Should the Buk Missile System Be Covered By the 2nd Amendment? (generations, poll)
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.
And the laws banning us from owning them are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment was written so that the citizenry could be armed so as to fight off and overthrow tyrannical government. If our government has war planes, the the 2nd Amendment allows us to own anti-aircraft missile systems. If our government has nuclear arms, then the 2nd Amendment allows us to have nuclear arms too.
Remember misery loves company and morons that vote ruin everything..
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
I hacked your codes bro!
The doors are opening in 90 seconds! I'm targeting... a target store! Isn't that what they're there for? I mean, c'mon, after losing millions of users personal data!!!
What we have here is a broken arrow event!
You're preaching to the choir brother!
"All you need for evil to triumph is to allow stupid people to vote."-Gabe Suarez
'Any fool who would trade liberty for security should never be in any position to even consider such a trade" -Unknown
Only the military can possess them. What didn't you understand about your own post?
Obviously some exceptions exist. Hence, you can own one, but not everybody can own one.
(2) Nonweapon.— Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.
(3) Excluded conduct.— This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or
(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof.
(b) Jurisdiction.— Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if—
(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;
(3) the offense is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;
(4) the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or
(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an offense under this section or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an offense under this section.
Lets say you are a Tea Partier-Militia member in Texas, Arizona, or California and the Russkies sell you a Buk missile system. Would you be outraged if the gubbermint seized your missiles? Shouldnt they be covered by the 2nd Amendment. Wouldnt you be outraged and the seizure of your missiles?
Lets say you are a Tea Partier-Militia member in Texas, Arizona, or California and the Russkies sell you a Buk missile system. Would you be outraged if the gubbermint seized your missiles? Shouldnt they be covered by the 2nd Amendment. Wouldnt you be outraged and the seizure of your missiles?
How about - Lets say you are not an idiot Kiddy Leftist and have a basic understanding of "arms" versus Russian Missiles. How about a basic understanding of the American Constitution instead of Leftist Kiddy Hyperbole?
Lets say you are a Tea Partier-Militia member in Texas, Arizona, or California and the Russkies sell you a Buk missile system. Would you be outraged if the gubbermint seized your missiles? Shouldnt they be covered by the 2nd Amendment. Wouldnt you be outraged and the seizure of your missiles?
I think the citizens should be able to keep the same arms/weaponry as private mercenary armies stationed on US soil that are not bound to the US Constitution. Whatever Blackwater/Xe/Academi is using ought to be fine for everyone else. If they have rocket launchers, the people should have the right to defend themselves with rocket launchers.
Lets say you are a Tea Partier-Militia member in Texas, Arizona, or California and the Russkies sell you a Buk missile system. Would you be outraged if the gubbermint seized your missiles? Shouldnt they be covered by the 2nd Amendment. Wouldnt you be outraged and the seizure of your missiles?
Let's say you're a gay anarchist group in San Francisco & President Sarah Palin has just announced all solar panels/windmills are to be destroyed, all co-ops closed, all bicycles taxes at $1 per mile, urban farming is outlawed & gays are to be rounded up so they can be corrected via straight therapy. Now should you be able to defend yourself?
And the laws banning us from owning them are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment was written so that the citizenry could be armed so as to fight off and overthrow tyrannical government. If our government has war planes, the the 2nd Amendment allows us to own anti-aircraft missile systems. If our government has nuclear arms, then the 2nd Amendment allows us to have nuclear arms too.
No offense, but that is really, really stupid logic.
First of all, even if that is what the Constitution literally said, it would still be completely stupid to operate under such a pretense. We would need to change it immediately. I don't care how much you worship the Founding Fathers, having people like YOU have nuclear weapons is beyond idiotic, and even small children can probably recognize that.
Furthermore, there is a group that owns those weapons on your behalf: your state militia. This is why the National Guard came into existence! The Constitution was quite specific when it meant a person and "the people." "The people" is basically the militia that represents those people, not a specific individual.
In sum, there is no rational reason why a private citizen should own a weapon of mass destruction, and only a deranged person would think this a reasonable argument.
No offense, but that is really, really stupid logic.
First of all, even if that is what the Constitution literally said, it would still be completely stupid to operate under such a pretense. We would need to change it immediately. I don't care how much you worship the Founding Fathers, having people like YOU have nuclear weapons is beyond idiotic, and even small children can probably recognize that.
Furthermore, there is a group that owns those weapons on your behalf: your state militia. This is why the National Guard came into existence! The Constitution was quite specific when it meant a person and "the people." "The people" is basically the militia that represents those people, not a specific individual.
In sum, there is no rational reason why a private citizen should own a weapon of mass destruction, and only a deranged person would think this a reasonable argument.
Good day to you.
No one is saying we do want nuclear weapons, you are just blabbing about nothing.
What is a militia but a group of individuals?
Your side brings nothing to table and is losing the information war, the culture war, and the youth, just leave this nation if you don't like the amount of freedom we have.
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.