U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:19 AM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
9,975 posts, read 21,236,187 times
Reputation: 9505

Advertisements

2A says right to bear 'arms', not guns. Arms is any weapon of war. Should everyone be allowed to buy a cannon or nuclear bomb? We already regulate far beyond the definition of 2A since fully automatic weapons, cannons, etc are banned from non military personnel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:20 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,145 posts, read 34,170,157 times
Reputation: 14450
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Bingo! But the 2nd is used to justify concealed carry of handguns which has nothing to do with government aggression. That to me is the big stretch that has occurred.
The right of self preservation. The Supreme Court has ruled, the police have no obligation to protect you.
Only you can protect yourself.
The right to bear arms is there to fight against ALL forms of oppression, from anyone and any sovereign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:22 AM
 
Location: bold new city of the south
5,427 posts, read 4,356,655 times
Reputation: 6436
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimAZ View Post
Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all agree with you 100%. Private ownership of firearms is a bad idea.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Vladimir Lenin

We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? Joseph Stalin

If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. Joseph Stalin

To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.
Adolf Hitler

Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it.
Adolf Hitler

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
Adolf Hitler

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Mao Zedong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Florida
3,623 posts, read 979,886 times
Reputation: 2859
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
How many people were gunned down in mass shootings by a Puckle gun? How many ordinary citizens had access to one?

Do you think the founding fathers envisioned everyone owning such a weapon and routinely aiming it at their fellow citizens and committing mass slaughter with them?

And they shot nine rounds a minute. By comparison, an AK47 can shoot up to 600 rounds per minute.

But they're the same thing, right?
Give it up. You are not going to get what you want without a civil war, and you are waging that war against the people who actually have guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:23 AM
 
11,137 posts, read 6,199,341 times
Reputation: 6156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
So, since there were no phones or computers when we were given the right against searches and seizures without warrant, the government can search your electronic files and listen to your phone calls without a warrant?
Thank you, Pedro, for putting this in perspective. I assume you don't want that to happen, so you do want society to have the ability to deal with things that weren't an issue back when the FF wrote the Constitution, right? Because the world has changed drastically since 1779 and there are things they couldn't have even imagined back then, like weapons of mass killings and the Internet.

We need to continually update our laws to keep pace with the changing times. And the 2nd Amendment is one of those things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:24 AM
 
39,730 posts, read 41,094,443 times
Reputation: 16433
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
2A says right to bear 'arms', not guns. Arms is any weapon of war. Should everyone be allowed to buy a cannon or nuclear bomb? We already regulate far beyond the definition of 2A since fully automatic weapons, cannons, etc are banned from non military personnel.

You can actually buy and own a cannon in many states, I would suggest a reasonable limitation is if LE can justify it so can the citizen. If the police make the argument they need a specific weapon to adequately defend themselves in some inner city neighborhood what argument can be made about the people who live there not being able to justify it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:26 AM
 
30,059 posts, read 15,676,412 times
Reputation: 20287
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
2A says right to bear 'arms', not guns. Arms is any weapon of war. Should everyone be allowed to buy a cannon or nuclear bomb? We already regulate far beyond the definition of 2A since fully automatic weapons, cannons, etc are banned from non military personnel.
I can legally buy and own a fully fuctional tank.

There is a reason we can't own nuclear weapns much like there is a reason we can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

I can park a fighter jet loaded with missiles and bombs in a hanger for four hundred years, and it can't do any harm to the guy down the road.

If I had a nuclear bomb stored in a hanger, if it is not properly maintained, it will eventually harm people living in a fairly large area as it degrades and begins poisoning the air and water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:27 AM
 
Location: California
682 posts, read 495,803 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
What's your thoughts on the wording of the 1776 PA Constitution that predate the US Constitution and has many of the same authors?

Amended in 1790 and current:
Again it gives localities the right to form local militias that is all that officially protects.

How different localities want to dole out responsibility for this right is not stated. Most regions state having some guns in your own home for self defense (providing children can't access them and they aren't used recklessly) are also acceptable. I don't disagree. However bringing dangerous weapons into public at any time under the guise of safety is certainly not protected and may even violate the "standing army" clause.

San Francisco is going to have much different ideas on how to safely form a well regulated militia than Billings, Montana. In either case a local, regulated militia that can be called upon it times of need is the intention of the amendment.

In either case it being still somewhat ambiguous, it's time we clarify probably federally in 2019 what a "well regulated militia" is and what the right to bear arms means in our society.

Apparently the guy in El Paso just walked into Walmart with a semiautomatic rifle, and Texas being an open carry state noone even thought it unusual. Do you really need a semiautomatic weapon to buy things at a store? That doesn't sound like he's part of a "well regulated militia"

Last edited by njbiodude; 08-04-2019 at 10:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:31 AM
 
30,059 posts, read 15,676,412 times
Reputation: 20287
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
Thank you, Pedro, for putting this in perspective. I assume you don't want that to happen, so you do want society to have the ability to deal with things that weren't an issue back when the FF wrote the Constitution, right? Because the world has changed drastically since 1779 and there are things they couldn't have even imagined back then, like weapons of mass killings and the Internet.

We need to continually update our laws to keep pace with the changing times. And the 2nd Amendment is one of those things.
The founders knew things changed which is why they made protections broad and allowed for modification via a very specific route.

If they wanted weapons of that period to be the only weapons protected under the 2nd, they would have restricted it to those weapons with a means to add more.

The fact that they knew technology improves and didn't limit it to that day's technology shows that they didn't want to make such restrictions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:31 AM
 
Location: San Diego
35,732 posts, read 32,480,195 times
Reputation: 20149
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There, I said it.

In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.

But here we are.

It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.

ya they did


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top