• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

How far does it go?

Status
Not open for further replies.

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question :):):)
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question :):):)

As written, no... there is no limit. If Congress wants to prevent the people from having certain weapons they should pass a Constitutional Amendment to modify what the Constitution and the 2A say... until then I personally consider nearly every Arms related law to be unconstitutional.

The usual argument I hear is "should just anyone be able to buy a fighter jet and tanks?" And I refer them to Secret Valley, the world's largest fleet of privately owned tanks... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/f368a83d-8b41-472d-bdd4-4ec22c399def

Not decommissioned tanks, fully functioning tanks. Cannons and all... and you can rent one to drive around... AND SHOOT THE CANNON, for pretty damn cheap.

I ask them to find the law that makes it illegal for the People to own tanks... not one has gotten back to me. They have the false premise that tanks are so dangerous that it must obviously be illegal to own them already. But facts shut their argument down pretty quick and turn them into blathering screaming fools. (in my personal experience at least)

Not one has admitted to being wrong as of yet, sadly.
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
The 2A expressly forbids the fed from regulating arms... ANY arms.

It would take an amendment to change this. Don't fall for the straw-man arguments.
 
Last edited:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
I'm not falling for anything. Don't worry :)

Thanks for the insight guys-

What I am really looking for is what (as is written In the amendments) is the historically accurate definition at that time of "arms."

Any weapon? Again.....I've always defined it as guns. The tank thing is an interesting thought.

What about a guy in his backyard building a large scale bomb? What about chemical weapons? Should we be able to own and carry agent orange?

NOT trying to ruffle feathers....just a provoking thought for me :)
 

hovercat

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
57
Location
Texas
At the time the Bill of Rights was written, it was not unusual for individuals to own cannon on private vessels. In fact, many privately owned ships were quite effective warships. Hence the name privateers.
A ship of war was as effective and large scale as military weapons got.
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
At the time the Bill of Rights was written, it was not unusual for individuals to own cannon on private vessels. In fact, many privately owned ships were quite effective warships. Hence the name privateers.
A ship of war was as effective and large scale as military weapons got.
And many ships were decommissioned after the war... and people took those cannons home with them. Top of the line in destructive military power, and nary a thought to regular Joe Shoe farmer toting a cannon home.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
To me there is a line, just not directly. Take for example WMDs. Sure you can own them, but I see no reason why the government wouldn't be allowed to regulate them in regards to storage. Reason being, if you improperly store such an item (not talking about the "arms" themselves, but the actual component(s) that make it deadly) there is a great risk of serious harm/death to not just you but those around you too.

Another potential area would be use. So sure, you have this nuke, but you can't simply take it to a range and fire it off. Why not? Because the fallout would cause all sorts of issues for the environment and others. Same goes if you were to try to casually use agent orange. And we already see this in the form of regulating where/when one can discharge a firearm.

Now I know that this could be taken to an extreme and applied to other things (such as attempting to apply it to lead in bullets like CA has done, or a power source if/when energy weapons come about) but that is my view. They aren't infringing on the keeping/bearing of the arms, they are regulating the storage of a legitimately dangerous item if not stored properly. And this "proper storage" has nothing to do with a concern of someone else committing a crime, because again I could see the antis trying to use such reasoning for regulation based on someone else stealing your weapons. Kind of like regulating the disposal of oil. Sure you can have it, but you can't simply dump your used oil in your back yard as that can and eventually will affect those around you.
 
Last edited:

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question :):):)

The limit should be what you can afford to own, unless you can show me where it says "except", or limited to.

The words "shall not be infringed" are loud and clear for all to understand. The law says what it means and means what it says. The anti-gun crowd and rogue judges like to misinterpret these clearly written words.
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
The limit should be what you can afford to own, unless you can show me where it says "except", or limited to.

The words "shall not be infringed" are loud and clear for all to understand. The law says what it means and means what it says. The anti-gun crowd and rogue judges like to misinterpret these clearly written words.
So is it OK if your neighbor is cooking up some agent orange or another neurotoxin? Or a homemade batch of C4, or trying to build a nuclear reactor?

I'm more on the side you are. But I'm posing the above as devils' advocate, as this is the type of stuff it's important to know, as this is stuff the left wing throws out there all the time.
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
To me there is a line, just not directly. Take for example WMDs. Sure you can own them, but I see no reason why the government wouldn't be allowed to regulate them in regards to storage. Reason being, if you improperly store such an item (not talking about the "arms" themselves, but the actual component(s) that make it deadly) there is a great risk of serious harm/death to not just you but those around you too.

