To what extent to you support the 1st and 2nd amendment?

[Jerry]

I have a question does that mean that any American citizen with enough cash to throw around can buy nuclear weapons? I thought only countries could purchase those.

I was waiting for the wmd card....it's like your following a script.

I don't think that WMDs' are necessary to repel an alien army or the United States Army, so IMO they don't apply. Are they "arms", sure. Are they "arms" which serve the intended purpose of the 2nd.? I don't think they do.

If we were to consider wmds as "arms" under the second amendment, then any citizen who would possess one would need to provide the same fail-safes as the U.S. Air force and Navy do.

State Interests -v- Fundamental Rights, it's a nasty fight.

Would my pov lead to companies maintaining private militias? Sure, but that's not inherently bad, as any such militia, in order to claim that it's weapons are covered under the second amendment, would be obligated to protect The People.

Besides, in a country where the Federal Reserve itself is a private Corp., and who's politicians are knee deep in Corporate politics and obligations, we’re not so far removed from private control of wmds' now.

So really, it's a moot question.

 

[Hatuey]

I was waiting for the wmd card....it's like your following a script.

I don't think that WMDs' are necessary to repel an alien army or the United States Army, so IMO they don't apply. Are they "arms", sure. Are they "arms" which serve the intended purpose of the 2nd.? I don't think they do.

If we were to consider wmds as "arms" under the second amendment, then any citizen who would possess one would need to provide the same fail-safes as the U.S. Air force and Navy do.

State Interests -v- Fundamental Rights, it's a nasty fight.

Would my pov lead to companies maintaining private militias? Sure, but that's not inherently bad, as any such militia, in order to claim that it's weapons are covered under the second amendment, would be obligated to protect The People.

Besides, in a country where the Federal Reserve itself is a private Corp., and who's politicians are knee deep in Corporate politics and obligations, we’re not so far removed from private control of wmds' now.

So really, it's a moot question.

It was an honest question you went 10 miles too far for no reason on this Jerry....can private citizens buy WMDs?

 

[Goobieman]

who needs to own a machinegun? for protection? a handgun will do just fine

You didnt address the questionI asked -- the 2nd has to do with guaranteeing access to weapons suitable for service in the militia.
How does that NOT cover M16s and M60s?

in my last post i corrected myself

Indeed, you did.

 

[Goobieman]

What kind of place do you live in where you need something bigger then a 9MM to protect your house? Is the neighbourhood you live in so bad that you need an AK47, M16 or anything of the sort to protect yourself?

Your question assumes that the 2nd is simply about personal protection and the exercise of the right to self defense on the individual level.
Its not. Its also about the collective right to self-defense.

Given that the 2nd has to do with guaranteeing access to weapons suitable for service in the militia.
How does that NOT cover M16s and M60s?

 

[Goobieman]

I have a question does that mean that any American citizen with enough cash to throw around can buy nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" as the term is used in the context of the 2nd amendment. Any discussion about nuclear weapons here denotes either a deliberate unwillingness to carry a legitimate discussion of the issue or complete ignorance of the subject.

 

[Jerry]

It was an honest question you went 10 miles too far for no reason on this Jerry....can private citizens buy WMDs?

Yeah if you know where to go and you know the right people.

"[C]an private citizens buy WMDs?" Legally? Today? No. I think everyone knows that.

Should private citizens be able to buy WMDs?
That question leads us down an unknown path of legal theory. I would ok it under a scenario where said owner had to provide the same fail-safes and fire-controls as the Air Force and Navy do.

However, you seem to assume that I would okay Wal-Mart selling VX gas to any Joe-Smuck who has a piece of paper which says that he's 18 and who has a clear criminal record.

That would be a misassumption on your part.

 

[Jerry]

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" as the term is used in the context of the 2nd amendment. Any discussion about nuclear weapons here denotes either a deliberate unwillingness to carry a legitimate discussion of the issue or complete ignorance of the subject.

Indeed.

A "militia" could be nothing more than infantry. Therefore only infantry weapons would be covered by the second.

Now, that would include LAW, Tanks, A.P.Cs, 60cal rifles and machine guns, rifle grenades, and similar, but would exclude combat aircraft, Navel war vessels, cruse missiles, and of coarse wmds.

Also, identifying “militia” as only infantry would exclude the Trump-wing scenario, so I find it more to my liking.

 

[jamesrage]

Indeed.

A "militia" could be nothing more than infantry. Therefore only infantry weapons would be covered by the second.

Now, that would include LAW, Tanks, A.P.Cs, 60cal rifles and machine guns, rifle grenades, and similar, but would exclude combat aircraft, Navel war vessels, cruse missiles, and of coarse wmds.

Also, identifying “militia” as only infantry would exclude the Trump-wing scenario, so I find it more to my liking.

