Second Amendment

[svtruth]

debates often involve antis pointing out that when it was written modern military weapons did not exist. They are right, but when it was written, ordinary citizens could own arms equivalent to the best equipped soldier. My thinking is that it should be interpreted that way today. Ordinary, law abiding, citizens should have access to what ever the military has.

 

[cbrgator]

Should we have access to grenades and mortars and bombs? I'm as pro-2A as they come, but I'm ok with not being to purchase surface-to-air missiles.



But to help you argue against that point of modern weapons, the 4th Amendment, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, has been held to apply to modern communications (phone, email, etc.) and not just letters or whatever they had at the end of the 18th century.

 

[iScream]

OK, I'll take the bait.

So, do you think some billionaire should be able to drop a million on a cruise missile if he wants to?

If that's too extreme, what about things like shoulder fired rockets?

For what it's worth, I don't agree with any bans on "assault" rifles, high cap magazines, or even full auto weapons. I do think the need for some type of limits is obvious though.

-Chris

 

[Rosstradamus]

From your question I assume you have never bothered to read the most important Supreme Court decision relating to the Second Amendment in the history of the Republic, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller. That issue was addressed:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So, do you think some billionaire should be able to drop a million on a cruise missile if he wants to?

So this is the standard silly argument that comes up a lot.

The Second Amendment talks about keeping and bearing "arms". So what you get into is a discussion of what an arm is.

Is a cruise missile "arms"? In the intent of the Second Amendment it seems pretty clear that "arms" are intended to be "borne" (carried) so no, the cruise missile example doesn't really apply.

Keep and bear arms. That would seem to indicate some kind of weapon that could be carried by one man, and stored at his house.

Heller agrees with this it seems, as posted above: " the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

So cruise missiles, nuclear warheads, all that silliness don't really apply do they....

20mm? Sure. Machine guns? Absolutely. Cruise missiles? I wanna see someone carry it first I think.

Where it gets interesting is things like Stinger missiles. Those are 'bearable' and man portable. It would seem to me that a Stinger would fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

Someone mentioned grenades. Those ARE legal to own already under the NFA. They are considered "Destructive Devices".

I suspect a Stinger missile would be a DD as well. The definition of a DD includes rockets with more than 4 ounces of propellant.

The Stinger though comes under some different laws. The laws around the possession of some classified types of guidance systems etc probably excludes owning a Stinger system. Those laws would have to be ruled on by the Supremes as to whether or not they conflict with the Second.

But take the 40mm grenade launcher. LOTS of them in the NFA. Perfectly legal to own. $200 each time you shoot it (if you use HE grenades) because each round is a DD itself, but if you have enough money.....

Bottom line, don't be too quick to decide something shouldn't be out there, it may be already. Most people don't realize that hand grenades, grenade launchers, etc are already legal to own today.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ask yoruself: When it hits the fan, do you want to have only rifle bullets to sling at some tyrant's tanks, bombers, APCs, cruise missles, RPGs, Stingers, or whathaveyou?

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

I would make the same argument for the meaning of "bearable"(bear). There is equipment out there - modern equipment that was not in existence at the time of the founding - that can bear most anything at the touch of a finger. It's not the equipment that is protected by the Second Amendment but our right to keep and bear it without infringement by government.

If some people have a problem with that, amend the Constitution.

Woody

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Someone mentioned grenades. Those ARE legal to own already under the NFA. They are considered "Destructive Devices".

A rose by any other name...

Woody

 

[InkEd]

Yes. I should be able to own any type of weapon I desire.

The wealthy CAN illegally buy whatever they want up to and including WMD's and nuclear weapons. Where do you think all these pos countries, warlords and terrorist groups got their weapons? The artillary fairy?

After the USSR fell apart do you have any clue what kind of crazy stuff went unto the black market! Really do you? Fully equipped tank, helicopters and countless artillary. Small arms: AKs, RPGs and grenades were sold from warehouse to criminals and other countries for cheap especially when when bases started getting shut down. The arms market is not what it was immediately after the fall but it is still going strong in developing nations around the world.

