why we know the 2A is an individual right[W:999]

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Even some of the most strident gun advocates here have admitted that nuclear weapons are arms and are protected.

And yes - serious as a nuclear bomb explosion.

some but not those who are expert in constitutional law and interpretation. and when individual soldiers and civilian police officers start carrying nukes, let me know

I think you have watched too much of this movie

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

As I have said, in my opinion, nuclear weapons aren't arms.

NOpe, to the founders they would be called Ordnance and they are not weapons a normal infantryman, citizen or militia man normally would KEEP AND BEAR

its just another dishonest bit of BS. The fact is, the anti gun extremists don't think you have any right to own a firearm but they realize the backlash that would come if they came out and said that. So they pretend they support the constitution while engaging in mendacious and dishonest definitional quibbling that they claim allows them to pretend to support our constitutional rights while justifying their wretched Democrat party being able to ban every gun incrementally.

the bottom line is that the arguments these people proffer are disingenuous and patently obvious in what they want to do

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

it's an internet forum .. it's not a place for your juvenile manhood test.
what are you going to do?.. challenge me to a spelling bee or a typing contest next?

thank you for finally providing proof, even if we had ot go through you lil idiot dance to get here.
I'll have to have a chat with Piratemk and explain the err in his ways ( yes, he's wrong)... as are you if you agree with him.

Pirate was clearly wrong on that and it was fun watching a gun banner pretend to adopt his support

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

1- there is no right to use any arm that you desire.
2- you can own and use property - you just can't own and use the property that the peoples government has decided you will not have and have no right to.

sigh...

You've latched onto this new idea of yours...that one has the right to bear arms, but only the arms the government lets you bear...but all I've seen here is you repeating that over and over. I've seen no proof that your idea is, in fact, reality.

I might have missed it, so if you've already provided proof of that idea please direct me to the post. If not, then please provide the proof. The fact of you repeating this idea over and over...as you seem to be doing here...means nothing. (spouting a lie over and over does NOT make it true)

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

sigh...

You've latched onto this new idea of yours...that one has the right to bear arms, but only the arms the government lets you bear...but all I've seen here is you repeating that over and over. I've seen no proof that your idea is, in fact, reality.

I might have missed it, so if you've already provided proof of that idea please direct me to the post. If not, then please provide the proof. The fact of you repeating this idea over and over...as you seem to be doing here...means nothing. (spouting a lie over and over does NOT make it true)

what he doesn't understand (or admit) is that either the government has the power to ban firearms or it doesn't

claiming it can ban a certain amount of firearms but not too many is dishonest and makes no sense. The 2A is all about what a government cannot do.

Using his paradigm (lets suppose there are 1000 different firearms) banning the first 200 is certainly ok as is banning the next 600. But maybe not the last 200 and certainly not the last one.

but legally that has no merit and I believe he knows that. so what he is really arguing is that the government has the proper power to ban each and every firearm. Because he says it can ban some.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Horse crap. a government's power to do something does not depend on how many other choices are left. It is a violation of the 2A if the government bans one out of 10 type of firearms or 1 out of 2. Using your logic, it is not a violation of the 1A to ban Lutheran churches since Christians can attend Methodist, Orthodox, Anglican or Baptist churches

Translation; The choice of gun is at least as sacred to the gun fetishist as the choice of dogma is to the religious fanatic.
They believe in their guns and they identify themselves by the brand, model and caliber they carry.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Translation; The choice of gun is at least as sacred to the gun fetishist as the choice of dogma is to the religious fanatic.
They believe in their guns and they identify themselves by the brand, model and caliber they carry.

