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

[Glitch]

And before someone says "suitcase nuke" I would remind them that as far as is known even so called suitcase nukes that are about the size and shape of a suitcase still mass around 100 lbs. Not man portable. For a weapon to be considered man portable it should mass no more than 50-60 lbs.

I wouldn't go that far.

I have carried weapons that weighed more than 100 pounds. The weapon I used regularly in the Marine Corps weighted 34 (15 kg) pounds unloaded. Thankfully, I did not have to carry the ammunition or the spare barrels. My partner did that. However, including all my other gear I was easily carrying 110 to 120 pounds total weight, and still able to function and operate my weapon.

Most light machine guns are designed to be portable by a single-individual. It is when you get into the heavy machine guns, like the M2, that you will start having problems both carrying and operating the weapon. The M2 weighs 84 pounds (38 kg), unloaded. A 100-round ammo can for the M2 weighs another 35 pounds (16 kg).

One man could carry the weapon, set it up, and operate it, but it would require a strong individual.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

So you believe that U.S. patriot citizens have either the training and/arms comparable to that of the U.S. military? You think that when a squadron of A-10s decides to take out a civilian militia garrison you're going to even slow them down? You going to stop a cruise missile launched 500 miles away from going in a specific building window? You ready to fight military drones loaded with high explosives?

You are living in a fantasyland, dude.

 

[Glitch]

So you believe that U.S. patriot citizens have either the training and/arms comparable to that of the U.S. military? You think that when a squadron of A-10s decides to take out a civilian militia garrison you're going to even slow them down? You going to stop a cruise missile launched 500 miles away from going in a specific building window? You ready to fight military drones loaded with high explosives?

You are living in a fantasyland, dude.

Why wouldn't they? I am a US patriot citizen and I have had training with military arms. Did you think that veterans simply disappeared when they left the military?

Why would A-10s decide to take out civilians? If it ever reaches that point the military will never be able to fly their A-10s or any other aircraft, operate their vehicles, or even shoot their weapons. Where do you think fuel, ammunition, food, and other supplies comes from? They don't grow on trees, the civilians manufacture them. Which would make it damn difficult for the military to wage war against its own citizens.

You clearly have never served in the military and are as clueless as they come.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Why wouldn't they? I am a US patriot citizen and I have had training with military arms. Did you think that veterans simply disappeared when they left the military?

Why would A-10s decide to take out civilians? If it ever reaches that point the military will never be able to fly their A-10s or any other aircraft, operate their vehicles, or even shoot their weapons. Where do you think fuel, ammunition, food, and other supplies comes from? They don't grow on trees, the civilians manufacture them. Which would make it damn difficult for the military to wage war against its own citizens.

You clearly have never served in the military and are as clueless as they come.

I am the proud owner of a DD-214 so you're wrong on that count.

And now you're telling us the U.S. military can be defeated because civilians control their logistics?

I'm done with you.

 

[Glitch]

I am the proud owner of a DD-214 so you're wrong on that count.

And now you're telling us the U.S. military can be defeated because civilians control their logistics?

I'm done with you.

Right, and I'm the Pope.

With the nonsense you posted, do you really expect anyone to believe that you ever served in the military? Talk about being delusional.

Naturally you believe the military either manufactured their own beans, bullets, and band-aids, or you think they were created by magic. Either way, it is not rational.

Everything the military has originates from civilians.

 

[rahl]

so the internment of the Japanese and Separate but Equal didn't have any force of law since they were clearly unconstitutional?

No, they could have been ignored.

thus no Americans of Japanese heritage were interned and there were no segregated public schools in America? hmmmm

strawman

 

[TurtleDude]

No, they could have been ignored.

strawman

you are wrong. unconstitutional laws are often enforced and people are impacted by those laws. Claiming they are null and void might have some satisfaction to those who want to operate above the realm of reality, but to most people-even if you are right theoretically, means nothing. I know the 1934 NFA is unconstitutional but corrupt or cowardly justices thought otherwise

 

[Glitch]

you are wrong. unconstitutional laws are often enforced and people are impacted by those laws. Claiming they are null and void might have some satisfaction to those who want to operate above the realm of reality, but to most people-even if you are right theoretically, means nothing. I know the 1934 NFA is unconstitutional but corrupt or cowardly justices thought otherwise

It is a mixture of both.

Unconstitutional laws are regularly enforced, and many cannot be ignored. It is damn difficult, for example, to ignore the unconstitutional internment of American citizens with Japanese ancestry when the police and the military are physically rounding up anyone who appears even remotely Asian. You can either fight against it, or submit to the unconstitutional law, but you can't ignore it.

However, you also have the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, which is enforced by the ATFE, and now ignored by nine (10 if you count Missouri) States with regard to firearms manufactured wholly within a given State.

Since the federal law banning all machine guns manufactured after 1986 is based upon the Commerce Clause, and the Commerce Clause only pertains to interstate commerce, the law does not apply to intrastate commerce and therefore individual States may allow machine guns to be manufactured - ignoring the unconstitutional federal law.

