US 2nd Amendment - What weapons should and shouldn't be permissible?

a reply to: Wayfarer

The Second Amendment is Self Explanatory , the Right to Protect Your God Given LIFE from Harm by Any Means Necessary , including the Use of Firearms . Those who Wish to Take Away that Right would be Asking American Citizens to put themselves in Harms Way for the Good of their Own Personal Political Agenda . No Thanks............

a reply to: Wayfarer

More SENSE for the Senseless........

a reply to: Wayfarer

First amendment - what kind of language/expression should not be permitted?

The question is whether individuals have a right to area effect weapons used by institutions to attack groups. Beginning with fictional planet busters on one extreme, and pinfire pistols on the other, somewhere in the middle, we shall find a common ground, and somewhere we shall find the grey area.

We can all agree that a planet busting device actually infringes on the gun rights of others. If the planet and all things on it are disintegrated, clearly, you have also disintegrated all the weapons along with it. This absurd point needs to exist, so that when we scale back, we can perceive where this line of reasoning breaks down.

The next logical step down is hydrogen bombs, such as the Tsar Bomba. 50 megatons or so, capable of disintegrating all life within a large radius approximating a city. No one within the disintegration radius would have had their right to bear arms preserved, however, they do call nuclear weapons an "arms race", and unlike the planet busters, they exist, and there are thousands of them out there.

But this brings us to the human instinct for moral appeal to culturally indoctrinated norms. Take the 1968 handgun laws for example. Is it right that a 19 year old can have a long gun, but pistols are banned? Does this sound like it conforms to the 2nd amendment? Objectively, it does not. It is because we have become culturally indoctrinated to believe it is normal, that we accept it prima facie. Certainly any teen with his grandfather's civil war era cowboy six shooter thought their second amendment had been infringed, much like every citizen with gold thought it was an infringement when they were confiscated under executive order 6102 of 1933.

We have accepted that institutions are somehow more responsible than individuals, at least in the past, whereas the existence of current world leaders with autonomy to use nuclear weapons at their pleasure may cause some to second guess whether institutions and groups should have any rights whatsoever, certainly not rights over the individuals of the populous. The existence of nuclear weapons is an infringement of your right to bear arms.

How is that possible?

The concept is a variant of Mutually assured destruction, except in this case, it isn't mutual. There's an escalation in an arms race we imagine, a sequence of responses. Imagine for a moment a hypothetical criminal bandit. Failing to stop them with words, the authorities then send documents. Such as the issue of a warrant. Failing to secure control with a warrant, they send police.

At this point, the arms race has begun in the obvious, but it actually began with words - the threat is implied that if obedience is not the outcome, then the warrant will be issued. The warrant is a threat implied, speaking of police. The police then use words or physical force with the threat of prison, should compliance fail. But the prison is merely another threat, for anyone who does not want to be captured and held prisoner, or attempts to escape prison, shall be met with more violence, in the form of clubs, man handling, electrocution, poison gas, and eventually, firearms.

This is about where most people's comprehension of the second amendment stops. But the second amendment isn't about police. It's about rebels fighting the super power that was the British Empire. They did not defeat the British with flintlock pistols and fisticuffs. They defeated the British with Naval Ships, Espionage, Black powder explosives, and Cannons. Armies marched not just with muskets, but with Cannons and Mortars. If George Washington had missiles, would have have used them? Absolutely. If George Washington had Nuclear Weapons, would he have used them?

If a country were being conquered, and there were only a dozen freedom fighters left, and millions were in prison camps or otherwise subservient like the citizens of New York City during Washington's era, would you, as a captured and occupied former citizen desire for those freedom fighters to be limited to muskets, or would you want them to have access to cannons? Would you want them to have access to larger weapons? More technologically advanced weapons? Would you want them to be able to use satellites, or smart bombs? Stealth drones perhaps, so that they didn't all die in one battle, but could press the enemy out of your lands?

And if you were them, what weapons would you want, if you had to take back your country?

That answers the fundamental question of "why" the second amendment existed.

But why address weapons in terms of area effect?

Because somewhere, you are going to think "rocket launcher?" or "Mortar", and ask if civilians can own tanks.

"can civilians own tanks". Isn't really a question under the second amendment. Asking the question says more about your philosophical perspective of what a citizen, what militia, and what powers the state has, than it says about your capacity for logic. Every weapon becomes obsolete at some point. It may take centuries, but like the development of chain mail and plate armor, and later thin skinned tanks and bunkers, every weapon made by man has at some point been overcome by some other man made defense, and then every defense has been later defeated by some greater weapon - the estoc vs. plate, the three blade bayonet vs. soft armor in the trenches, the anti tank rifles and rockets in world wars, and the bunker busters used in Desert Wars of the late 20th century.

So I ask again, what is the reasonable area effect for a civilian weapon? Is a weapon meant to defeat a burglar, or an army?

This brings to question the value of the individual vs. the collective. If you imagine yourself in some 1980s Escape from New York/Warriors dystopian thriller (or the more comical and modern Purge), there's you, and there's a running scene in an urban environment, and there's anywhere from 2 to 100 people chasing you. Perhaps a gang, an angry mob, or a protest went wrong and now an army of whatever political position you oppose is now trying to kill you.

This scenario answers the question "How many bullets should a gun be able to shoot". As to other conventional weapons of "war", if you are being chased by people in tanks, or you happen to be one of the many people who died in the Ruby Ridge and Waco events, you'll kindly notice that more than "police" showed up to issue the Warrant.

Now we have come full circle, and returned to the principle of Escalation. Because they wont stop at police. They will call the ATF, the FBI, or whatever your Country has as its equivalent. There will be SWAT. Eventually, that failing, they will call in the National Guard...

wait.. but you thought the National Guard was the militia.