Now I know that this could be taken to an extreme and applied to other things (such as attempting to apply it to lead in bullets or a power source if/when energy weapons come about) but that is my view. They aren't infringing on the keeping/bearing of the arms, they are regulating the storage of a legitimately dangerous item if not stored properly. And this "proper storage" has nothing to do with a concern of someone else committing a crime, because again I could see the antis trying to use such reasoning for regulation based on someone else stealing your weapons. Kind of like regulating the disposal of oil. Sure you can have it, but you can't simply dump your used oil in your back yard as that can and eventually will affect those around you.
I can see this logic, for sure. Not all "arms" take a biochemist or nuclear physicist or safely operate, or build either. So that's a tangent.....lol
 

rickyray9

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Northern Nevada
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

that's what the founding fathers wanted.
.
oh, and no more than 10 rounds per magazine.
..
and they wanted a territory that wouldn't become a state for over 50 years after the bill of rights was ratified to decide for its people.
...
and your coat better not cover it up!
..
.
and it better not be out in the open while we're at it.


Sincerely,
Thomas Jefferson
... or John Adams... who cares.
 
Last edited:

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
So is it OK if your neighbor is cooking up some agent orange or another neurotoxin? Or a homemade batch of C4, or trying to build a nuclear reactor?

I'm more on the side you are. But I'm posing the above as devils' advocate, as this is the type of stuff it's important to know, as this is stuff the left wing throws out there all the time.

Well, they are not supposed to have meth labs next door either, however, I can't control what my neighbors do inside their homes.

Fertilizer is also another more common item that can pose a great danger.

Let's not stop there though. We better license pressure cooker ownership too since the Boston bombers used that to kill and maim.

I like how Ben put it:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

Or Tommy:

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"
This is actually a translation of a Latin phrase that Thomas Jefferson used: Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

That is how I would respond to the Devil.
 
Last edited:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
Well, they are not supposed to have meth labs next door either, however, I can't control what my neighbors do inside their homes.

Fertilizer is also another more common item that can pose a great danger.

Let's not stop there though. We better license pressure cooker ownership too since the Boston bombers used that to kill and maim.

I like how Ben put it:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

That is how I would respond to the Devil.
Fantastic quote!
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I can see this logic, for sure. Not all "arms" take a biochemist or nuclear physicist or safely operate, or build either. So that's a tangent.....lol

Yea. It isn't really about the arms either. It is about regulating the handling/storing specific legitimately dangerous items (dangerous on its own without someone even using it). Given that almost anything tangible that is dangerous can be weaponized I think it would be foolish to say that there isn't a line somewhere, or else you could say almost no tangible items can be regulated. Just imagine "This car one of my arms, you can't regulate cars!" Or potato guns and potatoes.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Yea. It isn't really about the arms either. It is about regulating the handling/storing specific legitimately dangerous items (dangerous on its own without someone even using it). Given that almost anything tangible that is dangerous can be weaponized I think it would be foolish to say that there isn't a line somewhere, or else you could say almost no tangible items can be regulated. Just imagine "This car one of my arms, you can't regulate cars!" Or potato guns and potatoes.

Regulation fools and their regulation rules is how the state controls you.

The sooner one realizes that, the less tolerant one becomes of tyranny.


Principles of Tyranny
by Jon Roland
Definition of tyranny

Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.

Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched. to read more:http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

emphasis added. To bad the American people became apathetic to the regulation fools and their regulation rules. Have you ever heard or read the parable of how to boil a frog?.......http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/boiled.html

We must ask ourselves if we want to be safe or have liberty. Remember, the frog felt safe and comfortable until he wasn't.

We The People have been boiled alive.

And just to be clear, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution as it was written. I am a staunch supporter of the government and way of life our Founding Fathers envisioned. I love my country only behind God and my family.

"OURS is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States. The former preceded the latter, which was created by their agency. Each was framed by written constitutions; those of the several States by the people of each, acting separately, and in their sovereign character; and that of the United States, by the same, acting in the same character — but jointly instead of separately.".......John C. Calhoun http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm

emphasis added.

We are the Sovereign, not the King, not the government. We The People.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question :):):)
Do you have any nitrate based fertilizer? A spare can of kerosene or diesel fuel? How about a jug of bleach? Folks have been accused of, and prosecuted for, possessing "chemical weapons" and "explosive materials." Citizens wrongly abused by nitwit cops who had their personal property (guns/ammo) unlawfully confiscated by those nitwit cops have been painted as having a arsenal (more than one or two guns, or more than a box or two of ammo).

No, there is no line. Yet, the feds/states have drawn lines in the law(s).
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I don't think anyone should have WMD's including the rulers.

It is easy to imagine new technologies that can bring more and more incredible devastation. It is way more fundamental than the 2A.
When you've created a device to kill vast amounts of non-combatants for any reason it is a permanent ****-stain on the soul of humanity.
How long will it be before there are single payloads that can wipe out entire continents...or even an entire hemisphere... or worse.
No citizens should not have WMDs and neither should governments.
Ideally an arms regression should take place but it is a fantasy. We are doomed.
Someone will eventually develop a Molecular Disruption Device (ender's game) and that will be the end of our pathetic journey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top