What the 2nd Ammendment is for

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

There is no limit on what arms. I imagine whatever the top of the line was. Meaning arms include guns, tanks, rocket launchers.

I often have trouble uderstanding what you write, but did you just argue that every single American has a Constitutional right to own a tank?
While that is completely insane.....I have to admit.....I would rather enjoy getting to cruise down Michigan Ave in a tank.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I often have trouble uderstanding what you write, but did you just argue that every single American has a Constitutional right to own a tank?
While that is completely insane.....I have to admit.....I would rather enjoy getting to cruise down Michigan Ave in a tank.

Really bad on gas milage

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Really bad on gas milage

...try changing the oil in that baby!

[hi_im_god]

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

So....see ya in 200 years

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

So....see ya in 200 years

Timmi...No offense..but please explain why you think citizens should be able to possess machine guns.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Timmi...No offense..but please explain why you think citizens should be able to possess machine guns.

how does the act of ownership infer criminality? it's the criminal you should worry about, not whether a law abiding citizen owns a certain type of weapon. would the crime rate go down if i was told i couldn't own a machine gun? NO, because i'm not a criminal.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Timmi...No offense..but please explain why you think citizens should be able to possess machine guns.

None taken,GBBob......I don't think machine guns should be legal...but I DO think that the average Joe/Jane should be able to have more firepower than a pistol to defend against intruders and people who mean them harm. This societys' proclivity for taking what isn't theirs is alarming, to say the least.
Add to that the propensity for violence to strangers(hold-ups,car-jacking,armed robbery and home invasions) and you just HAVE to be allowed to prepare yourself. As stated before, BIG dogs are nice too.

Originally Posted by GBBob

Timmi...No offense..but please explain why you think citizens should be able to possess machine guns.

I think if you have to ask this question,
you dont wanna hear an answer.

It could be very dissappointing and lead
one to question the sanity of our species.
And make it clear that "our" time on this
earth as Homo sapiens is going to be an
evolutionary blip on the screen of time.

But by God while we were here...
gosh darn it was damn exciting what with
all those explosions and such.

oops just noticed the response never mind...
WE ARE SAVED.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

there were rifles, and companies of riflemen in the the revolutionary war. rifles took longer to load, but were more accurate at longer ranges. i have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the framers of the constitution didn't foresee advances in weaponry. but they did foresee the need and ability of people to have and maintain their rights. by all means, if you don't want to exercise yours, don't-but i'd appreciate if you leave your hands off of my rights, regardless of whether you agree with my having them. i certainly have done nothing to warrant losing them. in all my arguments on this thread and elsewhere, keep in mind i haven't advocated anyone losing anything-while others have advocated taking them away. i won't feel safer if i lose them, and can't conceive that anyone else would. how anyone can argue that the constitution is inviolate, while arguing portions of that same document should be removed or done away with i don't know.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there were rifles, and companies of riflemen in the the revolutionary war. rifles took longer to load, but were more accurate at longer ranges. i have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the framers of the constitution didn't foresee advances in weaponry. but they did foresee the need and ability of people to have and maintain their rights. by all means, if you don't want to exercise yours, don't-but i'd appreciate if you leave your hands off of my rights, regardless of whether you agree with my having them. i certainly have done nothing to warrant losing them. in all my arguments on this thread and elsewhere, keep in mind i haven't advocated anyone losing anything-while others have advocated taking them away. i won't feel safer if i lose them, and can't conceive that anyone else would. how anyone can argue that the constitution is inviolate, while arguing portions of that same document should be removed or done away with i don't know.

so what's keeping me from my nuke?

it's clearly not the constitution since the framer's were smart enough to understand weaponry would advance.

i'm suggesting there are limits on rights. if you don't think so try slander. or libel. and then cry that someone is taking away your constitutionally protected rights when you're dragged into court. see how far that gets you.

i tried yelling "theatre" at a crowded fire but no one got the humor.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

so what's keeping me from my nuke?

it's clearly not the constitution since the framer's were smart enough to understand weaponry would advance.

i'm suggesting there are limits on rights. if you don't think so try slander. or libel. and then cry that someone is taking away your constitutionally protected rights when you're dragged into court. see how far that gets you.

i tried yelling "theatre" at a crowded fire but no one got the humor.

it is amusing to me that some think the nra is over the top(and yes, they can be, and no, i'm not a member), and then they grab onto the likes of nukes and uzis when the topic of gun control comes up. yeah, HIG, i think people should own nukes. the problem is when folks toss about the terms semi-automatic and automatic as two categories of guns that should be 'banned'. i have shotguns that would be considered semi-automatic. people can never seem to agree on the details of many topics of conversation(when does life begin?)-i'd hate to think that folks who haven't a clue about guns individually making a blanket decision to ban 'all semi-automatic weapons' thinking they just took ak-47's and uzis off the street. congrats, you just took semi's such as two of my shotguns away from all of us law-abiding citizens, leaving only felons and felons-to-be with those weapons. it's funny, us law abiding citizens who do no harm are the ones who would give up these weapons. we abide by the law. but the ones who don't-they're going to give up their guns? really?
again, i want to know-how does my ownership of guns affect anyone? raise the crime rate? or my father owning them? my father in law? it doesn't.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there were rifles, and companies of riflemen in the the revolutionary war. rifles took longer to load, but were more accurate at longer ranges. i have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the framers of the constitution didn't foresee advances in weaponry. but they did foresee the need and ability of people to have and maintain their rights. by all means, if you don't want to exercise yours, don't-but i'd appreciate if you leave your hands off of my rights, regardless of whether you agree with my having them. i certainly have done nothing to warrant losing them. in all my arguments on this thread and elsewhere, keep in mind i haven't advocated anyone losing anything-while others have advocated taking them away. i won't feel safer if i lose them, and can't conceive that anyone else would. how anyone can argue that the constitution is inviolate, while arguing portions of that same document should be removed or done away with i don't know.

This whole "personal freedom" thing drives me crazy. Of course our forefathers didn't think that a 7 yr old could shoot himself with a semi-automatic weapon at a gun show. Most advances in society benefit us, but anyone who thinks we are better off because weaponary advanced as much as it did is mistaken.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GBBob

This whole "personal freedom" thing drives me crazy. Of course our forefathers didn't think that a 7 yr old could shoot himself with a semi-automatic weapon at a gun show. Most advances in society benefit us, but anyone who thinks we are better off because weaponary advanced as much as it did is mistaken.

I think your last line in a "non sequitur". (ie) it does not follow.
Advanced weoponry, as well as advanced "anything" should be used with caution! No offense