-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The Second Amendment is NOT UNLIMITED ... why?
- Thread starter Silvertongue
- Start date
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Last edited:
rushcreek2
Regular Member
The use of the word "BEAR" has been most frequently associated with hand carried arms, but cannon are also borne , as well as brought TO BEAR.
I think the best reference for what militia use arms were encompassed by " shall not be infringed " would be the list of arms actually used by the colonies during their engagements with the British. This undeniably includes ships, cannon, and anything else they could acquire from whatever source.
Amendment 2 was added to the Constitution AFTER Articles I, II, and III, and the final adopted amendment does NOT include any limiting elements such as "...BUT...", or " subject to..." following "....shall not be infringed " .
The U.S. Constitution contains an AMENDMENT provision ... and it is not found in Article III.
I think the best reference for what militia use arms were encompassed by " shall not be infringed " would be the list of arms actually used by the colonies during their engagements with the British. This undeniably includes ships, cannon, and anything else they could acquire from whatever source.
Amendment 2 was added to the Constitution AFTER Articles I, II, and III, and the final adopted amendment does NOT include any limiting elements such as "...BUT...", or " subject to..." following "....shall not be infringed " .
The U.S. Constitution contains an AMENDMENT provision ... and it is not found in Article III.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
davidmcbeth
Banned
transported or transmitted by —used in combination <soilborne> <airborne>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/borne
Cannons can be borne....
Try again .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A
Last edited:
A mistake with a gun has a lesser impact and can be mitigated based on surroundings. It's quick, decisive, and easily contained.
A mistake with a nuclear weapon is widespread, not easily contained, and long lasting. It affects hundreds, thousands of people. If one were to go off in the hands of John Q. Public (highly probable), I think that would have a huge impact on people's rights to life and a pursuit of happiness.
It's not emotive writing, or abstract concepts. It's reflecting what happens now, applying situations that happen today, to the possibility of nuclear weapon (or any massive weapon) private ownership.
Aside from the obvious danger to the public, the recreational (not to mention hunting) use is non-existent. Same with chemical weapons. Sure, a tank, RPG, rail gun, and howitzer would be a blast (pun intended) to shoot. Finding a safe, practical area to shoot them? I guess the military could open their ranges to the public.
If you can show me that anyone in the general populace can satisfactorily keep, control, maintain, and be safe with a nuclear device or chemical weapon, then by all means, I'll jump on board with "arms" meaning all weapons and the 2nd Amendment is unlimited in scope of weapons. And because so many of you will hinge on one word here, "satisfactory" would mean there's not an ND, it's not stolen by thugs, not used for killing people, and neighbors and environment are not impacted.
btw, it's "regardless;" no such word as irregardless.
OC for ME
Regular Member
OK, we get it, you don't want to own a nuke or a tank, no big deal, don't make one or buy one. But, you do not get to decide, even via your vote, what the definition of arm(s) is for me. Now, if SCOTUS says no tanks or nukes, well, there ya go, but they ain't and you caterwauling about it ain't gunna change it. The feds control the big stuff because they have big stuff to back up their self appointed control. The fact that might makes right does not comport with the constitution and you should know this.
Primus
Regular Member
First- A couple of hundred years ago everyone had the same weapons. The British didn't have planes, tanks, machine guns, jdams. They had dudes with the same guns stupid enough to stand in a row while our guys picked them off. Our current advancement in weapons and tactics has taken this "I can use my ar to steal an F-18" and smashed it. Does your ar teach you how to fly the thing? How about fix it? I'm pretty damn good with mine and it's yet to show me how to drive a tank.
Second- This few versus many idea doesn't work so well anymore. Anyone seen Syria, Lybia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, lately? See the videos of the Libynas getting completly wrecked because the .gov had plans and all they have are 60 year old rifles? How did any of those "civil wars" get settled? But a another GOV stepping in and helping. The rebels always BEG for someone to step in with planes because they don't stand a chance.
Third- Yes I concede some guys in the military would cross over. Say you get 1 pilot to turn. Where does he put the plane? Your corn field? Who fixes it? Say you get one Abrams driver to turn. Where does he go? Your house? And after he runs out of ammo, do you have more 105mm depleted uranium rounds hanging around?
