Why we don't need Assault Rifles to protect ourselves from Government

[TamaraSavannah]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

........But the word "bazooka" is scary sounding, so the appeal to emotion/ridicule straw man gets tossed into every 2A discussion about what the Founding Fathers intended. The intent is perfectly clear from the wording itself - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't think that Bob Burns was trying to scare away his audience.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"that it refers to personal weapons, as opposed to crew-served weapons or weapons platforms."

Explain why they did NOT ban personal ownership of cannons and warships which fall into YOUR category.
which WERE owned by private citizens at the time.

Assuming what you say is true, the fact they did not ban ownership of cannons and warships is not proof of anything.

It does not prove the 2nd Amendment says you can own them.

In case you forgot, the Constitution only applied to the federal government, not the States.

The States were not bound by the US Constitution until the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868.

For example, the 1st Amendment applied to the federal government, but not to the States. The States were free to ban religions and establish religions, and some States did exactly that.

So, if you were a Methodist and you lived in a tax district of a Presbyterian church, you had to pay taxes to the Presbyterian church, even though you were a Methodist and already paid taxes to your Methodist church.

If you failed to pay your taxes to the church, church officials could legally come onto your property without a warrant and legally enter your home without a warrant and legally arrest you without a warrant and legally hale you before an ecclesiastical court who would legally find you guilty of tax evasion and then legally seize your property and sell it for non-payment of church taxes.

Remember, the 4th Amendment only applies to the federal government, not to the States.

In Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Massachusetts 53 (1820) Amesbury argued that the nail factory had no soul and so the tax didn't apply.

Then you have Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28 Massachusetts (1831).

The argument here was that since none of the shareholders lived in the church parish, the company could not be taxed. The court ruled that "a corporation is an independent legal person" and subject to the tax.

States could also ban free speech and the press, if the States didn't like what you had to say.

Likewise the 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government, and not the States.

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Disposable rocket launcher is a one person weapon. As is an under barrel grenade launcher.

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

Yep, and since the only entity that would realistically initiate force upon you with weaponry the disposable rocket launcher was almost solely designed to defeat - mechanized armor - is the government itself, the Federalist Papers, Antifederalist Papers and virtually all the writing on the subject point to that specific type of arm being well within the 2nd's purview.

That's not how it works.

A fire-arm, which is what "arms" means in the 2nd Amendment refers to a projectile that is propelled.

Anti-tank weapons are not fire-arms, because they do not propel a projectile, rather they propel explosive ordnance devices.

It's a Pyrrhic Victory, because nothing in the Constitution bars any government at any level from regulating explosive ordnance or the chemicals for the manufacture of explosive ordnance.

So, you can have your bazooka or RPG-7 or RPG-12 or 40 mm grenade launcher, you just can't have any rounds for it, because governments at all levels can restrict or ban the manufacture, sale, transportation and storage of explosive ordnance.

The State or federal government could require you to obtain certification in explosive ordnance disposal.

Then you can pay a $50,000 annual licensing fee.

Then you can pay more to construct a facility to store your explosive ordnance.

Counties and cities can enact zoning laws banning the construction of such structures in residential or commercial areas as well as ban the construction of the required 3 meter earthen blast-berm around such structures in residential and commercial zones.

So you can pay even more to buy or rent space zoned for industrial use to build your storage structure and the 3 meter earthen blast-berm around it.

Then you can pay even more for security, because, you know, someone's gonna wanna steal your explosive ordnance.

And, then you can also pay extra for insurance.

If you seriously think you can stop a Bradley with a 40 mm, you'd better guess again.

Best you could hope for is a mobility kill.

Of course, that assumes you're proficient in the use of the weapon, which means you'd have to regularly fire rounds at targets to obtain and maintain proficiency.

I'm not aware of any explosive ordnance ranges in the US where civilians can live fire explosive ordnance, so good luck with that.

And, by the way, who is so pathetic that they'd actually have a need to engage military forces in the first place?

That person must be one sorry pathetic incompetent wannabe leader.

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

But the word "bazooka" is scary sounding, so the appeal to emotion/ridicule straw man gets tossed into every 2A discussion about what the Founding Fathers intended.

I wouldn't disagree.

You can shoot yourself in your head with a hand-gun, right?

Why would you want to?

A bazooka is a crew-served weapon with a crew of three: gunner, loader and ammo bearer.

But, you can fire a bazooka by yourself.

Why would you want to?

The rate of fire presumes a three-man crew, because the explosive ordnance isn't live. It's made live by the ammo bearer who adjusts the fuse. If you don't have an ammo bearer, then the loader has to adjust the fuses and load, which decreases the rate of fire and also your survival rate.

If it's just you adjusting the fuses and loading, you're not going to live very long, because you can't watch targets and do that at the same time.

Even so, what moron would be so stupid as to engage military forces in the first place?

Winning means achieving your objectives -- even in a civil war (and there are many kinds of civil wars) --- and any competent person should be able to achieve their objectives without ever coming up against military or para-military forces.

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

The intent is perfectly clear from the wording itself - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's right and "bear" means "to carry" not "to fly" or "to drive" or "to navigate."