That post is neither responsive to what I wrote nor relevant to this thread

 

[Buck Ewer]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

That post is neither responsive to what I wrote nor relevant to this thread

You are the one who drew the comparison of gun type and religion.
I pointed out why you probably did.
It is obvious, to even the casual observer, that the ownership of all "arms" are not currently allowed to civilian citizens. Common sense dictates that this is a good idea.
Common sense would also dictate that the line of what is allowed needs to be moved.
This is not an absolute black and white issue, as you like to present it as
It is a matter of degree.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

You are the one who drew the comparison of gun type and religion.
I pointed out why you probably did.
It is obvious, to even the casual observer, that the ownership of all "arms" are not currently allowed to civilian citizens. Common sense dictates that this is a good idea.
Common sense would also dictate that the line of what is allowed needs to be moved.
This is not a black and white issue.
It is a matter of degree.

you deliberately misread what I was saying

I was saying that the claim that the RKBA is not infringed (violated) by banning some guns is as equally stupid as saying that the right to free exercise of religion is not violated by banning some forms of Christianity.

your posts have demonstrated a complete lack of common sense so when you talk about "common sense" I laugh. why do you trust government agents more than other civilians?

and where did the federal government get the power to ban certain arms?

 

[Buck Ewer]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

you deliberately misread what I was saying

I was saying that the claim that the RKBA is not infringed (violated) by banning some guns is as equally stupid as saying that the right to free exercise of religion is not violated by banning some forms of Christianity.

your posts have demonstrated a complete lack of common sense so when you talk about "common sense" I laugh. why do you trust government agents more than other civilians?

and where did the federal government get the power to ban certain arms?

I would like to point out that the practice of human sacrifice by religious sects are illegal in the USA.
Even freedom of religious expression has governmental limitations and is restricted to some degree by the government.
It has been already discussed that a civilian can not own a nuclear weapon ...let me ask you this ... could you own an operating bazooka or an RPG?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

I would like to point out that the practice of human sacrifice by religious sects are illegal in the USA.
Even freedom of religious expression has governmental limitations and is restricted to some degree by the government.
It has been already discussed that a civilian can not own a nuclear weapon ...let me ask you this ... could you own an operating bazooka or an RPG?

more incredible silliness

1) where did the federal government get the proper power to tell people that they cannot own the same weapons that civilian police use

2) Why do anti gun extremists whine about Nukes when such a weapon is not one someone can keep and bear nor is an individual arm as contemplated by the founders

3) you can own-in some states, with the discretionary permission of the chief law enforcement officer (state or county) and the permission of the ATF an RPG or a bazooka (its actually the projectile that is the item that is hard to own)

4) automatic rifles, Short barreled shotguns or rifles, and noise suppressors are treated the same way.

do civilian police agencies use bazookas or RPGS? don't think so

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Translation; The choice of gun is at least as sacred to the gun fetishist as the choice of dogma is to the religious fanatic.
They believe in their guns and they identify themselves by the brand, model and caliber they carry.

Well, of course it's sacred. Just like any other choice a person makes.

Hey...how would you like it if the government banned your favorite salsa...and told you to suck it up because there are a bunch of other choices out there. If you are a true Coloradan, your choice of salsa is very sacred to you.

Or are you one of those Taco Bell kind of guys who don't care about salsa or the kind of chilies that are in it?

 

[Buck Ewer]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

1) where did the federal government get the proper power to tell people that they cannot own the same weapons that civilian police use

Where do you get the idea that you should be permitted the same weaponry as the police?

2) Why do anti gun extremists whine about Nukes when such a weapon is not one someone can keep and bear nor is an individual arm as contemplated by the founders

Do you really think the founders contemplated 100 round magazines? If you interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the word "bear" is narrowly defined as literally "to carry"... then nuclear weapons may not necessarily be ruled out.
It is known that the military was working on a shoulder-launched tactical nuclear weapon in the 50s and 60s. What makes you think that such a weapon was never fully developed? That would fit your narrow definition of "bear".

3) you can own-in some states, with the discretionary permission of the chief law enforcement officer (state or county) and the permission of the ATF an RPG or a bazooka (its actually the projectile that is the item that is hard to own)

You would need to demonstrate to those officials a very good reason why you needed such a weapon ... no civilian could ever meet that criteria. So bingo ...you are not allowed to own, an easy to carry (bear), rocket launcher with operable projectile. So there is a line of bearable arm that you can not own right now.

