Are there any limits to the 2nd amendment?

[TomH]

Do your research. "The average bum" can buy one legally in most states as long as he pays the NFA tax for a destructive device.

You must be amazed that they're not being used to shoot up schools on a daily basis.

Yep, the most serious criminals can and will get anything they want. They are not dumb people.

I think this has gone way off topic. We're talking about limitations if any on the 2nd Amendment. You have to go back to the original intent: being able to overthrow if necessary a government that is violating your rights. If you think about what that would really take in terms of arms, equipment, etc that covers a lot. I think that easily covers high-end machine guns. Do I think it covers nukes, no. This is because there really wouldn't be a purpose for such a weapon if a conflict broke out inside the borders of the country. There would be no defined borders where the "enemy" is located, making a weapon like this practical. Large scale devices like nukes and large bombs are really intended for attacking other nations where you wouldn't be concerned with hitting your own side. Do I think it should cover small explosives, grenades, etc, yes. I don't believe that it will ever be interpreted this way but perhaps it should be. We should possess the means at all times to be able to overthrow the government because they work for US, not the other way around.

 

[theGringo]

I have an account over at Democratic Underground. I haven't been ... active in a while. I think I'll go over there and ask if there are any limits to "redistribution of wealth". It'll probably start a pretty spirited debate there, ayuh.

 

[wahsben]

I have an account over at Democratic Underground. I haven't been ... active in a while. I think I'll go over there and ask if there are any limits to "redistribution of wealth". It'll probably start a pretty spirited debate there, ayuh.

While you are there ask them what percentage of Bruce Springsteens, Billy Joels, James Taylors and Oprah Winfreys money should be redistributed since they helped contribute to Obama's election.
That should help stoke the fire. LOL

 

[calsdad]

By this reasoning though, I'd have to argue that a Javelin anti-tank missile would be useful to me

And I would agree with you.

Although a Javelin can be arguably used as an offensive as well as a defensive weapon (wiki says they are useful against buildings):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

I would argue that their primary - most useful role, is as a defensive weapon. Therefore their primary role - especially if they were in the hands of a militia, would be for defense.

A scenario:
Which would you fear more - a squad of soldiers armed with Javelins attacking you, that you can shoot down with your rifle - or a couple of tanks coming down on you - that your rifle is no defense against whatsoever?

I think this example illustrates the inherent difference between a Javelin - and a tank, enough to be able to discern which is more of an offensive weapon than the other.

There are very few weapons that can truly be said to be defensive. A cannon mounted in a fort is about as defensive a weapon as I can imagine. It will only inflict damage on those that are attacking it. Across the range of weaponry available to humans pretty much all of it can be said to have both defensive and offensive uses. I think they exist on a continuum though - where some are more offensive than defensive - and vice-versa.

The idiots who use the "if we allow guns we have to allow nuclear weapons" argument are just trying to justify their anti-gun opinions with crappy logic. They deserve to be browbeaten as much as possible.

 

[TomH]

And I would agree with you.

Although a Javelin can be arguably used as an offensive as well as a defensive weapon (wiki says they are useful against buildings):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

I would argue that their primary - most useful role, is as a defensive weapon. Therefore their primary role - especially if they were in the hands of a militia, would be for defense.

A scenario:
Which would you fear more - a squad of soldiers armed with Javelins attacking you, that you can shoot down with your rifle - or a couple of tanks coming down on you - that your rifle is no defense against whatsoever?

I think this example illustrates the inherent difference between a Javelin - and a tank, enough to be able to discern which is more of an offensive weapon than the other.

There are very few weapons that can truly be said to be defensive. A cannon mounted in a fort is about as defensive a weapon as I can imagine. It will only inflict damage on those that are attacking it. Across the range of weaponry available to humans pretty much all of it can be said to have both defensive and offensive uses. I think they exist on a continuum though - where some are more offensive than defensive - and vice-versa.

The idiots who use the "if we allow guns we have to allow nuclear weapons" argument are just trying to justify their anti-gun opinions with crappy logic. They deserve to be browbeaten as much as possible.

You're assuming that only weapons that are defensive in nature are justified under the 2nd. I'd disagree and say there could be times when ordinary citizens would have to go on the offensive in order to defend their rights.

 

[MagnumAl]

- My rights do not end where your feelings begin. Its a bit smartass....but hey. I do not NEED it. I WANT it. Its fun, its new, its active and its skill based, for differnt guns its like learning to drive a new type of motorcycle. Noone needs to fly airplanes for a hobby.

Of course, my favorite quip " If I wanted to live in a place where I had to explain my needs, I would move to England/Australia/China." This is America, go stick that question to the commies.