When Congress enacted the unconstitutional Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 there were 28 States that refused to participate in the illegal law, and that continues today with the Supreme Court's blessing.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that States are not required to uphold federal laws in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

 

[rahl]

you are wrong. unconstitutional laws are often enforced and people are impacted by those laws.

I don't disagree with this. But, an unconstitutional law by definition is null and void at inception.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't disagree with this. But, an unconstitutional law by definition is null and void at inception.

and I don't disagree with that either but de facto v de sure impacts are often very different

 

[TurtleDude]

It is a mixture of both.

Unconstitutional laws are regularly enforced, and many cannot be ignored. It is damn difficult, for example, to ignore the unconstitutional internment of American citizens with Japanese ancestry when the police and the military are physically rounding up anyone who appears even remotely Asian. You can either fight against it, or submit to the unconstitutional law, but you can't ignore it.

However, you also have the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, which is enforced by the ATFE, and now ignored by nine (10 if you count Missouri) States with regard to firearms manufactured wholly within a given State.

Since the federal law banning all machine guns manufactured after 1986 is based upon the Commerce Clause, and the Commerce Clause only pertains to interstate commerce, the law does not apply to intrastate commerce and therefore individual States may allow machine guns to be manufactured - ignoring the unconstitutional federal law.

When Congress enacted the unconstitutional Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 there were 28 States that refused to participate in the illegal law, and that continues today with the Supreme Court's blessing.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that States are not required to uphold federal laws in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

if ATF or FBI finds someone with an unregistered machine gun, the feds will still prosecute them in a federal court even though the weapon was never used or intended to be moved in interstate commerce. The fiction the feds use is that the same bullshit used in Wickard v Filburn-"impact on interstate commerce" which essentially is almost unlimited in the minds of the statists

 

[Glitch]

if ATF or FBI finds someone with an unregistered machine gun, the feds will still prosecute them in a federal court even though the weapon was never used or intended to be moved in interstate commerce. The fiction the feds use is that the same bullshit used in Wickard v Filburn-"impact on interstate commerce" which essentially is almost unlimited in the minds of the statists

Let them try. I would have the entire State of Alaska defending me. This is an excerpt from the law:

The attorney general shall defend a citizen of this state who is prosecuted by the government of the United States under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within this state. On receipt of written notification by a citizen of this state of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which this section applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska that this section is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

We have been manufacturing firearms and firearm accessories in Alaska for the last decade and there hasn't been a single arrest by any federal agency with regard to firearms within Alaska.

 

[Rich2018]

Let them try. I would have the entire State of Alaska defending me. This is an excerpt from the law:

Same if you were caught with piles of counterfeit money or drugs. Mere possession is a crime.

 

[Helix]

Update : check out my new daily driver :


Mine's the one in back. The other one is my neighbor's. They were buy one, get one 50% off, so it just made sense. I'd like to see someone try to cut me off in traffic now. I think i know which button will light some shit up. We don't need a permit to open carry long guns.

 

[Maxell;4]

Wow this is as scary as Biden as president.
The second amendment is short and to the point, and it refers to the right to bear arms.
To "bear" arms is to carry them.
One could argue that a very strong individual could walk around carrying a cannon, or a rocket launcher.
There is basically no constitutional difference between the first and second amendment.
The only felt difference is how the politicians try to regulate it.

 

[Maxell;4]

If one interprets the amendment the way the court did to allows the nuts have all these guns, of course it does.

The entire constitution and its amendments were written to preserve the rights of law abiding citizens. IE: it doesn't allow nuts to have "all these guns".
It's the democrat mayors who provide that service.
To start re-writing the constitution and attempting to affect it's meaning and purpose is for all intent and purpose against the constitution.

 

[noonereal]

The entire constitution and its amendments were written to preserve the rights of law abiding citizens. IE: it doesn't allow nuts to have "all these guns".
It's the democrat mayors who provide that service.
To start re-writing the constitution and attempting to affect it's meaning and purpose is for all intent and purpose against the constitution.

Such a beautiful document in it's time causing such obstruction today.
Terrible irony, no?

 

[Rich2018]

The entire constitution and its amendments were written to preserve the rights of law abiding citizens. IE: it doesn't allow nuts to have "all these guns".
It's the democrat mayors who provide that service.
To start re-writing the constitution and attempting to affect it's meaning and purpose is for all intent and purpose against the constitution.

The Constitution is obsolete and desperately needs not so much amended as replaced with a modern one, for the people of the 21st century.

 

[American]

I say hell no, that it doesn't!! I also suggest that the FBI knocks on Youtuber Tim Pool's door to talk with this stupid fool about pushing such a narrative.

If you are an American taxpayer, you own nukes. It's just that you delegated their use through the military through legislative powers.

 

[Rich2018]

If you are an American taxpayer, you own nukes. It's just that you delegated their use through the military through legislative powers.

You sound like a socialist.