Does 2nd Amendment Apply to EVERY Weapon?

[StarDust1]

Obviously there's a limit . . . as is the case with all Constitutional guarantees. To suggest that there isn't is absolutely ludicrous.

As to where you draw the line, I ain't that smart. However, I'm pretty sure that the line should fall south of nukes, chemical weapons, and daisy cutters.

Is that so? You will please cite the pertinent portions of the "Bill Of Rights" that explain that these rights are finite?

 

[General Geoff]

Thats because you really have no rights that they can't, or won't strip you of if they so desire, which makes it debatable as to whether we really enjoy civil rights, as opposed to civil privileges....My two cents? We essentially have no rights, and deep down, we all know this to be true....

As it has been since before recorded history, the only universal constant in the human condition is Might Makes Right. History is written by the victors of each battle, and law is created and enforced by them.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I have been convinced by some of the well reasoned posts that, even though I would ban it, the 2nd A probably protects the small arms of today's infantry, in other words a full auto rifle/carbine.

I would still prohibit small machine guns.

 

[Skillet]

I only agree with part of your statement. I have no need for a nuclear warhead in my basement but I couldn't afford one in the first place so what's the point?

How does a shortened barrel on a shotgun make it more dangerous? It still shoots the same, and is capable of the same amount of damage. It's a ridiculous law and needs to be overturned.

Why can't I own a full auto? It's not like once I own a full auto bang I have some intent on killing someone. Do I need it? no. but this is not a nation of needs. it is quite obviously a nation of wants.

any weapon that narrows that gap between what weapon a criminal might have and a weapon a corrupt government (Counting for price, realisticly most people cannot afford an F-22 and/or a howitzer of some sort) might have should be legal.

 

[kanook]

If you take the over all length of a Pistol grip shotgun and ask your self, why can't I own a stocked pistol of the same length? or why can't I own a stocked pistol that is almost long as a carbine?

I can put a stock on a Black powder pistol with no restrictions but as soon as it modern it's a big no no.

 

[StarDust1]

I have been convinced by some of the well reasoned posts that, even though I would ban it, the 2nd A probably protects the small arms of today's infantry, in other words a full auto rifle/carbine.

I would still prohibit small machine guns.

Why? The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to arm the militia(citizens)against a tyrranical ruling class that would subjugate them!
This intent has been completely co-opted, indeed twisted to such an extent that otherwise decent people are totally clueless about this original intent, sucking up to the usurper & embracing them in a strange, but potent form of transference, accepting this tyrrany as reasonable precaution against the very militia(citizens)themselves, when in fact the danger resides with the ruling class, as it always has and always will....

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One may not need a full auto firearm to exercise their RKBA, but I still rue the day in 1985 that I passed up buying a Reising Model 50 for $150.00 because the tax stamp on the Form 4 transfer of registration would have been $200.00 and I could not see paying more in federal tax than the asking price on the gun. Today a Reising M50 runs about $3200.00.

 

[AWDeanSR]

The right to keep and bear arms is not a right given to us by the government...it is an inherent right which free men possess. The constitution and the bill of Rights are meant to limit the Government. A person should be able to carry his lawfully purchased firearm(no matter the size, shape, caliber or rate of fire) in any way he/she desires as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others.

I do not see a need for private individuals to own nuclear or biological weapons...or even grenades. However, being an ex Red leg, I believe if a private organization of individuals is properly trained, regulated and able to afford it, some artillery pieces should be their limit.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

Does 2nd Amendment Apply to EVERY Weapon?

Yes. I could have a B1 bomber with nuclear weapons on my lawn and the biggest issue would be how to cut the grass around the wheels. Some other yahoo could pick up a fallen tree limb and the first thing he would do with it is smack someone in the head and grab their wallet. It's not what you have but what you would do with it.
There are other opinions but they are wrong and those who hold them are stupid.

 

[Gungnir]

I have been convinced by some of the well reasoned posts that, even though I would ban it, the 2nd A probably protects the small arms of today's infantry, in other words a full auto rifle/carbine.

I would still prohibit small machine guns.

Why the arbitrary selection? Why stop there...