 

[TomH]

- My rights do not end where your feelings begin. Its a bit smartass....but hey. I do not NEED it. I WANT it. Its fun, its new, its active and its skill based, for differnt guns its like learning to drive a new type of motorcycle. Noone needs to fly airplanes for a hobby.

Of course, my favorite quip " If I wanted to live in a place where I had to explain my needs, I would move to England/Australia/China." This is America, go stick that question to the commies.

+1 to you sir.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

You beat me to it about NFA DD's

I was at the Hospital getting a test done on my gimp leg.

Thanks for the Rep, Back at ya.

Do your research. "The average bum" can buy one legally in most states as long as he pays the NFA tax for a destructive device.

You must be amazed that they're not being used to shoot up schools on a daily basis.

 

[calsdad]

You're assuming that only weapons that are defensive in nature are justified under the 2nd. I'd disagree and say there could be times when ordinary citizens would have to go on the offensive in order to defend their rights.

True - but I am making an assumption that you using these examples because you are in the middle of an theoretical argument with a nitwit liberal - so avoiding any hint of ownership of "offensive weaponry" like "assault rifles" is a good thing.

In the real world you are right, the militia should have weaponry that allows them to engage in offensive military operations also. The militia did this during the Revolution when they hauled the cannon all the way down from VT to bombard Boston and drive the British out.

 

[TomH]

True - but I am making an assumption that you using these examples because you are in the middle of an theoretical argument with a nitwit liberal - so avoiding any hint of ownership of "offensive weaponry" like "assault rifles" is a good thing.

In the real world you are right, the militia should have weaponry that allows them to engage in offensive military operations also. The militia did this during the Revolution when they hauled the cannon all the way down from VT to bombard Boston and drive the British out.

I don't argue with nitwit liberals anymore, it isn't worth it!

 

[Bill Nance]

True - but I am making an assumption that you using these examples because you are in the middle of an theoretical argument with a nitwit liberal - so avoiding any hint of ownership of "offensive weaponry" like "assault rifles" is a good thing.

In the real world you are right, the militia should have weaponry that allows them to engage in offensive military operations also. The militia did this during the Revolution when they hauled the cannon all the way down from VT to bombard Boston and drive the British out.

I won't attempt to argue that explosives in particular are covered under 2A. I simply don't agree that they are.

"Assault weapons" including full-auto, clearly are. They are of clear and obvious military value to a militia and can be reasonably used as self defense with minimal social cost.

No reasonable person argues that the 1st amendment gives you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, I don't think it's unreasonable for government to restrict access to of specific weapon systems like det cord, grenades, c4 and blasting caps.

Just as with yelling fire in a crowded theater, wide possession of say grenades with no restriction, has inherent social costs which outweigh the right.

I can kill a lot of people at the mall with my AR. I can kill a great many MORE people, a LOT more easily with a dozen frags.

I don't see how trying to argue that every citizen should own a few dozen grenades helps the cause. Quite the opposite.

TBH one of my post 911 nightmares is four guys at the Disneyland entrance at opening time with a few frags each. The death toll would be in the hundreds, the wounded in the thousands. Translate that to the same number of guys with full-auto AKs and you get a VERY different body count.

 

[Kalahari]

I'm with Bill Nance here, on many points.

There are social costs which must be considered, and I can't imagine what we'd be labeled and how quickly our arguments would be dismissed if any gun-grabbers saw this argument. They piss their pants at the thought of people with AKs, much less grenades, howitzers, and bombs.

 

[theGringo]

I'm with Bill Nance here, on many points.

And I ... am not at all surprised.

 

[TomH]

I'm with Bill Nance here, on many points.

There are social costs which must be considered, and I can't imagine what we'd be labeled and how quickly our arguments would be dismissed if any gun-grabbers saw this argument. They piss their pants at the thought of people with AKs, much less grenades, howitzers, and bombs.

As has been stated before, people in the military have their hands on plenty of equipment and they could kill plenty if they decided to. They don't. I think appeasing some wussy liberal gun grabber is a piss-poor argument against owning such items. Its called personal responsibility, morals, etc. Yes there are people without them. But those people are generally in charge of our country, our money, and our military anyway.

 

[Kalahari]

As has been stated before, people in the military have their hands on plenty of equipment and they could kill plenty if they decided to. They don't. I think appeasing some wussy liberal gun grabber is a piss-poor argument against owning such items. Its called personal responsibility, morals, etc. Yes there are people without them. But those people are generally in charge of our country, our money, and our military anyway.

I could care less about appeasing to the liberals. If that's all I intended to do, I wouldn't argue the points with you. I don't believe, in my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and my readings of the intention of it, that it allows certain types of weaponry to be allowed by the people. If that makes me a liberal-appeaser so be it. I'm still on your side on just about everything else.

