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.
Nuclear weapons are in fact "arms" as arms refers to the weapons of war, which includes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or, arms.
Watch the three minute video that was provided for you by two different members..... although I doubt you will because I doubt you are interested in meaningful discussion.
Watch the three minute video that was provided for you by two different members..... although I doubt you will because I doubt you are interested in meaningful discussion.
Already seen it. You think this is the first time it's been posted here?
The people who claim to be second amendment purists are the ones trying to avoid a meaningful discussion.
But let's go over the facts, shall we?
1. "Arms" refers to the all weapons of war. George Washington's letters while Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, his State of the Union addresses in which he uses the term in that context as well as Jefferson's State of the Union addresses in which he uses the term in that context prove that during the period, the word referred to all the weapons of war, and not simply to small arms. Let's be clear on that.
2. Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are arms. They are the subject of more than one arms treaty.
3. Anyone who claims to be a purist when it comes to Second Amendment must accept the first two points.
4. Anyone who claims to be a purist when it comes to the Second Amendment and agrees that individual citizens should NOT be allowed to possess chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, is not a Second Amendment purist and the wording of that amendment is no longer an acceptable substitute for an argument about why we shouldn't have background checks or waiting periods or why certain weapons should or shouldn't be outlawed outright.
5. The reason #4 is true is because if you agree that Second Amendment does not extend to all "arms" then you've already agreed to compromise when it comes to strictly construing the meaning of the Amendment. You've already agreed that some weapons are simply so dangerous, that the government has the right and the authority in the name of preserving public safety to prohibit individuals from possessing them. The entire point of whathisname's blog "rule" proves that, it's nothing more than a smarmy attempt to avoid what I'm saying right now by simply and arbitrarily moving the goalposts and changing the rules governing the debate, and I don't agree to that.
6. Now, if you're response is to simply wave all this off dismissively, then YOU are the one who doesn't want to have a serious discussion. You don't need to post any more youtube videos. I already know it's ridiculous and impractical for an individual citizen to possess nuclear arms, that's the entire point, but if you're a second amendment purist and you insist we have to abide by a strict construction of the wording of that amendment, then you must support individuals being allowed to possess those arms. If you don't, then you don't get to use the 2nd Amendment as a substitute for an argument any longer.
Which is still another iota of piecemeal application of the Bill of Rights to the states rather than a blanket "all of the Bill of Rights applies to all of the states all of the time."
The acceptance of a state of the Bill of Rights being applicable to that state is evidence that without that state's acceptance...it would not have been applicable.
Well that depends, States rights are defined in the Constitution as everything not covered by everything else nor prohibited to them.
However in the Bill or Rights, you have the 2nd (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) it doesn't define scope, thus the assumption would be global, because if it was the right of Chris Christie to change the right to bear arms in New Jersey and only Chris Christie they would have written the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by Chris Christie. However as it does not the safe legal assumption is that it applies to all government (since people are not bound by the constitution).
However the 10th Amendment states...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Well if the 2nd is globally scoped, then the states under the 10th Amendment are prohibited from infringing the 2nd in exactly the same way as the Federal Government. Regardless of the 14th Amendment, or McDonald, if you want to take an originalist's view. The 10th doesn't give license to states to enact a powers against something that is explicitly prohibited from them acting against.
Subject to rule.......need help with that, too?
It means people can't be running around willy-nilly, doing whatever they want. They have to follow the rules.
....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Where in the bill of rights does it say this amendment requires a license?
Why is the second amendment the only amendment that you need to get a license for?
government is all about 2 things. force and control.
firearms in the hands of the private citizen makes it possible for the private citizen to stop government from doing those exact 2 issues called force and control.
it is kind of hard for government to control someone when they are shooting back at the jackbooted enforcer thugs.
If the Supreme court kept hands off states rights--as most conservatives desire--there would be nothing to prevent Illinois from banning firearms completely from public ownership.
a mass exodus from Illinois would keep Illinois from banning firearms.
Legally, we should all be able to own guns.. with technology from 1776.
since the 2nd Amendment does not say firearms from 1776. then your free speech should only happen with soapboxes, the quill pen, and fixed type newspapers. no computers, radio or anything requiring electricity.
Subject to rule.......need help with that, too?
It means people can't be running around willy-nilly, doing whatever they want. They have to follow the rules.
ahhhh, the regulated part comes out. well read it again, you the states and fed can regulate the militia all you want, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Already seen it. You think this is the first time it's been posted here?
The people who claim to be second amendment purists are the ones trying to avoid a meaningful discussion.
But let's go over the facts, shall we?
1. "Arms" refers to the all weapons of war. George Washington's letters while Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, his State of the Union addresses in which he uses the term in that context as well as Jefferson's State of the Union addresses in which he uses the term in that context prove that during the period, the word referred to all the weapons of war, and not simply to small arms. Let's be clear on that.
2. Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are arms. They are the subject of more than one arms treaty.
3. Anyone who claims to be a purist when it comes to Second Amendment must accept the first two points.
4. Anyone who claims to be a purist when it comes to the Second Amendment and agrees that individual citizens should NOT be allowed to possess chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, is not a Second Amendment purist and the wording of that amendment is no longer an acceptable substitute for an argument about why we shouldn't have background checks or waiting periods or why certain weapons should or shouldn't be outlawed outright.
5. The reason #4 is true is because if you agree that Second Amendment does not extend to all "arms" then you've already agreed to compromise when it comes to strictly construing the meaning of the Amendment. You've already agreed that some weapons are simply so dangerous, that the government has the right and the authority in the name of preserving public safety to prohibit individuals from possessing them. The entire point of whathisname's blog "rule" proves that, it's nothing more than a smarmy attempt to avoid what I'm saying right now by simply and arbitrarily moving the goalposts and changing the rules governing the debate, and I don't agree to that.
6. Now, if you're response is to simply wave all this off dismissively, then YOU are the one who doesn't want to have a serious discussion. You don't need to post any more youtube videos. I already know it's ridiculous and impractical for an individual citizen to possess nuclear arms, that's the entire point, but if you're a second amendment purist and you insist we have to abide by a strict construction of the wording of that amendment, then you must support individuals being allowed to possess those arms. If you don't, then you don't get to use the 2nd Amendment as a substitute for an argument any longer.
I hope we're clear now and you get the point.
Your big flaw is that you assume I am a second amendment purist and don't support any regulation. That is not true. Do I think someone should be able to posses a nuclear weapon? Of course not. Do support the notion that everyone wanting to buy a gun should be subject to a Background check? Certainly, however I don't support legislation making that a reality for a variety of reasons. It's a nice sounding idea but the reality is that it is unenforceable as a preventative measure. It's unenforceable as a deterant because the government doesn't know who owns what guns or how many. The only way this would be possible is with a registry, and I don't support that at all, again, for a variety of reasons. Registration has lead to confiscation throughout history. Registration compromises the privacy and security of both those who own guns and those who do not as it did in NY when a newspaper published a map of those who owned pistols and those who did not.
Do I think there should be regulation as to what types of firearms can be owned by citizens? Maybe, but basing this off of purely cosmetic features and not functionality or lethality is asinine, and that is exactly what the proposed AWB did.
Where do I draw the line? Well, I like the Supreme Courts line in the sand. I think it's reasonable. Any commonly owned firearm by citizens for lawful use is protected, so says the SCOTUS.
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.