I would be less worried about Bill Gates using a Peacekeeper ICBM to strong arm Apple into stopping those obnoxious Mac commercials; than I am about Kim Jong Il starting world war 3 because somebody made fun of his poofy hair and Paris Hilton sunglassses.

Responsible lawful citizens should have the right to buy any weaponry they desire. The only peope who don't own certain weapons be ause they are illegal are people who folow the law.

 

[gym]

Not if it can wipe out entire countrys Ed. I think the right to defend becomes warped when we start discussing bombs and missles. If it ever came to that none of us would be around to argue about it. I don't want anyone I have met in my 61 years on the planet to have another nuclear device do you?

 

[cbrgator]

I'm sorry. I'm just not going to be able to jump on that bandwagon that the 2A applies to ANY weapon I desire. Automatics, sure. .50 cals, sure. Bombs/high explosives/missiles, nope. If grenades are in fact legal right now, which I won't contest, whatever the current policy is, is fine with me. I would not be in favor of easing those restrictions.

The current restrictions keep them too expensive for common criminals to get a hold of. I don't recall ever hearing of criminals using real grenades in the commission of a crime. Perhaps homemade ones, but not actual M67 type real grenade. If we make them more available, criminals will use them more.

It's one thing to argue about guns... because there are already 300 million out there. But while access to grenades is so restricted at this point, I'm ok with maintaining the status quo.

 

[General Geoff]

Bombs, missiles, and high explosives are ALREADY legal to own.

I laugh to myself every time this kind of thread comes up.

It's one thing to argue about guns... because there are already 300 million out there. But while access to grenades is so restricted at this point, I'm ok with maintaining the status quo.

Sounds like you'd be in favour of banning guns if the supply could actually be restricted from criminals.

 

[cbrgator]

Sounds like you'd be in favour of banning guns if the supply could actually be restricted to criminals.

Sounds like you missed my point.

 

[General Geoff]

No, I don't think I did.

You are in favour of deregulating .50 caliber machine guns, among other things, but not hand grenades. Gee, I wonder which one of those is more dangerous in the wrong hands...

And FWIW, hand grenades, bombs and missiles are less regulated at the moment than all machine guns. You can still apply for and get a tax stamp for a newly constructed DD, you can't for a machine gun.

 

[Zundfolge]

Part of the problem is the ever changing language.

The term "Nuclear Arms" is somewhat inaccurate. The more appropriate term (particularly in the parlance of the founding fathers) would be "Nuclear Ordnance".

The second amendment covers arms ... its silent on ordnance.

As for a billionaire buying a cruise missile, I see no reason why not. That doesn't mean he can buy a nuclear warhead for it though.

Actually I don't think there are any current laws against billionaires buying cruise missiles now ... but IANAL.

 

[General Geoff]

Long as the government has access to them, so too should the people. This includes nuclear weapons.


private nuke ownership is a self-regulating concept, though. Nukes require fairly regular maintenance by highly paid technicians and scientists in order to ensure proper function in the unlikely event they're actually used. This maintenance is not cheap; no successful billionaire is going to waste money on maintaining a nuclear arsenal unless he knows for a fact he's going to use them. And if that's the case, a silly law isn't going to stop him from acquiring or building them.

 

[Zundfolge]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal."

So that says to me that private ownership of heavy military gear was to be assumed to be legal by the founders.

So cruise missiles, fighter jets, tanks, battleships, attack helicopters, etc should be legal for private citizens to own.
[/FONT]

 

[TexasRifleman]

But while access to grenades is so restricted at this point, I'm ok with maintaining the status quo.

Access to grenades isn't that restrictive other than price.

Don't mean to pick you here but this argument is fairly common. First the statement that no one should have them. Then, once someone learns it's already legal, then the statements "well they are pretty restrictive so that's OK". Well, they are not really any more restricted than any other Title 1 firearm, just a little more money and time involved. That's assuming of course someone wants to own them legally. They are even easier to get illegally.

Your argument doesn't make sense. They are not used in crimes very often because they are crappy weapons, not because they are hard to get.

 

[taliv]

politics is off-topic.
legal belongs in legal