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 arms does 5he 2nd amendment limit in terms of private ownership?
While there is no limit specified most people would agree you should not be able to buy a grenade launcher. I think the easiest way to draw this line is if law enforcement can justify it so can a citizen.
Last edited by thecoalman; 01-20-2019 at 08:51 AM..
The Constitution very clearly does not say eveyone can bear every type of arms known to man.
I’m not anti 2A by any stretch, but that kind of thinking will eventually turn society against 2A.
I don't think that anyone's arguing that? It's those weapons that are in "common use for any lawful purpose." Which are semi automatic firearms, both handguns, rifles and their magazines. They are ubiquitous and lawfully owned by tens of millions of Americans for "any lawful purpose". These are the types of weapons that are constantly under attack by those who want to ban them and criminalize their lawful owners. Those very same people if given the opportunity will advocate banning all other firearms as well. If you can ban one class of firearms that are in "common use for any lawful purpose" than you can indeed ban them all. It's no more complicated than that.
Since we are a Constitutional Republic based on the principles of individual civil liberties. It really doesn't matter what society thinks. Unless of course we are willing to give up our civil liberties and become an unbridled Democracy or mob rule.
Quote:
"Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be hand carried--It's to keep and 'bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."-- "The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."--- Antonin Scalia (Heller vs DC) www.law.cornell.edu/suplt
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of ...... The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as .... rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp.
Quote:
A Constitutional Republic is a form of government where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, representatives mandated to govern according to existing constitutional law. It is because of this mandate that the elected class in a Constitutional Republic is limited in their power over the citizenry. The United States of America was created as and intended to survive as a Constitutional Republic.
Our Constitutional Republic is separated into three separate but equal branches of government; the Executive, Legislative and Judicial, represented by the Presidency, Congress and the Courts. Because of this no branch has a rein on absolute power thus assuring that there will be checks and balances to the governmental system and protection for the rule of law.
Through the elected representation employed by our Constitutional Republic the influence of the majority is tempered by protections for individual rights as mandated by constitutional law. Our form of government is deliberate in its attempt to thwart majoritarianism, thereby protecting political dissent and individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.
"A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections. In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition. They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):"
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 01-20-2019 at 09:02 AM..
The line is curently drawn at fully automatic military weapons, which are denied.
You can purchase fully automatic weapons is some states. Technically you can own one in Californian but good luck getting it.
Quote:
I don't think anyone wants to deny Americans the right to carry guns, the main argument is where to draw the line in relation to more poweful weapons, and that's a discussion that Americans have been having.
As I said in my previous post I think the most sensible line is if law enforcement can justify so can the citizen. If the cops say they need gun X to patrol an area it's pretty hard to argue against why someone who lives there shouldn't have the same firepower.
Anyone who has read my posts knows that the last thing I am is a leftist, liberal, call it what you may.
But I truly am amused to, again and again, watch "conservatives" (and even a few liberals) gather in a thread like this to echo each other in support of a 2nd amendment essential benefit that doesn't exist and never has - in modern times. That of an individual's firearms successfully holding off government encroachment/tyranny.
The 2nd amendment, which turned from a benefit to a liability in our culture at least 100 years ago, is the hard-right's "climate change". It is equally a religion, and equally a farce.
Maybe it's because it's a subject that interests us and the 2nd Amendment is a right that's constantly under attack. We do have a 1st Amendment right to express our opinions on any subject that comes to mind whenever and wherever we can. Or do you want to abolish that also? Who the hell are you anyway? Who appointed YOU as arbiter over who can say what or dictate what should be allowed to be discussed on any particular forum? I see by reading some of your posts that you have no problems expressing your opinions on subjects that interest you. Or is that right only reserved for you?
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 01-20-2019 at 09:08 AM..
You can purchase fully automatic weapons is some states. Technically you can own one in Californian but good luck getting it.
As I said in my previous post I think the most sensible line is if law enforcement can justify so can the citizen. If the cops say they need gun X to patrol an area it's pretty hard to argue against why someone who lives there shouldn't have the same firepower.
You can purchase fully automatic weapons is some states. Technically you can own one in Californian but good luck getting it.
As I said in my previous post I think the most sensible line is if law enforcement can justify so can the citizen. If the cops say they need gun X to patrol an area it's pretty hard to argue against why someone who lives there shouldn't have the same firepower.
Indeed. This is a good point. If the cops can have it to deny it to citizens makes no sense. As you say...we live here.
While there is no limit specified most people would agree you should not be able to buy a grenade launcher. I think the easiest way to draw this line is if law enforcement can justify it so can a citizen.
You absolutely can own grenade launchers.
I'm waiting for my tax stamp while my M203 launcher sits in NFA time out that I bought a couple months ago.
With a thread title like that you teach no one, anything, ever...... on any topic.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
If there is no line, then Americans should be legally allowed to keep whatever weapons they wish, without intererence.
At the time of the constitution's writing, there's a big clue as to what "arms" meant.
One of the powers of Congress is to issues Letters of Marque and Reprisal. If it were not permissible to own the most powerful weapons available to man of the time (fully crewed and armed Warships) this would be an entirely redundant power.
During the War of 1812 this power was used to enable American and Allied Privateers to attack British Shipping.
By association it cannot be denied that the drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did envisage the people owning warships. That being so the line in a modern world would be drawn at Carriers, therefore air wings and combat aircraft, with adequate armaments, and Frigates as pickets, Cruisers for ranged offensive and defensive purposes.
Admittedly owning a $12B ship, with 75 aircraft (including the F35) and around 5-6 Arleigh Burke class Frigates, is beyond the means of nearly all private citizens, it's a fact that the equivalent was owned by private citizens during the War of 1812.
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.
