The 2nd Amendment applies to all weapons.

[gfm7175]

Would weaponized smallpox virus count as "arms" ?

Biological warfare is not self-defense (not practical, anyway, as it would also infect the area you are attempting to defend).

 

[Visbek]

I love how leftists play fast and loose with the Constitution and rights.

So...you are saying that all states have the right to impose rules and restrictions on gay marriage, rights for homosexuals and transgendered indivifuals, etc....right?

Based on what you're writing, I'd say that you utterly fail to understand Constitutional law. Also, you didn't actually read my post. Let's try this again:

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the passage of the 14th (and 15th) Amendment.

When it was originally ratified, the BoR only restricted the federal government. The SCOTUS confirmed this as early as 1833 in Barron v Baltimore.

That changed with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, due to the inclusion of the Due Process Clause, and the Privileges or Immunities Clauses. After it was ratified, it took decades for the courts to actually figure out how incorporation should work. The precise mechanics have been debated over the years -- e.g. should the incorporation be partial, or refer to all the enumerated rights in the BoR, or should it include unenumerated rights; should it be based on the Due Process and/or Privileges and Immunities clauses, and so forth.

For decades, and after selected rights were incorporated to the states, the courts still did not regard the 2nd Amendment as incorporated to the states. It wasn't until Scalia took a revisionist hatchet to the 2nd Amendment that this was reconsidered in McDonald v Chicago (2010).

As to LGBT and other civil rights: There are currently no federal laws protecting the civil rights of LGBT individuals. However, similar to same-sex marriage, such claims would be protected by the 14th Amendment, including the Due Process and Equal Protections clauses. And yes, that means that if we passed a federal law protecting the civil rights of LGBT individuals and groups, that law would apply to the states.

 

[Visbek]

Its OK. He knows better. He knows that no one is REALLY foolish enough to believe the Bill of Rights was written to protect STATE government entities.

Except those "fools" who actually understand US history, and are not blinded by a self-serving ideology.

 

[gfm7175]

No, and neither would extremely powerful bombs IE Nukes. These are weapons that harm innocent people and make an area uninhabitable for many years. They have permanent, long term and far range effect.

Actually, they would technically count... However, they are not practical options, as they are much more expensive, less readily available, and would harm yourself in the self-defense process.

You've also argued yourself into a paradox here...

[1] all weaponry
[2] all weaponry, EXCEPT ... ...

Which is it?

 

[gfm7175]

A virus is a living organism, it is not protected by the second amendment.

...which can be weaponized...

Nuclear fallout is a toxic material, not a weapon.

It is part of the nuke... A nuke is a weapon.

 

[gfm7175]

It was mostly to spark a debate with people who believe it only applies to guns. Also the leftist weirdos that think it only applies to muskets or should be repealed.

Yup... Those types are incorrect about those things.

The 2nd Amendment re-affirms our natural right to self-defense by any means necessary.

 

[gfm7175]

Great!

Think I'll buy me a tank.

Great! Enjoy your tank.

Neighbors dog barks at night, instead of shooting my gun to say, "shut up" I'll blow up the neighbors house.

That is not self-defense. Attacking someone's house is illegal. I don't think shooting a gun to shut up the neighbor's dog is a very effective method either... Politely communicating with your neighbor is generally a much more effective method.

I am a proud "red hat."

Okay.

Reason be damned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The natural and inherent right to self-defense is what the 2nd Amendment is referring to; NOT attacking someone's house because of a barking dog...

 

[noonereal]

Great! Enjoy your tank.


That is not self-defense. Attacking someone's house is illegal. I don't think shooting a gun to shut up the neighbor's dog is a very effective method either... Politely communicating with your neighbor is generally a much more effective method.


Okay.


The natural and inherent right to self-defense is what the 2nd Amendment is referring to; NOT attacking someone's house because of a barking dog...

But the dog barks. If you don't use your tank to stop it, WTF is the point?

Funny story. My daughter was recruited by West Point to play a sport there. (16 year old girl at the time) On a recruiting visit they told her she would have to drive a tank if she went there. She never returned another call to them. LOL

 

[gfm7175]

The 2A was written to protect the militia, and later SCOTUS decisions held that militia weapons are the arms protected.

It was written to re-affirm the inherent and natural right to self-defense. It involves two parts (militia and people).

ICBMs and such are not militia weapons and thus are not protected.

They are. They are not practical options, however... They destroy what one is trying to protect, as well as other people's property and etc...

 

[gfm7175]

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have bioweapons and thank god no one has been dumb enough to allow it. They have no civilian purpose; weaponized smallpox can't be used to "defend your home" or to hunt, for instance.