The ONLY way to win is non violently. The ONLY way to win is to do what the damn document says and vote or become a judge or become a president. If not you'll end up like the libyans. Living in a blown out mud hole.
davidmcbeth
Banned
HS kids drive around tanks .. not that hard to learn ... they come with manuals too. And if ya run out of ammo, you know where more are...or steal another tank !
And violence does not need to be a civil war ... the war of attrition is the best kind.
OC for ME
Regular Member
You completely miss the point. It is not about having a F/A-18 for myself, it is about denying the .gov the ability (manpower) to use theirs.
As I said, I don't want one, a F/A-18, and cited my reasoning. The .gov not having one (manpower to operate it is essentially the same) leaves the .gov and me with ARs.
Syria is not a good example and if you think on it you will figure out why.....then again, you might not.
Anyway.
The argument is not "is the 2A limited (the opposite of it is not unlimited)", but why discuss limitations of the 2A at all. As long as you use your 2A right lawfully then bear whatever arms you like, i don't care. Your nuke is leeching radiation into our water supply, no nuke for you, you can't keep it stored in a manner that does not impact me and my rights. Your tank mashes down my flowers because your tank is too wide for your driveway, no tank for you and you pay to replant my flowers.
Reject the premise that anyone can limit your individual liberty simply because they think it can be, or should be, limited even in a small way. When liberty is the premise, the foundational principle, then there can be no rational discussion on implementing limitations of the 2A. Consequences for the acts of others; being held to account is the premise. Owning a tank does not mean that I would use it as it was intended to be used in a unlawful manner. It simple means that I own a tank and can own the tank as long as I use the tank in a lawful manner.
You are OK with limiting liberty, I get it, no big deal. However, I will work against you and your liberty limiting brethren to have your views made irrelevant. Those who seek to restore liberty seek no limitations on liberty. Liberty demands that consequences for acts be addressed.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Wrong. Try again.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Amen Brutha!!
The op asks if the 2A is unlimited. This is an almost meaningless question. The 2A is a LIMIT on the fed gov. How can a limit be unlimited?. Until the Constitution is further amended, the fed gov has no authority to infringe on the right to keep or bear arms. The fact that they do so now is simply evidence of unconstitutional statutes.
Who are you going to shoot to steal an FA-18, US military personnel? I think if you check the oath they took when they put on the uniform, it trumps your interpretation of what you think the Constitution permits you to do against the armed forces of the US. You will be nothing more than a domestic terrorist.
eye95
Well-known member
The Founding Fathers knew they were traitors, that if they lost, they would be tried, convicted, and executed. They felt that, in the course of human events, circumstances had arrived at the point where they would pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to this treason. The decided that, if this be treason, that they would make the most of it.
It is one of those situations where you are only right if you win, and you'd better win it if your are right!
BTW, IMO, we are not at a when-in-the-course-of-human-events moment.
If and when such a moment arrives, the public, armed to the point that it is today, in concert with some members of the military and the police, will be able to acquire other weapons. There would still be no guarantee of success. And failure would mean charges of domestic terrorism, treason, etc.
Again, make damned sure that you are right and that you win before undertaking such an endeavor.
I, as I said, don't think it would be right (at this moment) to start such an action, and not enough folks think it is to make such an action winnable. I still hope that we can restore the Republic from within the system. I am becoming quite pessimistic, though.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
It is one of those situations where you are only right if you win, and you'd better win it if your are right!
BTW, IMO, we are not at a when-in-the-course-of-human-events moment.
If and when such a moment arrives, the public, armed to the point that it is today, in concert with some members of the military and the police, will be able to acquire other weapons. There would still be no guarantee of success. And failure would mean charges of domestic terrorism, treason, etc.
Again, make damned sure that you are right and that you win before undertaking such an endeavor.
I, as I said, don't think it would be right (at this moment) to start such an action, and not enough folks think it is to make such an action winnable. I still hope that we can restore the Republic from within the system. I am becoming quite pessimistic, though.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
davidmcbeth
Banned
.... to protect against ALL enemies foreign and domestic ... what if the government is the one violating or frustrating our constitution? If this happens then those who will support tyranny have violated their oaths.
