a cannon.

 

[Glitch]

the bill of rights was not incorporated to the states until after the 14th amendment was enacted.

Not even then. It took 152 years before the Supreme Court finally got around to incorporating the Eighth Amendment and applying it to the States, and there are still portions of the 5th Amendment, the Third and Nineth Amendments which they still have not incorporated.

The Supreme Court is directly responsible for suppressing and violating the Bill of Rights for the last 155 years. They need to be held accountable for depriving Americans of their constitutionally protected rights.