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.
What if Arms only means a musket. That is all they had back then. The things we have now they had no idea of in their day. You are defining arms. Your definition does not appear in the constitution. If we are to go with the original intent then the only thing that we can be sure of is Muskets. Like I said. I don't think anyone has a problem with one shot hard to reload muskets.
If it only meant that, don't you think they would have clarified such? I think they were aware that arms would change over time, technology would get better, etc... I don't think it a reasonable argument to claim that they only intended muskets, not technological advances in arms.
Your argument attempts to place a contextual intent that is not supported, reasoning that they only wanted to allow muskets because they were limited. That seems to go against the entire purpose of such a protection in the first place, especially when you consider the discussions on why that protection was needed anyway.
The intent of the 2A is a citizen force having capable arms to field in defense of community, self, and, if needs be, country. Heavy fire power, artillery, and such, is not practical for militia. Nuclear weapons and such...please. Lets be real. Militia, by definition, are not even capable of maintaining and operating modern air power and missile weapons, let alone fielding them. Militia are a small to medium weapons group. Therefore, I draw the line at readily available weaponry there.
The average citizen is constrained by budget. Rifles, handguns, shotguns are the bulk of private weapons. Some folks can afford heavy stuff like a 50,and there are a few who can afford title 3 stuff. The lines are drawn pretty well where they need to be.
I actually don't know anyone, personally, who advocates that weapons, such as you describe, be available at Big 5. The notion is silly. However, service style small arms, ala AR 15, are perfectly reasonable firearms for civilian use.
Nothing you've said above addresses the original question about legality. You mentioned that these big weapons are impractical or cost prohibitive, but never say they should be illegal for someone who has the finacial means or technical expertise.
You say that those weapons being sold at Big 5 is silly, but there are people on this very message board who disagree with you. These people vote. They use the 2nd Amendment as justification... and since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specifically outline which weapons should be regulated or restricted, we need to come to an agreement as a country as to what is too dangerous to own.
Truth is, I agree with you, people should not own weapons of mass destruction. I would put an AR-15 with a 30-round (or more) magazine in that category because you can kill more people in 1 minute than a grenade... or a flame-thrower... or even a missle. Makes sense, right?
Ummm...yea. I guess we can all get tricorner hats and wear breeches to. Lol. By this logic, we can put all our police on hores anx issue them sabers too. Again, lets be real. The Framers were not a short sighted group. I dont think they intended for stagnation of technology. As the country advances, as does its citizens.
To state that we, the citizens, be held to the standards of the1700s, in available arms, is ludicrous. You suggest that the citizenry be little more than a reenactment group. You do realize that flintlocks and other, muzzleloading, anachronistic pieces, are not even classified as "firearms" any more? Even the Federal government recognized advances in technology.
While your group, may be able to come up with enough to get a MIG, operating it is another matter. Gonna fly it off the street in front of your house? Again man, lets get real.
I am not saying we should be limited to muskets. I am saying the only thing that you can be certain that was covered in the COnstitution is Muskets because that is all they had then.
Not the same as a gun or personal weapon. Sorry your argument is not going to hold water.
Exactly, those things i listed are not "arms."
I guess when we argue with lib'tards we sometimes talk down to their level, to try and illustrate how absurd their arguments are, and end up sounding as absurd as they do.
Nothing you've said above addresses the original question about legality. You mentioned that these big weapons are impractical or cost prohibitive, but never say they should be illegal for someone who has the finacial means or technical expertise.
You say that those weapons being sold at Big 5 is silly, but there are people on this very message board who disagree with you. These people vote. They use the 2nd Amendment as justification... and since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specifically outline which weapons should be regulated or restricted, we need to come to an agreement as a country as to what is too dangerous to own.
Truth is, I agree with you, people should not own weapons of mass destruction. I would put an AR-15 with a 30-round (or more) magazine in that category because you can kill more people in 1 minute than a grenade... or a flame-thrower... or even a missle. Makes sense, right?
I'm sure the 2nd was to allow people the right to defend themselves, while at the same time acknowledging that we did not want our citizens to create their own individual sustained armies.
To me this question comes down to individual rights vs public safety. There are laws to limit how fast a car can be driven down a road; there are laws that stipulate you must have a fence around a swimming pool in your yard, not necessarily because of your safety but the safety of others that you do not even know.
Similarly, while the Constitution grants Americans the right to own and bear arms, there still have to be reasonable regulation and limits on those rights. Yes, limits. Having a garage full of explosives represents a danger to your neighbours. Owning guns, but not storing them securely has the potential to endanger other people, including a child who visits your home. Knowing you have a hot temper, get drunk often, and are prone to violence --- you should probably get rid of your guns.
In other words, we have a moral responsibility not to endanger others simply in the name of our right to do whatever you want and own any kind of weapon. In real life, we can't do everything we want even if the law allows it, if it infringes on the rights and safety of others.
If it only meant that, don't you think they would have clarified such? I think they were aware that arms would change over time, technology would get better, etc... I don't think it a reasonable argument to claim that they only intended muskets, not technological advances in arms.
Your argument attempts to place a contextual intent that is not supported, reasoning that they only wanted to allow muskets because they were limited. That seems to go against the entire purpose of such a protection in the first place, especially when you consider the discussions on why that protection was needed anyway.
You don't think meaning you don't know for certain because it is not in the constitution. You are applying your reasoning to figure out what they meant. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the weapons a person may own.
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
Then you own a musket because that suits you. It doesn't suit me and I'll keep what I have.
What citizens had back in the day and what those who enforced the law had back in the day was different than it is now. But people (no matter what century they were born into) don't change. The corruptability of people doesn't change. Neither does the lust for money and power. Neither does evil.
Hardware changes. People don't.
Well what if having a cannister of VX nerve agent that could be used to wipe out a whole city suited me, why can't I have that. There is nothing in the constitution that says that I can't own that. It is certainly a weapon and in the arms race...nerve agents are definitely considered part of it. The constitution says I can own arms so isn't it my constitutional right to have a weapon of mass destruction?
You don't think meaning you don't know for certain because it is not in the constitution. You are applying your reasoning to figure out what they meant. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the weapons a person may own.
Then we agree!
Stay away from mine. Thaaat's exactly what ''Shall Not Infringe'' means!
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.
