Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does/should the Constitution establish the right to possess ALL kinds of arms?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by cjanak, Jun 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cjanak

    cjanak Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    64
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    The 2nd Amendment can be taken to mean that individuals have the right to posses all types of arms. I’m not just talking rifles and shotguns, I’m talking bazookas, howitzers… you name it. After all, the phrase used is “…keep and bear arms….” not “keep and bear certain types of arms”.

    It seems to me that, if the 2nd amendment is intended to allow the people to protect themselves from government tyranny, than you really must allow the people to posses most any kind of weapon. It’s certainly not realistic to expect the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government controlling the most advanced military in the world with a bunch of hunting rifles.

    If you believe there is some Constitutional basis for limiting the possession of certain types of arms, what is that basis and how does one judge which weapons should be limited and which should not?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2008
  2. Glockman17366

    Glockman17366 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,150
    Location:
    South Central Pennsylvania
    The 2nd Amendment doesn't state any limitations on arms..which, means just what it says.
    As far as I'm concerned, any firearm (or other weapon) that is available to the government is, by the Constitution, available to any citizen.

    Simple as that...
     
  3. SCPigpen

    SCPigpen Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Wretched Hive of Scum & Villainy
    We have a winner!!!

    I have to agree with Glockman. If you(private citizen)can afford any type of arm, from a pistol up to an aircraftcarrier you should be able to purchase it.

    To me, nukes are another ball of wax, due to that pesky radiation stuff.
     
  4. GearHead_1

    GearHead_1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    316
    Location:
    Utah
    No offense intended and I'm not accusing the OP of anything. It does seem kind of like a Troll type question. With only a few posts under the belt made me feel more so. This seems to be the kind of post where someone says heck no, you can't own a howitzer and then someone says well if no howitzer, why an AK? I'm probably up in the night on this one. My belief is that as a responsible citizen I should be able to have whatever I can safely handle and only I can make that determination. I want an M1, Abrams that is. I can handle it, really I can.
     
  5. bluestarlizzard

    bluestarlizzard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    746
    Location:
    c-ville va
    no limits.

    with the exception of true WMD (i.e. that stuff were if someone says 'oppps' everyone in the state is dead)
     
  6. 3KillerBs

    3KillerBs Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Messages:
    993
    Location:
    NC Sandhills
    IIRC, the Founding Fathers had a clear idea of the difference between arms and artillery.

    Blurring that distinction seems more of a gun-grabber scare tactic than anything else.
     
  7. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    The Constitution establishes no rights.

    The Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, and sets no limits thereupon.

    Considering that, at the time it was written, it was perfectly legal--and not uncommon, generally restricted only by one's wealth--for private citizens to own cannons, and even warships, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers intended anything but for the entire gamut of arms to be protected. Indeed, the recognition of letters of marque and reprisal--and the procedure for granting same--presupposes that the people will be allowed to own heavy weapons.
     
  8. cjanak

    cjanak Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    64
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    "This seems to be the kind of post where someone says heck no, you can't own a howitzer and then someone says well if no howitzer, why an AK? I'm probably up in the night on this one."​

    This is exactly what I'm getting at Gear Head 1. It's an issue that troubles me, so I wanted to see what other people's take was in hopes I might learn a thing or two. It definitely is not my intention to be a troll.

    I wouldn't have pictures like these were I anti-hunt or anti gun, right?

    Flyboy: You are exactly right; my phrasing was sloppy and incorrect.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 12, 2008
  9. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,314
    Location:
    The hilly SE
    Actually, neither. It's supposed to affirm and protect those rights.

    cjanak, don't worry. It's a valid question. It's not like you posted "2nd aMENDMeNT is teh c00l3st!!# LOL!!!" or something to that effect. We're just wary because when folks start splitting hairs about what kind of arms the 2A guarantees, it sets off alarm bells.

    Personally, I think we should be allowed to have whatever we need to preserve our rights and sovereignty. That includes any means our enemies, foreign or domestic, may have.
     
  10. Deer Hunter

    Deer Hunter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,097
  11. mekender

    mekender Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,255
    they did indeed, and they also knew that arms included artillery, ships of war etc... private citizens were required to maintain and uphold arms and cannon by the militia act... and private ownership of ships of war didn't stop until well after 1800...
     
