Does 2nd Amendment Apply to EVERY Weapon?

[Joe Demko]

Assuming you could afford all the costs and there were no legal barriers to purchase, how do you envision yourself using your shiny new nuke/weaponized anthrax/Polaris missile/wmd of choice?

 

[Phatty]

Assuming you could afford all the costs and there were no legal barriers to purchase, how do you envision yourself using your shiny new nuke/weaponized anthrax/Polaris missile/wmd of choice?

As an ego-booster, collector's item, bragging rights, etc.

 

[CoRoMo]

That's a good question for George Washington.
I imagine he'd answer something along the lines, "In the same way I'll use my rifle. To fend of tyranny and uphold liberty."

But that's just a guess. I didn't really get to know him that well.

 

[RC45]

Assuming you could afford all the costs and there were no legal barriers to purchase, how do you envision yourself using your shiny new nuke/weaponized anthrax/Polaris missile/wmd of choice?

Any way I chose that does not break the law - the same way you would use your semi-auto pistol or large calibre hunting rifle.

And if the time came where I was recruited to be part of the "well regulated Militia" I would make the arms availble to the command structure, the same way I would my side arms and long guns.

If I had the resources to purchase, store and deploy a tactical nuke, I would do so on one of the 5 million acres of land I might own, or perhpas the South Pacific Island I owned.

You see, the Contitution is quite clear in its wording, intent and structure.

"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."

No ambiguity that I can see.

 

[Joe Demko]

Geo was one of history's towering figures and a great (if imperfect) man. I'm asking you.

 

[Cromlech]

As far as NBC stuff goes, I don't like Biological Weapons, especially in the hands of Governments, not just civilians. The same applies for Chemical Weapons with (strong) permanent affects (not just a mild Tear Gas or something like that).

Nuclear Weapons are nasty as Hell, and those affected by the Radioactive Fallout may suffer as bad as (or maybe worse than) Biological/Chemical victims, but at least the Nuclear Weapons have a use against hard structures or vehicles/equipment that need to be destroyed.

B/C weapons are for killing organisms (read: Humans) only, and usually in an incredibly unpleasant way.

 

[shockwave]

Cannons and mortars were sometimes referred to as "arms,"

I don't care. And the reason I don't care is that it doesn't matter who sometimes said what meaning which; what does matter is what the framers had in mind with the language of the 2nd A. Some of the best legal opinion we have is that basically, it means whatever you want it to mean, as it was obviously some kind of compromise, much as the term "and/or" derives from maritime law.

But there are obvious clues not in the 2nd A, but in the personal writings of the men who wrote it.

And what they discuss in documents like the Federalist papers is that unarmed individuals are too easily dominated by a small number of men at arms. It was preferable that the citizenry be able to resist any unwanted government, and that their government would only exist with their consent. The word "militia" is important here because in most cases, the militia was you and a couple of your neighbors. It doesn't say "army," or "navy," so heavy war engines and battleships were not envisioned as things everybody can pick up on the way home.

The standard weapon of a soldier of the period was a musket, and officers had swords. Possibly a flintlock pistol or two. And, even though we've grown to a population of 300 million, it is still mostly legal to own modern versions of these weapons. I'd say we maintained the 2nd in the spirit intended.

 

[Joe Demko]

We'll assume you are a rich, morally upright patriot. What if a rich, depraved, power-hungry ******* like me decides he wants one?

 

[CoRoMo]

...how do you envision yourself using your .... nuke...

Why do I have to use it? I don't want to use it.

What if a rich, depraved, power-hungry ******* like me decides he wants one?

Oh man, when you put it that way, how can anyone not feel concerned.
Did you read 1911Tuner's post #140? Suits me.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

From Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language: 1755

ARMS

1. Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.

Those arms which Mars before Had giv'n the vanquish'd, now the victor bore. Pope's Iliad.​

Not much ambiguity back then. If you look up cannons, munitions, gun, ordnance, etc, they all eventually link back to arms.

Woody

 

[Joe Demko]

Obviously, if nukes were commercially available, petro-dollar funded scumbags would never purchase them. Only righty-tightie American patriots would have them. It's so painfully obvious I feel like a retard for even bringing it up.

 

[RC45]

We'll assume you are a rich, morally upright patriot. What if a rich, depraved, power-hungry ******* like me decides he wants one?

Well, knock yourself out - it's your right. No law ever stopped those of criminal intent.

 

[Joe Demko]

Here's the reality: Everybody who has the money for such weapons and the desire to own them is pretty much automatically someone you don't want having them.

 

[StarDust1]

I don't care. And the reason I don't care is that it doesn't matter who sometimes said what meaning which; what does matter is what the framers had in mind with the language of the 2nd A. Some of the best legal opinion we have is that basically, it means whatever you want it to mean, as it was obviously some kind of compromise, much as the term "and/or" derives from maritime law.

But there are obvious clues not in the 2nd A, but in the personal writings of the men who wrote it.