Actually very few units use M72 LAWs, special forces may use them due to the smaller and compact size of the law compared to that of the AT-4,M47 Dragon and FGM-148 Javelin.

 

[jamesrage]

I noticed that since a psycho murdered 32 people on a college campus all the anti-constitutional rights nuts came out wanting stricter gun control or a ban on firearms.

 

[dragonslayer]

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech and the right to bear arms?


As far as the right to own firearms as long as you are a law abiding citizen with no felonies and not insane you be able to own firearms with out any restrictions.

As far as free speech you should not be allowed to root for the enemy,make propaganda for the enemy,incite murder,incite treason,sell/give secrets to other countries,burning the US flag in a disrespectful manner and yelling "fire" in a crowed movie theater when there is no fire.I do not beleave free speech gives one the right to slander someone or defame their character,in other words if you get sued for these things then you do not have no protection.

Being a gun owner, I certainly support owning guns. I can see no reason to ever own a fully automatic weapon. that is matter of choice.

Freedom of speech. It is our duty as citizens of a democracy to agree with or disagree with our government. If our government is doing something totally stupid, we loyal american citizens need to call em on it, for the good of our nation. That is the duty of all American citizens,,, To criticize and to bitch when our government is totally ignorant like the war in Iraq.

We allow Bush to talk and talk and he harms daily the troops in Iraq, by keeping them there..

I Don't believe in yelling fire in crowded auditorium, and I don't believe in harming children by giving them a world of lies. I don't believe in slander or defamation of character, maybe some in an election campaign. lol

 

[Cephus]

The only real answer is both should be allowed with some restrictions, I can't imagine anyone is really insane enough to think that no restrictions on either would work at all.

Free speech with no restrictions? That makes slander, lieing under oath and yelling FIRE in a crowded theater are protected.

Any firearms with no restrictions? Access by the general public to military grade weapons including nukes?

Come on, is anyone that nuts?

 

[bigsmitty]

My only restrictions on free speech would be for safety reasons- yelling fire in a movie theatre or something, or making slanderous accusations.

 

[Gibberish]

My only restrictions on free speech would be for safety reasons- yelling fire in a movie theatre or something, or making slanderous accusations.

I agree. Any falsified speech with the intent to cause bodily harm or mass panic should be restricted. Other then that speech should be free.

Firearms should also have restrictions. I don't want the murderer or rapists that just got out of jail to be able to go purchase a firearm. I also don't want the mentally or reality challenged to be able to purchase firearms.

My cousin was "reality challenged" he shot up and burned downed my uncle and aunt's house before he was killed by a SWAT sniper while stepping out the front door with two loaded guns pointed at the surrounding police. Thankfully no one was hurt but himself. He was constantly in full military combat outfit, including weapons (knife and gun). He thought he was at war.

 

[jamesrage]

The only real answer is both should be allowed with some restrictions, I can't imagine anyone is really insane enough to think that no restrictions on either would work at all.

Free speech with no restrictions? That makes slander, lieing under oath and yelling FIRE in a crowded theater are protected.

Any firearms with no restrictions? Access by the general public to military grade weapons including nukes?

Come on, is anyone that nuts?

I have no problem with law abiding citizens getting machine guns and assault rifles.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have no problem with law abiding citizens getting machine guns and assault rifles.

me neither

I note that Screaming FIRE in a crowded theater is a restriction on "use" rather than possession. its the same as banning discharging a firearm on a crowded street. preventing honest people from owning an UZI is a restriction on possession which would be akin to saying you could never Yell FIRE not matter what the situation or location

 

[jamesrage]

With the DC gun case in court this week I thought I should resurrect this thread instead of making a new one.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun possession, the country's toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation's political battles over gun control.

During oral arguments that drew spectators who had waited for days to be in the courtroom, there was far more skepticism among the justices about the constitutionality of the District's ban on private handgun possession than defense of it.

Justices balanced the commands of a Constitution written more than 200 years ago with the modern-day questions presented by a gun ban that, it was argued, either prevents the law-abiding from a means of self-protection or keeps more guns off the streets of the nation's capital.

The court seemed swept up in the historic nature of its endeavor, examining a part of the Constitution that most believe has never been clearly defined. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. encouraged the lawyers to keep talking well beyond the scheduled 75 minutes.

For all the references to Lord Blackstone and the English Bill of Rights and the Framers' intent, Roberts was succinct in describing how he might view the District's arguments that its gun law is reasonable.

"What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?" he asked Washington lawyer Walter E. Dellinger III, who represented the city.

The clauses of the Second Amendment -- "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" -- have long vexed constitutional scholars. The Supreme Court's last major ruling on the subject, in 1939, stressed the militia-related aspects of the provision.

Roberts quickly signaled his disagreement. "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'?" he asked.

 

[Ikari]

You can do what you wish (IMO) so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.

 

[rivrrat]

I support both with no restrictions. Or waiting periods. Or registration.