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.
Ben Franklin actually invented an improved (deadlier) hand grenade during the revolution, with a shell of interlocking pieces that would fragment when it exploded. It was also packed full of bits of metal, etc. A pretty nasty weapon really, and there were never any restrictions on them until 1934 when FDR pushed for the NFA.
Franklin also created poison rifle projectiles.
you can buy hand grenades these days if you have the proper paperwork. good luck finding any. if you do find some please post a link to where you found them.
To those who feel compelled to argue with me over this, I'm not going to answer each point--it will take forever so let me say this. My personal point of view is that the constitution should be taken literally, not interpreted, whenever possible. If enough people want to change the constitution, there's a mechanism for that but, failing that, we must operate under the constitution as it is. When modernity makes it impossible to take it literally or when there is nothing in the constitution that specifically addresses an issue, any interpretation should always be done in a way that minimally restricts the rights and freedoms spelled out in the constitution but, where a right is specifically protected from governmental interference (as in the 2A), that's it, no interpretation due to modernity or whatever is needed because no interference is permitted.
Having said that, however, the specific right that is protected from governmental interference in the 2A is not the right to access to all arms, it's the right to keep and bear arms. So, when someone says, for example, that the 2nd guarantees the people the right to the same armament as the military, I say you (and I) may choose to look at it that way but it no more guarantees that right than it affords the government the authority to limit what guns an individual may own. Sorry, neither 'right' is there in that amendment. It only says you have the right to keep and bear arms. So, unless a law specifically interferes with that right, I think Congress has the right to limit certain guns which is why it is important that we elect people who won't try to muck things up.
To those who feel compelled to argue with me over this, I'm not going to answer each point--it will take forever so let me say this. My personal point of view is that the constitution should be taken literally, not interpreted, whenever possible. If enough people want to change the constitution, there's a mechanism for that but, failing that, we must operate under the constitution as it is. When modernity makes it impossible to take it literally or when there is nothing in the constitution that specifically addresses an issue, any interpretation should always be done in a way that minimally restricts the rights and freedoms spelled out in the constitution but, where a right is specifically protected from governmental interference (as in the 2A), that's it, no interpretation due to modernity or whatever is needed because no interference is permitted.
Having said that, however, the specific right that is protected from governmental interference in the 2A is not the right to access to all arms, it's the right to keep and bear arms. So, when someone says, for example, that the 2nd guarantees the people the right to the same armament as the military, I say you (and I) may choose to look at it that way but it no more guarantees that right than it affords the government the authority to limit what guns an individual may own. Sorry, neither 'right' is there in that amendment. It only says you have the right to keep and bear arms. So, unless a law specifically interferes with that right, I think Congress has the right to limit certain guns which is why it is important that we elect people who won't try to muck things up.
I've already said.... you are right about this, IF you choose to interpret the 2A from a strictly textual standpoint. However, doing so is complete dishonesty. Anyone who tries to understand why the founders drafted the 2A in the first place could not reasonably make the argument that the congress could limit us to muskets or single shot .22's.
You are correct that we need to elect people who will honestly interpret the Constitution and appoint judges who will do the same. That is of the utmost importance.
By the way, I really hope you read my long post on the page before this one. I worked a long time on it...
congress is the federal government, as they are the only ones in the federal government allowed to make law. the potus does not even have that right, not even with executive orders.
Doesn't stop the current pres from trying though, does it?
"I've got a pen and I've got a phone"
"The problem here, is that I am the president of the United States, not the Emperor of the United States"
you can buy hand grenades these days if you have the proper paperwork. good luck finding any. if you do find some please post a link to where you found them.
Someday when I have the time and money lying around I'll probably file the paperwork and $200 to build a replica of Franklin's grenade.
There are some dealers who could get you the modern grenades and other DD's, it's all word of mouth for advertising though. Most don't want to sell them. I know someone who acquired a few for his rifle's grenade launcher and fired one off somewhere. I haven't been in touch with him for a few years though.