What do you gain by prohibition of Full Auto that you don't gain by prohibition of Semi auto, or single shot? I mean if you can argue that semi-auto gives you enough firepower to overthrow a tyrannical government even with higher losses against better armed standing armies. Then surely with slightly higher casualties you can do the same with single shot, BB guns or rocks. Just extrapolating your thought process for you.

Unfortunately the thought process you're displaying is one of the social norm issues that was mentioned many times in other postings, including others of my own, that by prohibiting something that after the initial outrage of the prohibition, people begin to accept and believe that there's a utility to that prohibition.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free"

Also why do people also have an arbitrary line at crew served, what about cannons, perfectly legal, and they're not even covered by the NFA or GCA or classed as firearms or DD by the BATFE. Or explosives, if somehow were invaded or we sank into a complete state of lawlessness and anarchy, wouldn't protecting your community, home and family with Claymores make sense?

Both of the things people may think of as out there... But I think that it's less so that some of the idea's on limitation presented here. Here we have both a written statement in the constitution defining that the "Right of the people to keep and bear arms", and we have recorded intents and what the purpose was by the original framers. It was to secure the state and the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We have domestic enemies (the federal government acting unconstitutionally) who for nearly 100 years have been slowly pulling the teeth in the constitution and people are agreeing with it.

 

[hammerklavier]

To bear means to carry, so first off, you should be able to easily carry the weapon around, so this precludes cannons but should allow full auto. Note that there are certain weapons currently legal which would not fall into this category.

To keep implies keeping in your home, a sane person would not keep nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in your home, even if they could be carried. The desires of the insane need not be protected.

Another possible interpretation would be to up-keep, for instance, keeping a horse, means knowing how to provide for its food, health, training, exercise, and shelter, so under this interpretation missiles and other high tech weapons would be out since you rarely find a single person who understands the entire system.

Short barreled rifles and shotguns should be allowed if concealed weapons are allowed. The distinction has only come about as the nation becomes increasingly urbanized and anti gun, and it's going in favor of concealed. "We can't stop you from carrying a weapon, but you'd better keep it out of sight."

Explosives were quite legal and common up until WWII. What farmer didn't have some TNT on hand at one time or another in the first half of the 1900's? Bombings were not particularly rampant in those times, except those carried out by the Bolsheviks and anarchists. Despite explosives being illegal we still see similar terrorist acts today.

 

[bushmaster1313]

By "small machine gun" I meant something like an Uzi with a short barrel.

Assuming we let people have M-16's, there is no reason not to prohibit the SMG

 

[withdrawn34]

So, is this number 3,135,325,466 of this question?

Please, come on man. Are you really going to start with the "omg u can storr nukuleer weaponz mang!!!111 OMG" stuff? Destructive devices and firearms have been classified differently for a long time. Don't try to combine them.

 

[Gungnir]

By "small machine gun" I meant something like an Uzi with a short barrel.

Assuming we let people have M-16's, there is no reason not to prohibit the SMG

I smell troll...

What would that achieve...? Allow an M-16 but not an Uzi, where's the logic, it seems completely arbitrary to me. That's like banning high performance cars for fuel consumption reasons and saying you'd the allow Ferrari's but not Dodge Vipers.

At the end of the day the RIGHT to keep and bear arms should not be restricted by government. The government should enforce laws that protect people from crimes, if that happens to be with a weapon then punish the user, don't ban the weapon, it's not like criminals can't get access to things that we law abiding gun owners only dream about.

 

[bushmaster1313]

No troll.

I have been convinced that the 2nd A covers M-16's. Citizens should be on the same small arms footing as the infantry

However, an SMG like a short barreled UZI is primarilly for spraying 9mm.

Just as I think you could ban concealed carry or open carry, but not both, I think the consitution allows State legislatures to ban UZI's if the M-16 is not banned.

 

[MisterMike]

I'm not in agreement with Geoff, Gungnir, et al, but I am interested in your thoughts: Can you envision any circumstances under which it would ever be proper for the government to prohibit or relieve a person of a weapon prior to that person using the weapon? In asking this, I would define "weapon" in the broadest possible terms, including nukes and other WMDs. I'm seriously interested in reading your opinions.

 

[1911Tuner]

Technically...yes. It should cover all weaponry available to the military..short of Daisy Cutters and the like...since that was part of the reasoning behind 2A to start with.