 

[mikem317]

The question, "are there any limits to the 2nd amendment" has already been answered.

 

[Ray-500]

I won't attempt to argue that explosives in particular are covered under 2A. I simply don't agree that they are.

"Assault weapons" including full-auto, clearly are. They are of clear and obvious military value to a militia and can be reasonably used as self defense with minimal social cost.

No reasonable person argues that the 1st amendment gives you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, I don't think it's unreasonable for government to restrict access to of specific weapon systems like det cord, grenades, c4 and blasting caps.

Just as with yelling fire in a crowded theater, wide possession of say grenades with no restriction, has inherent social costs which outweigh the right.

I can kill a lot of people at the mall with my AR. I can kill a great many MORE people, a LOT more easily with a dozen frags.

I don't see how trying to argue that every citizen should own a few dozen grenades helps the cause. Quite the opposite.

TBH one of my post 911 nightmares is four guys at the Disneyland entrance at opening time with a few frags each. The death toll would be in the hundreds, the wounded in the thousands. Translate that to the same number of guys with full-auto AKs and you get a VERY different body count.

Grin, a person can be killed with a pencil. Should we ban all of them? A person can be killed by a vehicle...of any type. Should we ban all? Explosives, like grenades, are ALREADY regulated. Your point?

 

[cekim]

This is a tough question that unfortunately cannot be answered to anyone's satisfaction...

My view is that the intent of 2A was clearly to provide citizens with the ability to overthrow tyrannical governments. As such, they should be allowed any arms the government has. This view is supported by the commentary of multiple founders as well as simple logic of looking at what they had just done...

With such an interpretation, there is no limit to the arms that they expected an individual could own.

HOWEVER, they were looking at guns, arrows, swords, cannons and crude explosives...

They did not have to ponder the implications of nukes or germ warfare. Without these (and the technological scale that has occurred since then), its easier to see how they could take a principled and inclusive view.

As ardent a supporter of this right as I am (including 50 cal, autos and explosives), I am not sure I am ready to open the full flood gates and see youtube videos entitled ("back-yard nuke - watch this...")...

How do we decide where the line is? I don't know, but it is WAY too far down right now... I would say that provided the military is firmly prevented from actions against citizens on US soil, then the easy thing to do is say if the police force can get it - so should any citizen...

 

[cekim]

p.s. I hasten to point out the unfortunate reality that at present - corporations suffer fewer limitations than citizens WRT to armament...

This is absolutely absurd and another clear indication that we have gone too far in limiting private ownership. The last thing we want is to encourage "corporate armies"...

 

[Ray-500]

This is a tough question that unfortunately cannot be answered to anyone's satisfaction...

My view is that the intent of 2A was clearly to provide citizens with the ability to overthrow tyrannical governments. As such, they should be allowed any arms the government has. This view is supported by the commentary of multiple founders as well as simple logic of looking at what they had just done...

With such an interpretation, there is no limit to the arms that they expected an individual could own.

HOWEVER, they were looking at guns, arrows, swords, cannons and crude explosives...

They did not have to ponder the implications of nukes or germ warfare. Without these (and the technological scale that has occurred since then), its easier to see how they could take a principled and inclusive view.

As ardent a supporter of this right as I am (including 50 cal, autos and explosives), I am not sure I am ready to open the full flood gates and see youtube videos entitled ("back-yard nuke - watch this...")...

How do we decide where the line is? I don't know, but it is WAY too far down right now... I would say that provided the military is firmly prevented from actions against citizens on US soil, then the easy thing to do is say if the police force can get it - so should any citizen...

Yup, and I agree...in theory. However, how "firm" is that "prevention" of military action against citizens on US soil? What's to stop an "Executive Order" to initiate action? Sure, it can be argued in court...down the road...but how about the immediate? Not trying to be funny.

In the 1920's, Vets who were denied comp. and benefits marched on Washington, DC. They literally set up a "camp town". I believe it was ended by our own military, at the direction of our own govt.....and it WAS a military action....not only against citizens, but also against vets.

 

[cekim]

However, how "firm" is that "prevention" of military action against citizens on US soil? What's to stop an "Executive Order" to initiate action? Sure, it can be argued in court...down the road...but how about the immediate? Not trying to be funny.

Yes, you can never rely 100% on a legal protection, much to the dismay of pacifists, diplomacy without the threat of force is toothless and ultimately ineffectual...

As with all aspects of our government, there is potential abuse for power, but the objective is to make that abuse require multiple steps so that it can be seen, prevented, stopped or at least punished...

Nothing is perfect...

 

[Edzo]

They did not have to ponder the implications of nukes or germ warfare. Without these (and the technological scale that has occurred since then), its easier to see how they could take a principled and inclusive view.