  12. TCB in TN

    TCB in TN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,938
    Location:
    Middle, TN
    Mekender beat me to it, but the point can certainly stand repeating. One of the main points of the 2nd was to protect our ability to stand against any and all tyranny, including that of a standing army. BTW do a little research on where the Continental Army got much of its "artillery". You will find that much of it came from private citizens.
     
  13. husbandofaromanian

    husbandofaromanian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Nashville, Tn
    I agree the 2nd protects any arm. If the supreme court interprets correctly, we will be able to own anything. Then they will have no choice but to add an ammendment to the Constitution either cancelling or changing the 2nd. As far as the affectivness of firearms to defend against a tyranical government, just look at what chaos those two idiots caused in the DC snyping incident. Image what a group of real snypers could do in a shtf scenario.
     
  14. -v-

    -v- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,217
    If you can buy it, you should be able to own it. Although I too will say that I draw the line at WMDs. I don't think anyone wants to deal with "whoops, accidentally gassed/irradiated/nuked the neighborhood/town/city" scenarios. I think there it should fall under the same law(s) that says that unless you are a registered laboratory with prerequisite biohazard certification, you cannot buy samples of Small-pox.
     
  15. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    The SC can not add ammendments to the cons, that is up to the people.

    I do agree, the best thing that could happen to the 2a, its have it stricken and rewritten.
     
  16. divemedic

    divemedic Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,462
    Location:
    30 minute drive from Disney World
    True, private citizens did own mortars, torpedoes (called sea mines now), warships, cannon, grenades, and pretty much any other weapon that the military had.

    Before you get on the "nuclear weapons" argument, I would point out that you cannot use nuclear weapons to defend a country against a tyrannical government. They can only be used to destroy the entire country.

    Right. Do you think the 2A would be included, if the COTUS were written today?
     
  17. .cheese.

    .cheese. Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,808
    Somehow I would tend to think the 2A primarily applies to small arms, but honestly, I don't know.

    I think if nothing else we should be able to own anything we can personally carry.
     
  18. Big45

    Big45 member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    behind enemy lines...NO MORE. Made it to Free Ari
    arms is arms boys. Nukes should be available to all. Don't want anyone to have 'em? Charge a billion bucks for one. Nobody's gonna have one.
     
  19. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    thats a very good question.

    I really don't know to tell you the truth. My personal feelings is yes, but I'm just one voice out of several hundred million.
     
  20. PTK

    PTK Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    Montana
    To those who say "artillery, etc. shouldn't be included"...


    It already is. If you have the cash, you can buy a 155 Howitzer and exploding projectiles. Why should we change that?
     
  21. Firethorn

    Firethorn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,386
    Personally, the larger weapons are more subject to regulation purely from an environmental standpoint. Safety, if you will.

    It takes quite a magazine(in the old sense of the word) of smokeless powder to be dangerous.

    You start moving into explosive rounds like artillery shells and I can see a certain amount of safety regulations needing to be applied.

    Please note, this is no different in my mind than if you propose keeping tanks of gasoline or chlorine, or other substance of hazard in a fire and such.

    But, under no circumstances should the requirements for civilian storage exceed the requirements imposed on the military. Yes, if you want to play with 500 pound bombs and such, you should keep a proper bunker for the storage of same.
     
  22. airforceteacher

    airforceteacher Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    That's the worst thing that could happen - the demagogues and nanny statists would ensure that once it was stricken it was never readded. "Think of the children" would become the national anthem.

    It can never be done without a major constitutional crisis, because amendments must be introduced by federal politicians, and who among them would propose a law that allows us to take power from them?
     
  23. catfish101

    catfish101 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Kentucky
    The limit of what we can own is what allot of the gun grabbers and some media seem to endorse. If that is the case then they should be limited on what letters they can use when practicing their freedom of the press.
     
  24. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    you can stricken an amendment with part of another amendement.

    body of the the amendment.... the 2a is repealed. the other way is just as good.
     
  25. H088

    H088 member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    340
    I think everyone should get there hands off the constitution.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page