explain it to me you 2nd amendment wingnuts.
explain it to me you 2nd amendment wingnuts.
I'm Timothy McVeigh and I approve this message.
Apparently tanks are covered:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00067F1CE/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8
You're basically buying a bulldozer as they take off the parts of the tank that make it a tank.
who wants to walk around holding a bomb?
Bad Wigins wrote:
who wants to walk around holding a bomb?
Arabs?
Bad Wigins wrote:
who wants to walk around holding a bomb?
Batman. That's who.
https://youtu.be/9pSD26bGy3IBombs are not defensive weapons, primarily. The amendment was written and ratified as a way for individuals and states to protect themselves from others or a tyrannical federal government.
oftenrunning52 wrote:
Bombs are not defensive weapons, primarily. The amendment was written and ratified as a way for individuals and states to protect themselves from others or a tyrannical federal government.
Uhm, ever heard of mutually assured destruction?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (2nd amendment to the US constitution). By referring to the "security of a free state" as opposed to say, "personal security," this appears to apply to military-grade weapons. There's no mention of weapons used for sporting, personal deference or hunting. Just going by the text, it seems to me that the second amendment does not protect the right to own handguns or shotguns but should protect the right to own assault rifles. Except for the absurdity of it (which actually is a legal consideration), I don't see why this wouldn't extend to other weapons of war like bombs.
Because, like the right to free speech, the right to bear arms is not absolute.
3hr-marathoner wrote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (2nd amendment to the US constitution). By referring to the "security of a free state" as opposed to say, "personal security," this appears to apply to military-grade weapons. There's no mention of weapons used for sporting, personal deference or hunting. Just going by the text, it seems to me that the second amendment does not protect the right to own handguns or shotguns but should protect the right to own assault rifles. Except for the absurdity of it (which actually is a legal consideration), I don't see why this wouldn't extend to other weapons of war like bombs.
This! Which is why the 2nd amendment does not apply to people owning guns for personal protection or target shooting or bang bang happiness is a warm gun purposes.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Given that this didn't anticipate cyber attacks, would you also justify people 'owning' viruses to bring down government websites in the event that they thought the government was infringing their rights?!
Or nuclear subs.
Or space weapons.
Handguns and long guns (to include rifles) were existent and carried when the amendment was written. Even various multi-shot variants existed, to include a *wicked* multi-shot *air rifle* (.51 cal Girandoni, 1779).
Officers often carried pistols. Local town ordinances *required* eligible men to own and maintain a weapon (why? Because gubmint did NOT want to pay for it), as the mustering of militias was common for local defense ("militias" were informal, not equivalent, really, to today's National Guard. BTW: You wanted to be an artillery officer, you paid for the cannon yourself).
Lastly, "well-regulated" meant "well-functioning" (not "constrained by government regulation), similar to keeping yourself "regular." Indeed, the Brits weren't called "Redcoats," they were called "Regulars." ("The Regulars are out! The Regulars are coming!" was more likely shouted by Paul Revere et al. than anything else.)
There's no mention of sporting or hunting purposes because that was assumed, already a daily part of life (target practice, defense against attack, e.g., by the indigenous population, and food provision).
The curious should get into Revolutionary War re-enacting; it makes history alive and clear and is brimming with intense research, thoughtful ppl, and historical accuracy. *Living* the life (insofar as Moderns can) makes these things obvious.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that District of Columbia handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to District of Columbia's special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
From the text you should also ne able to own and use fighter jets and nuclear weapons. It actually is needed to even stand a chance against a tyranical government
gdm wrote:
explain it to me you 2nd amendment wingnuts.
This "fact" is actually part of a reasonable argument that might be extended to semi automatic rifles (aka assault weapons). Clearly the government has made a distinction between items that can deal massive amounts of death and damage versus those that don't.
But perhaps an AK-47 or AR-15 should follow the same thing. Why were those weapons developed? To kill more people in war. Every large mass shooting, what is the weapon of choice? So called assault weapons are super effective.
If these recent mass murders had been forced into using a hand-gun only, or bolt action hunting rifle, I guarantee the end result would be no where as bad as they have been (not to suggest any loss of life is ok).
As always, my disclaimer: I own multiple semi-automatic rifles and enjoy taking them to the range. I can also see how it could be argued that they are too dangerous for the general public to possess.
Semenyagoat wrote:
From the text you should also ne able to own and use fighter jets and nuclear weapons. It actually is needed to even stand a chance against a tyranical government
The second amendment only allows arms because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Because only a proper military could be well regulated enough to use these armaments, they are not legal, as a military is only a armed force authorized by a sovereign state, you can't form your own and thus can't own those kind of arms.. There is a clear distinction between a militia and a military.
Kvothe wrote:
The second amendment only allows arms because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Because only a proper military could be well regulated enough to use these armaments, they are not legal, as a military is only a armed force authorized by a sovereign state, you can't form your own and thus can't own those kind of arms.. There is a clear distinction between a militia and a military.
"Well-regulated" at the time--and supported by subsequent Supreme Court decisions--meant "well-functioning" (like Metamucil®--keeping yourself "regular"). Militias were informal, called up as necessary by towns (versus "sovereign states"), and eligible men were *required by law* to own and maintain a weapon (often cobbled together to meet the barest minimum, known as "farm guns"). Go check it out for yourself at, say, Colonial Williamsburg, Sturbridge Village, etc.
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli," mob strong man Peter Clemenza tells an associate after shooting a traitorous ex-employee in "The Godfather." When it comes to Americans' health and safety, however, it's debatable whether firearms or pastries are doing the most damage. Gorging ourselves at the buffet of excess, our guts are swelling, arteries are clogging and muscles are atrophying, one jelly donut at a time. Meanwhile, the costs associated with obesity-related heart disease, diabetes and cancer continue to balloon. The American Public Health Association projects that "left unchecked, obesity will add nearly $344 billion to the nation's annual health care costs by 2018 and account for more than 21 percent of health care spending."