As ardent a supporter of this right as I am (including 50 cal, autos and explosives), I am not sure I am ready to open the full flood gates and see youtube videos entitled ("back-yard nuke - watch this...")...

How do we decide where the line is?

Here's the line- if it's "okay" for a tyrannical regime to have a particular weapon, then a law-abiding American citizen shouldn't be held to a stricter standard. If it's okay to export a particular weapon to a country that's not one of our closest allies (Canada, Britain, etc), then I should be able to buy it also.

That rules out WMDs, stealth aircraft, nuclear subs and ICBMs. Everything else is on the table.

 

[cekim]

If it's okay to export a particular weapon to a country that's not one of our closest allies (Canada, Britain, etc), then I should be able to buy it also.

That rules out WMDs, stealth aircraft, nuclear subs and ICBMs. Everything else is on the table.

That sounds like a fine addition to "the line" as well...

 

[Bill Nance]

Grin, a person can be killed with a pencil. Should we ban all of them? A person can be killed by a vehicle...of any type. Should we ban all? Explosives, like grenades, are ALREADY regulated. Your point?

That's a ridiculous argument. If you make it to an anti you will be written off as an idiot and just strengthen their anti feelings.

You cannot kill me with a pencil unless you're Bruce Lee. More to the point, you can't blow up your entire neighborhood with one, nor can you inflict hundreds of casualties in a matter of 15 seconds, which you CAN do with hand grenades and c4.

Having easy access to frag grenades is a really bad idea. If there's a revolt in this country, you can use your full-auto weapon, kill a soldier and take HIS frags. It's worked quite well in a lot of insurgencies. -Ask the Yugoslavs, who kept 10 divisions of German troops busy during the entire second world war.

 

[cekim]

You cannot kill me with a pencil unless you're Bruce Lee.

Well, that's not true, but while Bruce could do it with one swift blow - It might take a few shots (eye/nose+ground=brain, carotid artery, etc)

Unfortunately, I impaled myself with a pencil as a kid, so I know first hand, that sharpen them up and they go through skin nicely...

While the pencil argument may be somewhat hyperbolic (though not ridiculous), there are many other tools and methods commonly available (ammonia, chlorine, natural gas, propane, various forms of nitrogen, etc...) which can be used to "destroy a neighborhood"...

We try to regulate some of them, but a. as Tannerite demonstrates - we miss a lot b. the regulation comes in the form of restricting us law abiding citizens once again and does little to stop the accumulation and delivery of these devices by those who do not "abide"...

All it takes is a tiny bit of knowledge and the willingness to break the law...

We seem to have lost touch of the reality that well functioning societies regulate themselves for the most part (self, family, community). They have police forces and laws, but the government is a back-stop for the worst of the worst - the reality is that they are vastly out numbered and the only way order is kept is that "most" people keep order amongst themselves...

If the government has to be the only one that stops any crime - we descend through a police state into chaos rather rapidly. The "social contract" is the only thing that keeps us civilized and you cannot force people into it any more than you can force a wild animal to be tame - they have to submit to it...

 

[clinotus]

That's a ridiculous argument. If you make it to an anti you will be written off as an idiot and just strengthen their anti feelings.

You cannot kill me with a pencil unless you're Bruce Lee.

Then surely we have denied the right to press and scribe to millions of prisoners around the country. Give them pencils and liberty!

 

[Bill Nance]

Then surely we have denied the right to press and scribe to millions of prisoners around the country. Give them pencils and liberty!

Give me pencils or give me death!

 

[cekim]

Give me pencils or give me death!

Pen please - pencil can be erased and changed

The libs keep saying it is mightier than the sword, so soon it too will have to be regulated...

 

[sig2009]

I can sum up my beliefs on the 2nd in two words: No Restrictions.

That is how you and I sum it up but in reality the Heller decision was terrible and you can argue this with me all you want. The Supreme Court left in "reasonable restrictions" which can be twisted any way a municipality or state wants it to be.

 

[theGringo]

More to the point, you can't blow up your entire neighborhood with one, nor can you inflict hundreds of casualties in a matter of 15 seconds, which you CAN do with hand grenades and c4.

How soon we forget what was then the largest mass murder in US history:

Shock Lingers as Happy Land Trial Starts

By ROBERT E. TOMASSON
Published: July 9, 1991

An unemployed Cuban refugee went on trial in a Bronx courtroom yesterday, charged with committing the largest mass murder in American history: the arson fire that killed 87 people at the illegal Happy Land social club in the Bronx nearly 16 months ago.

Even before jury selection began yesterday, the judge agreed to admit into evidence three admissions made to the police by the defendant, 37-year-old Julio Gonzalez.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...4C0A967958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

After that came OKC, perpetrated with fertilizer and fuel oil.