WS88, I as a citizen don't disagree with you but people are free to interpret and assign historical context and intent to these things. I don't want my legislators and courts doing interpretive government, though. I'm not speaking dishonestly, I'm looking at the only facts that matter (the ones written into the constitution) and saying forget all the BS and the supposed history and the supposed intent, the only words we can go by are the ones we have been given in the Constitution+BOR. We are both on the same side, I think, but IMHO, it is my point of view that is the more intellectually honest of the two. YMMV
WS88, I as a citizen don't disagree with you but people are free to interpret and assign historical context and intent to these things. I don't want my legislators and courts doing interpretive government, though. I'm not speaking dishonestly, I'm looking at the only facts that matter (the ones written into the constitution) and saying forget all the BS and the supposed history and the supposed intent, the only words we can go by are the ones we have been given in the Constitution+BOR. We are both on the same side, I think, but IMHO, it is my point of view that is the more intellectually honest of the two. YMMV
First, yes, we are on the same side of the gun rights debate I do believe. You support the right of people to keep and bear arms, yes? If so, then we are in agreement.
Second, how could your point of view, that the government could limit us to single shot .22's because they are technically "arms", be intellectually honest by any measure, considering that the intent of the 2A was so that the citizens could defend themselves?
That line of thinking is on par with those who would make the argument that we have a right to guns, but not bullets, so ban the ammo.
Second, how could your point of view, that the government could limit us to single shot .22's because they are technically "arms", be intellectually honest by any measure, considering that the intent of the 2A was so that the citizens could defend themselves?
It just oozes with intellectual DIShonesty.
I would think the intellectual honesty is self evident as I am stating what the BOR guarantees and you are stating what you wish it would guarantee. Understand, I don't want ANY laws limiting magazines, magazine sizes, or specific types of rifles--I think that is all feel good, accomplish nothing, superficial nonsense--but you tell me where in the BOR or Constitution it says that Congress cannot pass such a law. Don't tell me about the founder's intent as the answer to that question, don't tell me about the history because those things are nothing more than our interpretation of the available information we have read. That's not, however, the way the 2A was written. Neither of us knows if the wording was deliberately vague on this point or deliberately specific but I'd like to think that they believed the people could be trusted to make common sense decisions along the way as long as the absolute right was preserved.
Every generation has an opportunity to change the Constitution if the people support doing so just as every generation has an obligation to live by the Constitution. They made it difficult to make changes, though, because they didn't want the ebb and flow of public sentiment and political will to result in continual changes. In this case, the specific wording only assures the right to keep and bear arms but it gives no guarantee to a type of weaponry, a variety of weaponry, a range of calibers, or any other specification and, absent that specific language, everything else can fall under the other rules that govern how the Congress makes laws and how the SCOTUS determines if the laws are constitutional. Come to think of it, they did specify that we had the right to keep and bear which seems to restrict us from having cannon since we can't carry a cannon so, in that sense, I think one can argue that there was not an intent to let the people have anything they want. Anyway, those are the honest facts and everything else is just opinion BUT it is opinion that controls who gets elected and what they do while in office.
I would think the intellectual honesty is self evident as I am stating what the BOR guarantees and you are stating what you wish it would guarantee..
Not hardly. If we were to apply your reasoning, don't you see the implications your logic here could have on other amendments? If one could make the argument that congress could ban everything except for single shot .22's { because they are arms after all }.... then one could also make the argument that:
...the first amendment only protects newspapers and NOT tv or internet sites, because we are gauranteed a free press, and the news paper is a form of the press, and as long as we have some form of free press, everything else is open to regulation or abolishment.
... the first amendment only gaurantees the Right to practice Christianity, because we have the right to freedom of religion, but the founders didn't specify WHAT religions we have the freedom to practice, ONLY that we have the freedom to practice a religion or not.
....the first amendment only protects speech delivered by your mouth, because the founders gauranteed that we would have freedom of speech, but they didn't specify what medium it must be said in. Everything else, like the written word, or facebook postings that criticize the government could get you thrown in jail, because the founders only gauranteed that we had SOME form of free speech, but not where or how.
The first amendment only protects the right to peaceful assembly in a location approved by the government, not for instnace, your house or backyard, because the 1A only gaurantees you the right to assemble.... somewhere.... but didn't get specific, and everything else is open to regulation.
I could go on for a long time and include other amendments in this analogy, but I think I've made my point. No offense, but your logic on this issue doesn't even pass the muster of common sense, let alone Constitutional muster.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 06-22-2014 at 11:48 PM..
I could go on for a long time and include other amendments in this analogy, but I think I've made my point. No offense, but your logic on this issue doesn't even pass the muster of common sense, let alone Constitutional muster.
I think we need to agree to disagree. I find the flaws in your analogies too numerous to go through them and you refuse to address my main point that there are two aspects to the 2A...what it actually says and what we both hope it means. Anyway, let's both just hope that your extreme example never reaches the light of day at 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.