And what they discuss in documents like the Federalist papers is that unarmed individuals are too easily dominated by a small number of men at arms. It was preferable that the citizenry be able to resist any unwanted government, and that their government would only exist with their consent. The word "militia" is important here because in most cases, the militia was you and a couple of your neighbors. It doesn't say "army," or "navy," so heavy war engines and battleships were not envisioned as things everybody can pick up on the way home.

The standard weapon of a soldier of the period was a musket, and officers had swords. Possibly a flintlock pistol or two. And, even though we've grown to a population of 300 million, it is still mostly legal to own modern versions of these weapons. I'd say we maintained the 2nd in the spirit intended.

I say no, no we haven't! The intent was never to allow a central authority to "outgun" the militia(We The People)withiin the borders of the United States, thus local, state, and federal agents wielding arms that they then turn about and forbid the militia(We The People)from possessing becomes an extrordinary infringement...

 

[Gungnir]

Here's the reality: Everybody who has the money for such weapons and the desire to own them is pretty much automatically someone you don't want having them.

It would be foolish to assume that those with the motivation. determination, and wherewithal don't already have them. The worlds intelligence agencies certainly believe that is the case anyway. If any of the Forbes top 100 really wanted a nuke they could obtain it I'm sure. Technically an individual does own nukes (and likely chemical and biological weapons), the Queen of England, since she is the commander in chief of the UK armed forces.

Here we are discussing Government infringement of ownership of these things and ignore the infringement of a standing army that owns these things. So we're doubly screwed by the Government, not only do they infringe our natural right to defense of our self, property and liberty, they also infringe the constitution and give the things denied to us, to an organization that is unconstitutional.

As far as misuse is concerned, then by inference, no weapon should be allowed to be owned, at the end of the day it's just a matter of scale. Why should one death by a weapon be of less consequence than 100,000?

Cromlech, I totally agree, we know governments and organizations have used nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, that scares me more than a possibility that some rogue tycoon would obtain and use them.

 

[shockwave]

The intent was never to allow a central authority to "outgun" the militia

A central authority cannot "outgun" a militia. I refer you to Afghanistan, or Iraq, where a lightly armed population can and does put up terrific resistance without arms equivalent to those used by the invading army. The central authority, as correctly envisioned by the framers, is smaller in number than the defenders who thus can "outgun" the central authority in all kinds of ways.

Oh I assure you, I understand the perspective that there should be zero restrictions about anything, and that any law of any kind is an intolerable intrusion upon liberty. I can run that back at you all day long. Personally, I'd like a SMG.

But the intent of the 2nd A is not that I personally should be able to bear sufficient arms all by myself to withstand an assault by an army. Be cool with me if that were the case, but the 2nd expresses a desire that my city, my community, be adequately armed and defendable. Which it very much is. See, the invading occupying force, whatever it may be - Indians, a police state, a tyrannical government - will face an armed populace that outnumbers them 100:1. Not "a sniper," but 1,000 snipers. And 10,000 shotguns. The citizen militia can easily wear down and finally vanquish a massively more powerful occupier of smaller numbers. The Afghanis beat the Soviets with fairly primitive weapons.

 

[StarDust1]

A central authority cannot "outgun" a militia. I refer you to Afghanistan, or Iraq, where a lightly armed population can and does put up terrific resistance without arms equivalent to those used by the invading army. The central authority, as correctly envisioned by the framers, is smaller in number than the defenders who thus can "outgun" the central authority in all kinds of ways.

Oh I assure you, I understand the perspective that there should be zero restrictions about anything, and that any law of any kind is an intolerable intrusion upon liberty. I can run that back at you all day long. Personally, I'd like a SMG.

But the intent of the 2nd A is not that I personally should be able to bear sufficient arms all by myself to withstand an assault by an army. Be cool with me if that were the case, but the 2nd expresses a desire that my city, my community, be adequately armed and defendable. Which it very much is. See, the invading occupying force, whatever it may be - Indians, a police state, a tyrannical government - will face an armed populace that outnumbers them 100:1. Not "a sniper," but 1,000 snipers. And 10,000 shotguns. The citizen militia can easily wear down and finally vanquish a massively more powerful occupier of smaller numbers. The Afghanis beat the Soviets with fairly primitive weapons.

This is not Afghanistan or Iraq, nor is the 2nd Amendment shrouded in ambiguity or nebulous legalise, and if I may, your attempt at diminishing it down to the collective, flies directly in the face of "Heller!"

 

[Joe Demko]

It is patently false that if you have the money you can have a nuke or other realio-trulio WMD right now. Were that the case, one would long since have been deployed against the US or Israel. At the very least, the scumbags would be crowing that they had it and attempting international intimidation with it.

 

[1911Tuner]

Guys, in order to keep this discussion from falling over the line of ridiculous...let's keep the nuke argument out of it. Assuming that one of us could even afford one, the matter of actually being able to fire it is in question. They're more comlicated to detonate than simply pushing a button.