3) 4) automatic rifles, Short barreled shotguns or rifles, and noise suppressors are treated the same way.

These are common sense regulations that you readily accept... are they not?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Where do you get the idea that you should be allowed the same weaponry as the police?


Do you really think the founders contemplated 100 round magazines? If you interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the word "bear" is narrowly defined as literally "to carry"... then nuclear weapons may not necessarily be ruled out.
It is known that the military was working on a shoulder-launched tactical nuclear weapon in the 50s and 60s. What makes you think that such a weapon was never fully developed? That would fit your narrow definition of "bear".


You would need to demonstrate to those officials a very good reason why you needed such a weapon ... no civilian could ever meet that criteria. So bingo ...you are not allowed to own, an easy to carry (bear), rocket launcher with operable projectile. So there is a line of bearable arm that you can not own right now.


These are common sense regulations that you readily accept... are they not?

1) the 2A-police are civilians. Under Heller, police weapons are both in common use and not unusually dangerous

so civilians should have access to the same defensive weaponry that our tax dollars supplies civilian cops with

2) hundred round magazines are not all that hard to comprehend for people who were aware of weapons that could shoot several rounds a minute. Its like a race car driver in 1920 with a car that went 80 MPH comprehending one that can go 200 MPH. the technology of bullets really isn't all at different these days then in 1790.

on the other hand high speed internet or any form of electronic communication (which is protected by the first amendment) was far harder to comprehend in a pre-electrical society.

only idiots think that the founders wanted citizens to be limited to what was available in 1790 or so. the purpose of the 2A was to recognize the natural right of people to be armed-be it the crossbow of the 1400s, the matchlock of the 1600s, the rifled flintlock of the 1700s, the percussion cap revolver of the 1850s or a M4 assault rifle of today

RPGs and rocket launchers are ordnance or artillery, not arms so your argument fails monumentally. cops don't use those either and they are not the standard issue infantry weapon

automatic rifles, suppressors (not arms-should not be regulated) and SBR or SBS should be treated the same way pistols rifles and common shotguns should be treated

again, you are in no position to tell us what common sense regulations are

common sense regulations are this

1) if you use a gun to improperly harm, threaten, menace or intimidate another person you are in trouble

2) if you discharge a firearm in a reckless manner so as to harm, threaten or intimidate another person or to harm improperly animals or property of others you are in trouble

3) if you are engaged in criminal activity and you have firearms to further your criminal activity you are in trouble

now that is common sense because it attacks criminal activity

telling me I cannot own an M16 rifle is not common sense

 

[Buck Ewer]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

1) the 2A-police are civilians. Under Heller, police weapons are both in common use and not unusually dangerous

so civilians should have access to the same defensive weaponry that our tax dollars supplies civilian cops with

2) hundred round magazines are not all that hard to comprehend for people who were aware of weapons that could shoot several rounds a minute. Its like a race car driver in 1920 with a car that went 80 MPH comprehending one that can go 200 MPH. the technology of bullets really isn't all at different these days then in 1790.

on the other hand high speed internet or any form of electronic communication (which is protected by the first amendment) was far harder to comprehend in a pre-electrical society.

only idiots think that the founders wanted citizens to be limited to what was available in 1790 or so. the purpose of the 2A was to recognize the natural right of people to be armed-be it the crossbow of the 1400s, the matchlock of the 1600s, the rifled flintlock of the 1700s, the percussion cap revolver of the 1850s or a M4 assault rifle of today

RPGs and rocket launchers are ordnance or artillery, not arms so your argument fails monumentally. cops don't use those either and they are not the standard issue infantry weapon

automatic rifles, suppressors (not arms-should not be regulated) and SBR or SBS should be treated the same way pistols rifles and common shotguns should be treated

again, you are in no position to tell us what common sense regulations are

common sense regulations are this

1) if you use a gun to improperly harm, threaten, menace or intimidate another person you are in trouble

2) if you discharge a firearm in a reckless manner so as to harm, threaten or intimidate another person or to harm improperly animals or property of others you are in trouble