They aren't. As soon as you recognize an escalation motivated by despotism inevitably leads to dominion over the national guard, you recognize the national guard isn't the militia, and the national guard isn't you. The national guard isn't the second amendment. The national guard is just an academic remodeling of the army with some extra red tape determining which line of authority gets first dibs. The national guard is no different from the Army, in as much as Sheriffs are no different from City Police or Highway Patrol, when it comes to the rights of the everyman, vs. the rights of "authority". A badge or uniform authorized by a populous to have privileges the rest of the populous does not, is NOT a militia.

Well Regulated, perhaps is the real question.

If you have seen the Ted Nugent video and are still unclear on this, not sure what is going to help.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Even professors who can only be described as extremely left-wing have come to this conclusion. For example, the prominent law professor Laurence Tribe, has reluctantly concluded that this Amendment explicitly upholds the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.1

The writings of our Founding Fathers reveal that there were two sociological reasons to uphold this natural right: To prevent crime, and to defend against a rogue domestic government. As example of the Founders thoughts on the crime-deterrent effect of civilian firearms possession, I give you Thomas Jefferson:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." 2

And as an example of how the Founders felt about civilian firearms possession as regards keeping our government 'honest and upright', I give you, again, Thomas Jefferson, who warns:

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.3

This is the best source for bullcrap anti second arguments there is....

I know a guy that owns around 80 tanks.
You know what he did with them?
He conquered Birmingham Alabama and blew it to pieces.
Seriously he has a tank museum that used to be in Danville, VA but I think he moved it to Ohio.

I think the current laws are pretty good and there's no need to do any further legislation.
Just make sure the systems in place are used to the fullest to keep true nutbags from having guns.
No, I'm not in favor of having psychologists decide who may or may have weapons.
A judge needs to be convinced of the fact.

The Second Amendment was drafted in around 1791.

at that time muzzle-loading weapons were not the only weapons out there.

There were rifles out there that could fire 22 rounds as fast as you could cock the weapon and pull the trigger.
www.youtube.com...
www.forgottenweapons.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Except I'm not asking for a debate on Gun Control, I'm asking what weapons do you think should or shouldn't be allowed, and why.

So you don't want to talk about gun control, you just want to talk about controlling what guns we should have.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Except I'm not asking for a debate on Gun Control, I'm asking what weapons do you think should or shouldn't be allowed, and why.

Im comfortable with the way it is right now, honestly.

although i think you should be able to saw down a 410 shotgun legally. it makes no sense to make that illegal when you can buy a 410 pistol.

To me, those things just prove that officials tend to make restrictions just to have power over people and feel elevated above the common people when they make laws like those. They don't feel those laws apply to themselves when they use force to deny people their rights.

The way things are going now, it will likely get very bad one of these days soon.

a reply to: Wayfarer

hydrogen bombs for everybody - its the only way

a reply to: Wayfarer

Since the amendment says ARMS, shall not be infringed, I'm pretty sure they meant all of them. Changing the meaning to limit which ARMS requires another amendment, anything is unconstitutional.

a reply to: ANNED

so what? The framers didn't write "the right to bear flintlock muskets, shall no be infringed." Using your logic the framers couldn't envision the internet, does that mean the medium we are using isn't protected by the 1st amendment.

OP asked a simple question and here is my simple answer -

The framers wrote "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That meant the small arms of the day, the same ones that were in use with the military of the day. I think that means that the amendment protects ownership of small arms up to and including whatever the military is currently using. So semi-auto and full-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns. There, that wasn't so hard.

Civilians should be allowed to possess anything the police are seen walking through our streets with. If they are granted permission to arm and equip themselves like a military force, then it is the right of the people to do the same to protect themselves. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. Nor is it entirely about protecting oneself from a mugging. It is about the American People having the right to rise up and stop a tyrannical government that seeks complete and total dominance over its citizens.

Again, it is not the laws but how they are implemented that actually counts.

a reply to: AlienOutlaw

It's about all of those.

For the majority of this country's history citizens could get any weapons
, including explosives, with little trouble. Up until the mid 80's you could even still an m16 without having to sell a kidney. Country was doing alright then. So i think all small arms and high explosives as long as they are stored correctly. The freemarket pretty much takes care of keeping a T-62 with live rounds, or an MK19 out of the hands of criminals. At a certain point, when you have the money to afford a tank, your crimes are less about violence and more about lying.

My understanding is the Second Amendment was to provide the common man a means of defending himself against a tyrannical government. As such, it would follow to reason that the common man should be equipped with weapons capable of doing so lest the "right" be a moot point. What good is telling We, The People, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right we have absolutely no way of exercising?

It seems to me that any steps that would prevent exercising a right is infringement, regardless of the form it takes, and is therefore unconstitutional.

This right has been derailed and trivialized with false narratives about assault weapons that don't exist and weapons of war that no standing army uses because they would get their butts kicked by an army using real assault weapons. We need truth.

The idea of making people safe by limiting the weapons available has been proven wrong time and time again but it never goes away. It shoots too fast - get rid of it. So what do we do with the worlds fastest handgun shooter? He fired 8 rounds into one target in 1 second with a revolver. He fired 8 rounds into 4 targets in 1.06 seconds. And he fired 6 rounds into 1 target, reloaded and fired 6 more in 2.99 seconds. Clearly , we need to cut this mans hands off. He is simply too dangerous.

London logged 37 murders in February and March this year compared to 35 in New York. And its happening with knives. So what do liberals want to do about it? Ban knives of course. No more steaks for you London. Pointy things will be next. Then probably rocks. Why? Because people cant admit that policy doesn't work. Just keep banning things until the murder stops. And in the mean time people keep dying and Second Amendment advocates are villianized for it.