Originally posted by SrWingCommander
I am going to post something, an educated answer, that is going to blow most of you away.

I am a little tired of this same general argument. " you gun guys think that the second amendment should allow you to have rockets, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc." it's a and ignorant argument and both pro and anti second amendment people get it wrong.

About 15 years, as a political science major, I took a full class called, " guns and the constitution ". It examined gun laws, court cases, and the 2nd amendment and its development.

There was much discussion during the constitutional convention on exactly how the second would work. I am not ( at the moment ) going to break down the whole thing as I want to focus on one of the key words selected for the amendment. And that is the word "arms".

During the vernacular of the day, the word arms referred to that weaponry that was, 1) used by an individual, such as a rifle, pistol, or sword. And 2) were used as the standard weapon of the armed forces infantryman. Muskets were already becoming out classed by the new rifles (incidentally, prior to and during the war the English weren't too concerned about the colonists having muskets, but they WERE concerned about the technological leap to rifles and is one of the weapons they were looking to seize at Lexington and Concord, on this later).

Anyways, there was another term that there was serious discussion about using in the 2nd amendment. That term is "ordnance". In the vernacular of the day ordnance referred to mortars, cannons, and other crew served (not individual)weapons. While the founders wanted the people to have individual personal arms equivalent to the armed forces, they did not see a need for them to own crew served weapons. This is important because prior to the constitution many colonies/states allowed that. Incidentally, many states didn't restrict these weapons after the second was ratified, and even today it's not actually illegal to own an operating tank or cannon in some states...but it's not nesecarily a right protected by the Constitution and is usually highly restricted and/or monitored.

Now, if we take this line of thought as the original intent and extrapolate that to today, it means that the intent of the second amendment allows the people to own equivalent military grade individual arms like an AR-15. but it would not nesecarily protect the right to own weapons like artillery, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc.. Both the Miller and Heller Supreme Court cases used the argument that the 2nd protects weapons that have a militia purpose.

When the British Army marched on Lexington and concord it was to seize rifles and cannon that were being amassed. And this is what started the revolution. Knowing what they were planning,and fearing never being able to fight back should the english continue to rule by increasing tyranny, the colonists knew they had to protect those weapons, particularly the personal equivalent arms (the rifles).

So in a nutshell the 2nd totally protects your right to an AR15. But does not protect your right to a nuclear weapon, or rocket launcher, or whatever stupid analogy some are throwing out there.

If the government goes today to seize those personal arms (semi auto) rifles, they are repeating what the British did. Will the result be the same???? A justified insurrection????

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
*snip*
If this is true, gun owners must also support the right to bear rocket launchers, they must support the right to own a fleet of attack helicopters. They must support the right of citizens to stock pile the chemical ingredients for making large bombs. They must support these.
*snip*

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
I'll make this quick

Let us start with some facts, shall we.

- The 2nd Amendment grants the American citizen the right to bear arms
- The 2nd Amendment puts no limit on what arms are to be owned
- The purpose is so that the citizens, a militia, secures the security of a free state

So we know why you have a right to arms, and we know there was no further detail on which arms, no set limits on rate of fire, caliber, that sort of thing. Because of this gun advocates scream until they're blue in the face that they need assault rifles and that they need machines with dumb high magazines, and that they need 20 guns and thousands of bullets, just in case they have to take to the streets and defeat tyranny. This is what they say, when asked why such weaponry is needed it almost always comes back to the 2nd amendment. It's an excuse, but it's what they say. And it's hard to argue with that - We have the right, therefore we're going to own the guns.
When confronted with the fact that back in them days they had muskets and other weak weaponry, the gun owners say what? that it doesn't matter, it says the right to bear arms and it's all relative, right. Tyrants have muskets, we have muskets. Tyrants have assault rifles, we have assault rifles. It's the right to bear arms, not the right to bear muskets. They need to protect themselves from tyranny in government.

If this is true, gun owners must also support the right to bear rocket launchers, they must support the right to own a fleet of attack helicopters. They must support the right of citizens to stock pile the chemical ingredients for making large bombs. They must support these.

If the founding fathers were alive today, would they not - in the same way that we're told they'd support assault rifles - see what the government has at their disposal, and recognise the need for citizens and militia to have surface-to-air missiles. To shoot down planes, spy drones, that sort of thing? Am I not right in saying that such weapons would be necessary, were a tyranny to form. That a gun would not do the trick, no matter how many rounds it has? Citizens also need fighter jets which are armed to the teeth. They need grenades.

Instead what happens? If you want a grenade you need a NFA Destructive Device permit which isn't easy to get. If you want a rocket launcher you can't have one. If you want an attack helicopter that's not going to fly. So your 2nd amendment, or the purpose of the 2nd amendment, your right to arm up to dissuade from and defeat tyrannical government, it's already been betrayed. You're already denied ownership of necessary weaponry for such a scenario, are you not?

I know you don't bear an attack helicopter, technically speaking. But that's only because the founding fathers did not envisage a society where an attack helicopter is required!

so unless you support the citizens right to easily access and own repeat-fire rocket launchers, fragmentation grenades, the right to create bombs, then you won't be taken seriously by me when talking about the 2nd amendment, nor should you be taken seriously by anybody else.

I no longer want to see you hiding behind the 2nd amendment because you have no reasonable argument for your high powered guns, not unless you're also vocal supporters of the types of weapons I've outlined above, only then will I take seriously your belief in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Until that time, you're just pretenders, frauds.

Your 30 round clip is no more necessary or justifiable than an automatic grenade launcher. If guns - which couldn't have been imagined at the time - are protected by the 2nd amendment, so too should all the weapons I listed off.