Renegade governments and terror factions will obtain a nuclear device if and when they want one and can afford one. Nothing we can really do about it. Thje best that we can hope for is to discover it in time to destroy it.

So, rather than let it become a counterpoint for the antis...let's play it down by rolling our eyes whenever it crops up. None of us really wants one anyway...in spite of our claims that we should be able to have one if we so desire. Hey! It's radioactive. If it's not properly housed, it doesn't have to go bang in order to kill. We probably couldn't afford the arming device for one, even if we could figure out how to use it.

Instead...Let's keep this discussion focused on conventional arms.

 

[Gungnir]

deleted after reading mod's guidance.

 

[StarDust1]

Speculative 2nd Amendment talk of nukes, aircraft, and heavy ordnance are the "fail-safe fall-back" position of the committed anti-gunner, it's an intentionally ridiculous sophistry patented around the idea of making originalists look stupid......
When those who actually celebrate the true intent of the 2nd fall into this trap, they've lost the initiative.
The intent of the 2nd is crystal clear, particularly in light of the further commentary offered by the very founders who helped to craft it. In my opinion the 2nd Amendment has essentially been usurped and co-opted by a committed elitist ruling class, regardless, the intent of the thing was to acknowledge the inherent right of "We The People" to wield the common weapons of war in defense of not just our communities, but our individual persons & liberties!

 

[Gungnir]

Speculative 2nd Amendment talk of nukes, aircraft, and heavy ordnance are the "fail-safe fall-back" position of the committed anti-gunner, it's an intentionally ridiculous sophistry patented around the idea of making originalists look stupid......
When those who actually celebrate the true intent of the 2nd fall into this trap, they've lost the initiative.
The intent of the 2nd is crystal clear, particularly in light of the further commentary offered by the very founders who helped to craft it. In my opinion the 2nd Amendment has essentially been usurped and co-opted by a committed elitist ruling class, regardless, the intent of the thing was to acknowledge the inherent right of "We The People" to wield the common weapons of war in defense of not just our communities, but our individual persons & liberties!

Hehehe...

Good point.

 

[gc70]

"To bear means to carry, so first off, you should be able to easily carry the weapon around"
"The second amendment provides some limitiations: an arm must be something you can carry ("bear").""And given the state of weaponry during the late 1700s, they were talking about muskets. But not cannon."
"A person does not need a full auto gun in order to keep and bear arms."
​

"...the right of the people to keep and easily (1) bear in their hands (2) some (3) Arms they need (4), shall not be infringed."

This type of extension to the actual content of the Second Amendment always strikes me as a form of rationalization to avoid directly discussing the real issue with the Second Amendment.

The reality of the modern world is that the arms available to mankind now include weapons that have the capability to inflict death on a scale that was unimaginable until the advent of the twentieth century.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they chose a word with the broadest meaning to reflect weaponry. The word "arms" could be used to describe any weapon that existed at that time. So, consider for a moment, WHAT IF the Founding Fathers really did mean for the Second Amendment to encompass any and all weapons?

IF the plain language of the Second Amendment means what it says, we are faced with the quandry of relying on a realistically indefensible basis (considering the scope of modern "arms") to support our right to keep and bear arms. Even the traditional time, scope and manner restrictions on rights do not resolve the quandry, so we turn to limitations on the arms themselves. Unfortunately, finding a logical line of demarcation between acceptable and unacceptable arms is difficult because arms are not differentiated so much by manner of operation, but by the efficiency of their lethality.

Absent a logical and defensible demarcation between the acceptable and the unimaginable, our opponents have us on a very slippery slope. Consider the following quote from this thread, not in relation to the weapon the author envisioned, but apply the logic to any semi-automatic rifle:

Here's the reality: Everybody who has the money for such weapons and the desire to own them is pretty much automatically someone you don't want having them.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Question #1 Does the 2nd Amendment apply to EVERY weapon.

YES.

Question #2 If it does not, where does it draw the line?

at the limit of my pocketbook?

The hardest question is whether full auto could be prohibited. I would say yes. A person does not need a full auto gun in order to keep and bear arms.

"A well regulated militia..."

What is a militia (ie: private citizens banding together to bear arms in defense - be it from invasion or tyranny) without effective, military-type weapons? How effective would the Continental Army have been if they were armed only with blunderbusses and whatever else came before the musket? No, they were able to face down the red coats in part because they had comparable weapons. Yes, that included the most modern firearms as well as artillery pieces.

 

[Blakenzy]

The Afghanis beat the Soviets with fairly primitive weapons.

The Afghanis began to turn the tide when they got Stinger AA shoulder fired missiles from the good ole USA, and started shooting down a lot of soviet choppers. Can you as an American Citizen get a functional Stinger launcher? No, because you are not allowed to pose a significant threat to a modern military.