That said...Off the top of my head, I can think of about a dozen or so individuals who would make me a mite uncomfortable if I found that they had a few LAWs stashed in ye olde storage shed out back of the manor house. Yessir. A mite uncomfortable.

 

[mljdeckard]

Here's where I come down.

ARMS, as defined at the time The Constitution was written, were regarded as weapons intended to be used BY individuals AGAINST individuals. Meaning, muskets, pistols, swords knives etc were arms. LARGER weapons, such as CANNON, were considered ORDNANCE for the purposes of procurement and supply. This worked pretty much until the turn of the 20th century. Machine guns were CREW SERVED weapons, because they were designed to have more than one person operate them, and were effective against elements LARGER than individual soldiers. They were therefore ordnance, rather than arms.

But at the turn of the century, newer developments emerged, particularly in WWI with the Thompson and the BAR. These were weapons designed to be used by individuals rather than being crew-served. We still have crew-served machine guns, but there are also certainly automatic weapons designed to be used by individuals against individuals. THESE are certainly ARMS, not ordnance.

SO, when antis ask me, "So, you think that people should be allowed to have nuclear bombs, right?" I reply, "Nonsense. These are not arms. They are ORDNANCE."

This philosophy isn't perfect, and technology emerges faster than gun laws are changed, but it's a distinction I am willing to live with.

 

[Cromlech]

I definitely think that the 2A protects any and all small arms when I read it.
If I were able to reword the 2A into something lengthier and more detailed it would allow stuff like this:


No Fully Automatic or Burst Fire limitations
No ammunition capacity limitations
No Overall or Barrel length/size limitations
No Armour-Piercing or Expanding ammunition limitations (not sure where I stand on explosive ammo)
Open Carry Legal
Concealed Carry Legal

Any kind of munition that has a warhead (like the explosive ammo I mentioned above) is a bit more of a stretch for me, at least for non-registered weaponry.

I'm kind of on the fence about that though. I certainly wouldn't want to stop some bloke with a good chunk of land from enjoying a bit of M79 Blooper action on some old rusted cars, should he wish to, and should he be able to afford the weapon and the ammo.

 

[PCGS65]

"shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me. The 2A doesn't say "shall be reasonably infringed" or "shall be partially infringed" now does it?

 

[BCCL]

What PCGS65 said. ^

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

It appears we dont need to guess. See the below, sourced quote. I think "Every other terrible implement of the soldier" pretty much means Every Other Terrible Implement of the Soldier..........(See below).


Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

 

[MisterMike]

"shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me. The 2A doesn't say "shall be reasonably infringed" or "shall be partially infringed" now does it?

It's a little uncertain in viewing the thread exactly who you're responding to, so I'll ask this question on behalf of those of us who are "gun grabbers" :

Let's suppose a group of guys in Carbondale pooled their money, or got some donations from others, and decided that they would procure a some mortars. Is that okay? How about if we step it up to a suitcase nuke? Yes or no? In your view is there any limit to what sorts of weapons private individuals should be able to own?

I ask this out of genuine curiosity; I've never before run into anyone who believes that the Constitution recognizes an individual right to procure any sort of weapon with absolutely no limitations. If I'm understanding your responses correctly, there are no circumstances under which a government should be able to limit an individual's ability to obtain any sort of weapon, even if it's something that could cause mass casualties. Is that correct, or do I misunderstand what some of you are urging?

 

[wishin]

It appears we dont need to guess. See the below, sourced quote. I think "Every other terrible implement of the soldier" pretty much means Every Other Terrible Implement of the Soldier..........(See below).


Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

A quote by a congressional delegate in the PA Gazette in 1788 means about as much as a quote by Senator Harry Reid in the Reno Gazette today when it comes to Constitutional law.

 

[StarDust1]

No troll.

I have been convinced that the 2nd A covers M-16's. Citizens should be on the same small arms footing as the infantry

However, an SMG like a short barreled UZI is primarilly for spraying 9mm.

Just as I think you could ban concealed carry or open carry, but not both, I think the consitution allows State legislatures to ban UZI's if the M-16 is not banned.

If you're not trolling, then you've drifted off into genuine incoherence, most likely fueled by your ignorance of the arms in question!
Either way, your position is untenable, as it is simply not based upon any known rational logic...