Who are you to determine whether or not there is "reason" to have something... YOU are not the king...

 

[gfm7175]

Bullets are not weapons, so they can be regulated?

Yup... you noticed right where his argument fell apart... He will likely argue himself into a paradox, or move his goalposts...

 

[VanceMack]

Based on what you're writing, I'd say that you utterly fail to understand Constitutional law. Also, you didn't actually read my post. Let's try this again:

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the passage of the 14th (and 15th) Amendment.

When it was originally ratified, the BoR only restricted the federal government. The SCOTUS confirmed this as early as 1833 in Barron v Baltimore.

That changed with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, due to the inclusion of the Due Process Clause, and the Privileges or Immunities Clauses. After it was ratified, it took decades for the courts to actually figure out how incorporation should work. The precise mechanics have been debated over the years -- e.g. should the incorporation be partial, or refer to all the enumerated rights in the BoR, or should it include unenumerated rights; should it be based on the Due Process and/or Privileges and Immunities clauses, and so forth.

For decades, and after selected rights were incorporated to the states, the courts still did not regard the 2nd Amendment as incorporated to the states. It wasn't until Scalia took a revisionist hatchet to the 2nd Amendment that this was reconsidered in McDonald v Chicago (2010).

As to LGBT and other civil rights: There are currently no federal laws protecting the civil rights of LGBT individuals. However, similar to same-sex marriage, such claims would be protected by the 14th Amendment, including the Due Process and Equal Protections clauses. And yes, that means that if we passed a federal law protecting the civil rights of LGBT individuals and groups, that law would apply to the states.

Perhaps the reason the 2nd Amendment wasnt better defined is because only a liar or a fool would assert that the founders that wrote the Bill of Rights intended them to apply to states and not individuals.

Whoa...so you are implying that the 14th Amendment...which literally says nothing about homosexuals or marriage...offers protection to individuals...but that the 2nd Amendment that SPECIFICALLY addresses the rights of THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...DOESNT offer protections to the individuals because they REALLY mean STATES when they said 'the people'? And I suppose the other 9 Amendments ALSO apply not to the rights of 'the people' but the states.......

 

[VanceMack]

Except those "fools" who actually understand US history, and are not blinded by a self-serving ideology.

:lamo

Come now...ALL you are driven by is ideology. You are desperately trying to shoehorn the actual words of the founding fathers into your belief that guns should be banned.

 

[Babykat]

Some please define natural right of self defence for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Except those "fools" who actually understand US history, and are not blinded by a self-serving ideology.

Your postings on the second amendment, demonstrate either profound ignorance or dishonesty. And the self serving ideology is invariably from the ARC members. The Anti Rights Coalition constantly tries to misinterpret the second amendment, so it can pretend that their gun banning schemes are not an affront to our constitution

 

[TurtleDude]

Some please define natural right of self defence for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The founders believed in natural rights-rights that man has had from the start of mankind. Rights the founders believed were endowed by the creator and which were to be guaranteed by the Bill of rights. The Constitution is a document founded upon and guided by the concept of natural law.

 

[Vadinho]

The way I see it, the second amendment should apply to all objects which are required to enforce the law. That is, the second amendment should be interpreted as specifically protecting whichever objects are the means of enforcing the law, not as specifically protecting any particular objects.

Back when the constitution was written, there was no standard police force as we now know it. Every town had a sheriff, and the sheriff organized the town folk to enforce the law when necessary. If the town folk had no right to the means of enforcing the law, then the law could not be enforced. If the laws of a polity cannot be enforced, then that polity is insecure. Therefore, the second amendment exists to assure that civilians have access to the means of enforcing the law.

Your citizens police force was reduced to nothing after modern police forces were created later in the 1800s. At no time was the average citizen allowed to become a vigilante in the modern era. Are you claiming that you can arm yourself and enforce the law wherever you deem fit because of the 2nd amendment?

 

[TurtleDude]

Your citizens police force was reduced to nothing after modern police forces were created later in the 1800s. At no time was the average citizen allowed to become a vigilante in the modern era. Are you claiming that you can arm yourself and enforce the law wherever you deem fit because of the 2nd amendment?

Though I believe you are consistently wrong on the meaning of the second amendment, and the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, You make a sound point here

 

[gfm7175]

lol

You left a few things out.

He left out the first part of it. There are two parts.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes, the bolded is the first part... The unbolded is the second part. There are two rights being discussed in this amendment...

Anyway. Even when you deliberately ignore literally half of the 2nd Amendment (which, yeah, you did): The simple fact is that rights are not unlimited.