Did you think our forefathers put in the 2nd amendment for kicks? Who would be the terrorists? The government would be....
The oath ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtjQjGTEylo
Oh, we just vote them out huh? What if they don't let you vote? Or the political system to too corrupt for your vote to matter? Now what?
You'll be singing a different tune when soldiers barge into your house....
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Here's another thought I have more and more... everyone quotes guys who the document and alot of it is interpretation. Very few things are explicitly written out. Hence the need for courts to define alot of things.
So... if the founding fathers had nukes and saw that there are more and more d bags killing people everyday for no reason, that there is a rise in mental illness, that their morals are no longer being held up by society in general, that you can see miley cyrus banging a wreking ball on tv, that school teachers are having sex with students, that there are actually school shootings....... would they give the blanket statement "any means of arms you want".
It's cherry picking the document and taking the few parts you like and leaving the rest. It's belittling how bad they really had it by comparing it no being able to have a bazooka now.
Everything has a context. An context is huge, especially when you are writing documents. That document was written when the WHOLE country shut down and went to church every sunday. Where there was no such thing as school shootings. People weren't immoral monsters like they are now.
Disclaimer: I'm sure there are examples of someone doing bad things, my premise is that society as a whole was different then. We can hopefully agree on that...
So... if the founding fathers had nukes and saw that there are more and more d bags killing people everyday for no reason, that there is a rise in mental illness, that their morals are no longer being held up by society in general, that you can see miley cyrus banging a wreking ball on tv, that school teachers are having sex with students, that there are actually school shootings....... would they give the blanket statement "any means of arms you want".
It's cherry picking the document and taking the few parts you like and leaving the rest. It's belittling how bad they really had it by comparing it no being able to have a bazooka now.
Everything has a context. An context is huge, especially when you are writing documents. That document was written when the WHOLE country shut down and went to church every sunday. Where there was no such thing as school shootings. People weren't immoral monsters like they are now.
Disclaimer: I'm sure there are examples of someone doing bad things, my premise is that society as a whole was different then. We can hopefully agree on that...
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Red Herring arguments.
BTW...so what, at least my logic is better.
More logical fallacies. Were the the founders "non violent".
As brought out the colonist used their personal artillery not just rifles. They had ships with cannons, they had their own cannons etc.
I am not saying people should own nukes, I don't believe that, I don't believe government should have these weapons either.
+1. As brought out earlier most of these weapons of mass destruction really wouldn't be possible without large amounts of money being stolen from the public.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Wrong these are very clearly written out and the papers and legislative records are available that clarified what is written out. The law called the constitution isn't open for interpretation, it isn't the job of the courts to "define" anything.
BTW it's a lot not alot.
First the states ( or more accurately the people of the states ) that were sovereign so the founders couldn't speak for all the states, they have limited powers granted by the constitution. Second the rest of the sentence is again nonsense fallacy argument having nothing to do with the argument. It's also inaccurate, the murder rate is way lower now then it was then.
Interesting prior paragraph its really bad now, following paragraph they had it real bad? Nobody is "cherry picking" the document, they are having a discussion on what they believe it to mean. Most people here are sourcing their thoughts and using logic.
You mean the separate 13 countries that agreed to form a compact for mutual protection and free trade? Again what you are saying is inaccurate, many people of that era were deist, have you seen Thomas Jefferson Bible? Have you read his quotes about it not mattering how many gods a person worshiped?
Yep it is different but the same, people haven't fundamentally changed, society has gotten safer, and would even be more safer if it wasn't for the horrible government prohibitions and interventions into our society.
You need to bone up on your history. History is traditionally written by the victors. Indians were killed because the White Man couldn't be bothered with learning a new language and thinking they could take whatever they wanted, 'cause they had guns (ironic). How the Indians were killed was horrible.
Christopher Columbus was the founder of the African slave trade, according to some.
Just because people went to church doesn't mean society was polite or fair. The Church (in Europe) back then (and still today) was instrumental in amassing power and wealth for the Church and those that would help the Church. We had duels on the White House lawn. "Evil" women were burned. There were a lot of bad things happening.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Africans were enslaving themselves long before white men showed up in West Africa. White dudes only expanded the market for slaves.