3) if you are engaged in criminal activity and you have firearms to further your criminal activity you are in trouble

now that is common sense because it attacks criminal activity

telling me I cannot own an M16 rifle is not common sense

Arms are arms and some of them you can not and should not be permitted to own.
I draw the line somewhat lower on the scale of weaponry and killing power than do you...that's all...
I have demonstrated that you have no argument of absolutes. You have an argument of degree.
That degree of armament permitted has changed in the past and just as surely as it has, it will change again.
By digging in, with a no-compromise stand, as though you had an argument of absolutes, you are bound to lose more ground than you likely would have by taking a more common sense approach. People who have a normal healthy view of guns are in the majority and will eventually win the argument for common sense gun regulation.
The gun fetishist is his own worst enemy.

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Where do you get the idea that you should be permitted the same weaponry as the police?

Both the cop and I are civilians and we both carry a weapon for the same reason and for the same aplications.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Both the cop and I are civilians and we both carry a weapon for the same reason and for the same aplications.

That is a delusion that the police do not share with you.

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

That is a delusion that the police do not share with you.

Nice opinion you have there.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Arms are arms and some of them you can not and should not be permitted to own.

~snipped the irrelevant stuff~

The problem with what you are saying is that the fundamental rule we have on the matter is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution...and that Amendment doesn't say a thing about what arms should be permitted and what arms should not be permitted. Now...you have your opinion what should be allowed...the next guy has his. None of that matters because, until you or he change the 2nd Amendment, there IS no limit.

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The problem with what you are saying is that the fundamental rule we have on the matter is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution...and that Amendment doesn't say a thing about what arms should be permitted and what arms should not be permitted. Now...you have your opinion what should be allowed...the next guy has his. None of that matters because, until you or he change the 2nd Amendment, there IS no limit.

There is a limit. The limit is encased in the definition of "infringe".

The 2A is meant to protect the people's ability to act against forign and domestic enemies. Baning private ownership of WMDs does not in any way 'undermine' that. Therefore such a ban is not an 'infringement'.

Just as with fireworks, if someone can sustain proper storage of explosives, I see no reason to ban that, either.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

There is a limit. The limit is encased in the definition of "infringe".

The 2A is meant to protect the people's ability to act against forign and domestic enemies. Baning private ownership of WMDs does not in any way 'undermine' that. Therefore such a ban is not an 'infringement'.

Just as with fireworks, if someone can sustain proper storage of explosives, I see no reason to ban that, either.

I think you missed my point...or maybe you've sidestepped it...and you are in danger of falling into the same mind-set as Buck Ewer by expressing YOUR opinion of what types of arms should not be allowed, though you do redeem yourself somewhat with your last sentence.

But the point is...the 2nd Amendment is very clear and straightforward. It makes no distinctions as to what types of arms should be considered "over the line". Therefore, if one wants to establish that "line", one needs to change the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution establishes the procedure to do just that.

So, if anyone doesn't like the 2nd Amendment...if they think there should be a "line"...I suggest they get busy and change it. Until then, abide by it. It's what we have.

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

But the point is...the 2nd Amendment is very clear and straightforward. It makes no distinctions as to what types of arms should be considered "over the line".

The 2A is very clear, as you said..."a well regulated militia", and so its militia arms which are protected. WMDs are not militia arms.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

I have no idea what you are babbling about here, the fact is, your definition is incompatible with the belief system of the founders and thus your definition is worthless

Amazing! Reality is not compatible with a fantasy based belief system to you reject the reality and embrace the belief system.

WOW!!!!!!

 

[justabubba]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The 2A is very clear, as you said..."a well regulated militia", and so its militia arms which are protected. WMDs are not militia arms.

based on this difference of opinion alone, it would appear 2A is not all that clear

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

I think you should keep dismissing logic like you do ... it totally makes you look more intelligent. :lamo

Its not logic. Its what some zealot calls logic because they cannot come up with actual verifiable evidence to support their claims.