What arms?

[poweRob]

This is basically the 2nd amendment part of the forum so I'm in here to ask...

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.​

In you opinion... what arms should not be in the hands of the public? I'm talking from slingshots to nukes. The whole range.

Then justify where you decided to draw the line with regards to the 2nd amendment.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Artillery larger than 105mm, Nuclear weapons, and Plasma weaponry until the year 2041.

Everything else is A-okay in my book.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is basically the 2nd amendment part of the forum so I'm in here to ask...

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.​

In you opinion... what arms should not be in the hands of the public? I'm talking from slingshots to nukes. The whole range.

Then justify where you decided to draw the line with regards to the 2nd amendment.

1) those that have no legitimate self defense use

2) those that are WMD.

3) those that the misuse of could cause hundreds to thousands of casualties per misuse

 

[CalGun]

The founders were speaking of firearms. They did not, of course imagine, anything much more powerful than that. I don't think any firearms should be prohibited - period. I have no trouble with prohibiting WMD's, explosives, military style aircraft, ships and armored vehicles - the later of which is ok if they pay for the roads they mess up.

This is basically the 2nd amendment part of the forum so I'm in here to ask...

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.​

In you opinion... what arms should not be in the hands of the public? I'm talking from slingshots to nukes. The whole range.

Then justify where you decided to draw the line with regards to the 2nd amendment.

 

[poweRob]

1) those that have no legitimate self defense use

Isn't that rather loose and subjective possibly interpreted by whomever thinks the best defense is a superior offense?

2) those that are WMD.

3) those that the misuse of could cause hundreds to thousands of casualties per misuse

How about grenade launchers, land mines, SAMs?

 

[poweRob]

Artillery larger than 105mm, Nuclear weapons, and Plasma weaponry until the year 2041.

Everything else is A-okay in my book.

Are these things you listed not "arms" and therefore your prohibition of them being against the 2nd amendment?

 

[Lutherf]

As long as we remain a Constitutional Republic any and all weapons will,ultimately, be in the hands of the people.

We have delegated certain responsibilities to the government and among those responsibilities is that of national defense. If elected officials choose to use the forces of the military against us they WILL pay the price. Furthermore, if they choose to attempt to abolish the rights of the people there WILL be revolution.

The second Amendment is a restriction on the government from absolving the people of their right to defend themselves and to organize, if necessary, for such purpose. If Phoenix attempted to take over Tucson and impose its rule on us I would expect Tucsonans to rise up and fight back. Likewise, if the federal government should attempt to take over the country I would expect all Americans to fight back......except for a few of the gun grabbers whom I would expect to stand in front of tanks and hope to get their picture taken peacefully resisting.......we'll be sure to memorialize them appropriately.

 

[poweRob]

The founders were speaking of firearms. They did not, of course imagine, anything much more powerful than that. I don't think any firearms should be prohibited - period. I have no trouble with prohibiting WMD's, explosives, military style aircraft, ships and armored vehicles - the later of which is ok if they pay for the roads they mess up.

Assault rifles are probably out of their imagination and far more powerful that the firearms they were speaking of too. So how do you decide to draw your line of what is and isn't 2nd amendment approved?

 

[Goshin]

Small arms in common use, suitable for use in militia service, sport, self-defense, or any other lawful purpose.


Arms incapable of targeting a single enemy with reasonable precision, whose only purpose is as area-effect weapons (ie explosives, full auto machine guns) are a grey area subject to closer regulation.


banning weapons of mass destruction are covered under Strict Scrutiny, since it is a societal necessity, narrowly construed and essential, to ban them from general possession. They also pretty much lack any legitimate lawful use.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Are these things you listed not "arms" and therefore your prohibition of them being against the 2nd amendment?

Artillery beyond 105mm was just a number I picked.

Nuclear weapons are not arms, so they do not count.

And Plasma Weaponry will be legalized in 2041 by the Plasma Allowance Act after being introduced by President Oliver Kahn.

 

[TurtleDude]

Isn't that rather loose and subjective possibly interpreted by whomever thinks the best defense is a superior offense?



How about grenade launchers, land mines, SAMs?

well I know arms inside and out and the line between ARMS, ORDNANCE and ARTILLERY is not nearly as well defined as it was a couple hundred years ago-back in those days, an individual infantryman couldn't deploy or use something that had the destructive power of a field piece. Now, with Strelas, SAMS, and HAWS they can

and where that line is reached is never going to be agreed upon

but that is why I say that we should start by agreeing that CIVILIAN DEFENSIVE WEAPONS that are most useful for use against civilian criminals should be available to all honest citizens of age. That means anything our local, state or federal government agency supplies to its civilian LEO employees for self defense use in our nation, our streets, our cities and townships is within the clear umbrella of the second amendment by the very fact that issuing those weapons to civilian employees=a conclusive presumption that such weapons are suitable for such defensive uses.

If an asshole like Cuomo believes that 10 shot magazines are so dangerous that no citizen can even POSSESS one (let alone carry one on the street) then clearly such magazines are too dangerous for cops to have

 

[Fletch]

As long as we remain a Constitutional Republic any and all weapons will,ultimately, be in the hands of the people.

We have delegated certain responsibilities to the government and among those responsibilities is that of national defense. If elected officials choose to use the forces of the military against us they WILL pay the price. Furthermore, if they choose to attempt to abolish the rights of the people there WILL be revolution.