He didn't ignore it; it was simply irrelevant to the second part of it, which is the part being discussed. There is not a list of arms which are 'allowed' or 'disallowed'; it just says "arms"... The 2nd Amendment was re-stating the natural and inherent right to self-defense by any means necessary.

For example, the right to freedom of speech does not mean you can defame someone; the right to uphold your own religious practices does not mean you can neglect your child and refuse medical treatment; the requirement for police to need a warrant does not include situations where the police are in hot pursuit of a suspect or if you're smoking a crack pipe right next to an open window, and so on.

Irrelevant. None of that is within the framework of the 2nd Amendment.

As a result, there are all sorts of legal restrictions on a variety of weapons, including knives, tasers, brass knuckles, expandable batons, cesti, whatever.

Unconstitutional restrictions...

 

[Casper]

To put very simply, the wording of the 2nd Amendment applies to all forms of weaponry, based on the language of the 2nd Amendment.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment here very clearly says 'Arms,' which means weaponry. Not FIREarms, which refers to guns.

So long as one can bear it, I seriously doubt the government is going to allow Anything considered a weapon to be owned.

 

[gfm7175]

Agreed.... but would you agree that the right to keep and bear arms isn't an unlimited right?

Nope. I mean, the right effectively becomes limited in ways due to the impracticality and/or sheer force of some weaponry (they'd cause damage to yourself, neighbors, etc..., which would go beyond "self-defense"), but technically, as the constitution is worded, it's unlimited.

The 1st Amendment's freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to commit slander or incite violence. Freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to sacrifice your first-born.

Because those things directly harm other innocent people. Your rights end where my rights begin...

We as a society agree that there are reasonable limitations on every right enumerated within the Constitution...

Essentially, your rights end where my rights begin...

so why should it be any different where it comes to the right to keep and bear arms?

It's not.

Just because a Stinger missile is technically a weapon doesn't mean they should be privately owned, does it?

Who are you to say what people can and can't own... You are not a king.

 

[gfm7175]

Good post.... it's never failed to amaze me how the very same people who beat their chests and call themselves "strict constructionists" conveniently ignore the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment. It seems pretty obvious to me that the Founding Fathers intended it to be included (despite the fact that Madison's original draft didn't have it) and for that very fact alone, it ought to have some bearing on the right to keep and bear arms. Arguing that the prefatory clause is just so many "wasted words" and that the right to keep and bear arms has the same scope with it as it would without it is a pretty bizarre spin on original intent, don't you think?

See my post #69 to Visbek...

 

[gfm7175]

you and I disagree on this and I doubt we will ever change the other's mind. The second amendment was based on the natural right of self defense, and some weapons have zero utility in that area. Secondly, the term arms-as the writings and speeches of the founders indicated, are individual weapons citizens normally would keep and bear. Weaponized anthrax or ICBMs do not qualify either way.

The bolded part I think is spot on and key. Some weapons, such as weaponized anthrax and ICBMs, just have no self-defense utility... They would harm what you are trying to defend. Plus, the use of them would typically impede upon others' rights, such as the right to life... While I would agree with the other poster that there isn't technically a limit as to what one can keep and bear, there IS the truth that some weapons just aren't feasible for self-defense purposes, and the usage of some of that owned weaponry would interfere with other innocent people's right to life (and etc.)... In other words, even if there isn't a 'technical' restriction, there is an 'effective' restriction due to the whole "your rights end where my rights begin" concept...

Gun ownership, and usage of guns for self-defense purposes, is practical AND it doesn't impede upon others' rights, unlike the "self-defense" usage of nukes or biological weaponry would, for example...

That's more or less where I stand on the issue.

 

[gfm7175]

It applies to all weapons useful for individual self defense and which citizens would normally keep and bear

weapons designed to target areas or large numbers of people do not qualify either way

True... Like I said earlier, regardless of whether there are any 'technical' limitations as to what one can keep and bear [I don't read any such limitations, but regardless...], there are still 'effective' limitations due to the usage of those weapons infringing upon other people's rights (like their right to life). Some weapons which target large areas/large numbers of people, such as nukes for example, would fall under that category. Plus, nukes simply aren't feasible for self-defense use, as they would blow up what one was trying to defend.

 

[gfm7175]

People such as you, and those who argue as you do, have never ever explained how a right the founders both believed and intended to apply to individuals, since the beginning of time, would require membership in a state organized entity, for that right to vest. My only conclusion is you avoid that point, because it destroys the militia "rights"nonsense that anti gun activists have conjured up to support their anti gun schemes.

Bingo!!