Second Amendment Thought...

[monsternav]

Jeff OTMG:
So your interpretation is that we can only carry weapons around. What should we do with them at other times? Store them in the public (read gov't armory)?

Anyway ,it says bearing arms, not carrying. I've humped around an M60, and thats a crew served weapon, but it is "bearable" by an individual. Where does that fit in?

 

[mmike87]

Well, I think that the line DOES need to be drawn somewhere. Does anyone on this board REALLY think that the founding fathers would want the individual citizen to have nuclear weapons? Chemical weapons? Bio weapons?

Some weapons are not practical for private ownership and the founding fathers did not and could not have forseen the new implements of mass destruction the 20th century would bring.

You have the right to defend yourself and your family. It's a hard argument to make that you nuked Chicago because you felt your life was threatened.

As for defending us from the government itself, I doubt that slinging nukes around would make your "side" very popular with the general population.

Be careful - I think arguing that private citizens should be allowed to have ANY weaponry makes us look a little silly and helps the anti-gun movement. I understand the fear that if we prohibit nukes today, tomorrow it will be J-frames.

Yes, the FF's would have wanted us to have any weapon available - but again they could not have forseen nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons. I am afraid that this is a line that has to be drawn, somewhere.

For the record, I am OK with private ownership of automatic weapons, .50 rifles, etc. But you really have to draw the line with weapons of mass destruction.

 

[monsternav]

I agree with the no WMD statement.

I think that anything in a line Infantry company should be available to a citizen.

 

[MechAg94]

Thanks for the post Preacherman.

I think you could make the case that WMD's are not necessary for overthrowing the govt.

I like the thought about anything a line infantry unit would have. I guess for things like motars and crew served machine guns, a group, town, or the state would set up a local armory to store and maintain crew served weapons. Unlike the National Guard, they should not be under the command of the Fed govt. I think man portable rockets would be legal as well.

Of course, if all this came about, there would have to be some sort of mandatory militia training to make sure all the members of the militia can use those weapons. Certainly not done now. Safety might not be a big issue if it was done right.

Does anyone have any statistics on safety or accidents in Switzerland since they have/had a similar concept?

Finally, there would have to be stiff penalties for mis-use of said militia weapons if there aren't already.

 

[DonNikmare]

Yes, the line has to be drawn. My idea of "conventional" excludes WMD's of any kind.

Nik

 

[taliv]

I think you guys are thinking about this all wrong.

The question was

Do you think the founding fathers would approve of citizens owning the conventional weapons of the our time? I'm talking tanks, military jets, etc.

The answer, is going to be different for each of us, and is largely irrelevant, since the fact is, the founding fathers had no clue whatsoever about technological advances.


Where this goes wrong is trying to "interpret" or extend the 2nd ammendment, or as preacherman brought up, the first ammendment.

In cases like these, where so much has changed, we should totally eschew the "living document" BS and simply do what the founding fathers provided...


make ANOTHER ammendment.


That lets us debate the real question, "SHOULD we be able to own tanks and F15s?" without all that pesky business about what the founding fathers meant 200 years ago.

And not only that, but "SHOULD we be able to own sporting guns? or self defense guns? or guns for revolution? or gun-wannabes like lorcins and jennings?"

naturally, I think the answer to all those is yes.

and for preacherman, I think we need to update the 1st ammendment as well. I think everyone should enjoy the same freedoms it reserves for "the press". I think "freedom of religion" certainly needs clarification since there's soooo much debate over the "separation of church and state" doctrine. And certainly, freedom of speech needs a bit of clarification too.

as far as I'm concerned, neither congress or the courts are representing "the People" on any of these issues.