The second Amendment is a restriction on the government from absolving the people of their right to defend themselves and to organize, if necessary, for such purpose. If Phoenix attempted to take over Tucson and impose its rule on us I would expect Tucsonans to rise up and fight back. Likewise, if the federal government should attempt to take over the country I would expect all Americans to fight back......except for a few of the gun grabbers whom I would expect to stand in front of tanks and hope to get their picture taken peacefully resisting.......we'll be sure to memorialize them appropriately.

Correct. The Second Amendment is about our right to self defense, not what sort of weapons the government allows us to possess. If the left is so eager to restrict our Second Amendment rights they should go about it the way the Constitution envisions--through the Amendment process.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Small arms in common use, suitable for use in militia service, sport, self-defense, or any other lawful purpose.


Arms incapable of targeting a single enemy with reasonable precision, whose only purpose is as area-effect weapons (ie explosives, full auto machine guns) are a grey area subject to closer regulation.


banning weapons of mass destruction are covered under Strict Scrutiny, since it is a societal necessity, narrowly construed and essential, to ban them from general possession. They also pretty much lack any legitimate lawful use.

Pretty much what Goshin has stated.

 

[poweRob]

Artillery beyond 105mm was just a number I picked.

Nuclear weapons are not arms, so they do not count.

And Plasma Weaponry will be legalized in 2041 by the Plasma Allowance Act after being introduced by President Oliver Kahn.

The premise of the thread was to lay out where you draw the line while the most important aspect being how does the line that you draw not break this constitutionality?

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

 

[Jredbaron96]

The premise of the thread was to lay out where you draw the line while the most important aspect being how does the line that you draw not break this constitutionality?

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

Post #13 Good buddy.

 

[Fletch]

Artillery beyond 105mm was just a number I picked.

Nuclear weapons are not arms, so they do not count.

And Plasma Weaponry will be legalized in 2041 by the Plasma Allowance Act after being introduced by President Oliver Kahn.

But I believe that the Phased Plasma rifle with the 40 watt range will almost certainly be outlawed.

 

[TurtleDude]

But I believe that the Phased Plasma rifle with the 40 watt range will almost certainly be outlawed.

Over Ahnold's dead steroid free body!

 

[poweRob]

well I know arms inside and out and the line between ARMS, ORDNANCE and ARTILLERY is not nearly as well defined as it was a couple hundred years ago-back in those days, an individual infantryman couldn't deploy or use something that had the destructive power of a field piece. Now, with Strelas, SAMS, and HAWS they can

and where that line is reached is never going to be agreed upon

but that is why I say that we should start by agreeing that CIVILIAN DEFENSIVE WEAPONS that are most useful for use against civilian criminals should be available to all honest citizens of age. That means anything our local, state or federal government agency supplies to its civilian LEO employees for self defense use in our nation, our streets, our cities and townships is within the clear umbrella of the second amendment by the very fact that issuing those weapons to civilian employees=a conclusive presumption that such weapons are suitable for such defensive uses.

If an asshole like Cuomo believes that 10 shot magazines are so dangerous that no citizen can even POSSESS one (let alone carry one on the street) then clearly such magazines are too dangerous for cops to have

Understandable as to where you want to draw the line but suppose you were to be out-right-winged in this department who says your arms prohibition is anti-constitutional? Are you proposing that in agreeing where to draw the line, we'd have to amend the 2nd amendment?

 

[TurtleDude]

Understandable as to where you want to draw the line but suppose you were to be out-right-winged in this department who says your arms prohibition is anti-constitutional? Are you proposing that in agreeing where to draw the line, we'd have to amend the 2nd amendment?

OH i believe more weapons are under the Second amendment umbrella

the ones I spoke of are NO BRAINERS

 

[poweRob]

Post #13 Good buddy.

I understand why he wants to draw the line where he does, but like I just asked turtle... when someone comes at you from the right and says YOUR choice of prohibition is unconstitutional... how do you combat that?

 

[poweRob]

OH i believe more weapons are under the Second amendment umbrella

the ones I spoke of are NO BRAINERS

Ok... I'll play devils advocate to get this ball moving because I feel like we are spinning wheels here..

Turtle... your choice of banning any arms you would list is unconstitutional.

 

[TurtleDude]

I understand why he wants to draw the line where he does, but like I just asked turtle... when someone comes at you from the right and says YOUR choice of prohibition is unconstitutional... how do you combat that?

you see my line of what is obviously protected is based on the concept of estoppel and relies on the "expertise" of the very government units that want to regulate arms

 

[poweRob]

But I believe that the Phased Plasma rifle with the 40 watt range will almost certainly be outlawed.

That would be unconstitutional.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok... I'll play devils advocate to get this ball moving because I feel like we are spinning wheels here..

Turtle... your choice of banning any arms you would list is unconstitutional.

anything civilian agencies have cannot be banned.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I understand why he wants to draw the line where he does, but like I just asked turtle... when someone comes at you from the right and says YOUR choice of prohibition is unconstitutional... how do you combat that?

Well, whenever someone disagrees with me, I would attempt to explain my position: Generally, any weapon like Artillery is not an army, it's a piece of ordinance. Or explosives are not arms, nor are nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

If that doesn't work, I start bashing heads.