Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nukes, Mustard gas and F-22 are not arms..You statist always pull a reductio ad absurdum
Also this notion of "common sense" and also trumping "public safety" at the cost of personal liberty is a souring opinion..
Name one person who can Afford a F-22, or a Nuke, or a M-1 Tank...and would use it for criminal action..If you can even find one for any price.
Oh yes, they are arms. They are parts of "Arms Control" treaties.
You can't cop out on this. You take it literally, or there are limits. Which is it? Or, you prove that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment saw into the future into a world of machine guns, tanks, missiles, nuclear and chemical arms; and they definitely didn't want you to have nuclear arms, but were absolutely in favor of your having machine guns.
Oh yes, they are arms. They are parts of "Arms Control" treaties.
You can't cop out on this. You take it literally, or there are limits. Which is it? Or, you prove that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment saw into the future into a world of machine guns, tanks, missiles, nuclear and chemical arms; and they definitely didn't want you to have nuclear arms, but were absolutely in favor of your having machine guns.
Perhaps Gunlover is arguing the 2nd amendment should only apply to weapons that existed at the time it was added to the Constitution?
What the hell is the 'statist' label being thrown out?
By the way a shoulder fired ATW is an arm. Can I have one of those? Is that okay? My AR platform loaded with copper clad ammo is not quite enough to kill boar. I may need to step it up a notch.
You seem to be chickening out. I'll say it again. It's says "arms" in the 2nd amendment. Above, right there ^ you argue that the rules can't always be changing. Therefore, it MUST be taken literally and people MUST have the right to own any and all kinds of arms. Mustard gas, tactical nuke, F-22 with Hellfire missiles, M-1 tank, whatever. Or, you think that basic concepts of common sense and public safety might be considered to prevent it from letting people have dangerous and destructive arms. But you don't get it both ways. You don't get to claim it must be taken literally and then not take it literally. It's either taken literally or there's some limits to it. So which is it?
You are absolutely right. The intent has never changed. It was always intended that a militia was the best defense against a standing army, and as such must be equally armed.
There are lots of people who privately own military hardware, from grenades and mortars to Howitzers and tanks. There are even people who privately own military fighter jets.
As far as nukes are concerned, anyone with a decent High School physics education can manufacture a nuke. The problem is not making the bomb. The problem is obtaining the fissionable material.
You will notice that of all the enumerated inherent rights listed in the Bill of Rights, only the Second Amendment includes the additional government limitation - "shall not be infringed" And yes, you are meant to take that literally.
You are absolutely right. The intent has never changed. It was always intended that a militia was the best defense against a standing army, and as such must be equally armed.
There are lots of people who privately own military hardware, from grenades and mortars to Howitzers and tanks. There are even people who privately own military fighter jets.
As far as nukes are concerned, anyone with a decent High School physics education can manufacture a nuke. The problem is not making the bomb. The problem is obtaining the fissionable material.
You will notice that of all the enumerated inherent rights listed in the Bill of Rights, only the Second Amendment includes the additional government limitation - "shall not be infringed" And yes, you are meant to take that literally.
Our states militias are not really self standing any longer. They have morphed into the armed services. It would great if they were self standing, but in the modern world we have thats completely unrealistic. The ANG and the AG are tied directly to DoD.
Perhaps Gunlover is arguing the 2nd amendment should only apply to weapons that existed at the time it was added to the Constitution?
Hardly. If the military wants to revert back to using only muskets and primitive canons, then you might have an argument for limiting civilians to only muskets and primitive canons. However, since that will never happen you will just have to accept the reality that civilians currently own military hardware, and civilians will continue to buy military hardware in the future, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Our states militias are not really self standing any longer. They have morphed into the armed services. It would great if they were self standing, but in the modern world we have thats completely unrealistic. The ANG and the AG are tied directly to DoD.
Of course they are. There are 22 States, plus Puerto Rico, with an active State Defense Force.
Alaska State statute AS 26.05.010 established the Alaska Militia. It declares:
"The militia of the State [of Alaska] consists of all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who reside in the State [of Alaska], who are at least 17 years of age, and who are eligible for military service under the laws of the United States or this State [of Alaska]."
The ASDF was created to organize the entire population, if need be.
You will notice that of all the enumerated inherent rights listed in the Bill of Rights, only the Second Amendment includes the additional government limitation - "shall not be infringed" And yes, you are meant to take that literally.
Thus, convicted felons in prison also have a right to bear arms.
Of course they are. There are 22 States, plus Puerto Rico, with an active State Defense Force.
Alaska State statute AS 26.05.010 established the Alaska Militia. It declares:
"The militia of the State [of Alaska] consists of all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who reside in the State [of Alaska], who are at least 17 years of age, and who are eligible for military service under the laws of the United States or this State [of Alaska]."
The ASDF was created to organize the entire population, if need be.
Where does the funding come from. If 100% state, then we do have state organized militias. If they receive hardware on loan / donated by DoD, or receive funding from DoD, then they certainly are not free from federal oversight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
