Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: How far does the Second Amendment go?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    A while ago, there was a thread asking specifically if dirty bombs should be covered by the Second Amendment. The more general gist of the discussion was what weapons are covered, and perhaps why they should be included. The thread disappeared for a reason yet to be announced by moderators, so I figured I would attempt another one.

    Some believe that handguns are not included. Others believe that weapons of mass destruction should be legal for possession (and perhaps carry). Most believe that the limit lies somewhere in between. Keeping in mind that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to arm the populace to keep a check on government, that fact seems to add some credibility to the less-restriction argument. Yet the fact that the most advanced weapon our Founding Fathers had was a musket seems to support an idea that they couldn't have imagined the destruction of the weapons we have today. Also thrown into the debate is the issue that in the early 20th century, weapons were banned from civilian ownership (i.e. the sawed-off shotgun) because they served no military purpose, yet in the late 20th century to the present, weapons are being banned for not serving any sporting purpose (i.e. through the "assault weapon" bans). Naturally, public safety versus freedom is a valuble part of this debate.

    For reference, the Second Amendment:
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (As passed by the House and Senate)
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (As distributed to the states and then ratified by them)

    So to again state the question: For how destructive of a weapon does the Second Amendment allow?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Yet the fact that the most advanced weapon our Founding Fathers had was a musket seems to support an idea that they couldn't have imagined the destruction of the weapons we have today.
    So to again state the question: For how destructive of a weapon does the Second Amendment allow?
    They had far more powerful weapons than muskets. Rifles were common, and so were cannon and mortars. There were even prmitive rockets ("and the rockets red glare...").

    I am not sure if destructive capability is the limiting factor in the 2A. Would the antis even accept the OC of BP revolvers? Or flintlock pistols?

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I think it clear from contemporary writings that the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to single person use small arms. Crew served weapons such as artillary were not intended. I also don't think that explosives were intended as at their time, explosives were essentially crew served as it required lots of people carrying lots of black powder to get a decent boom.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    The line is hard to draw, to say that you include this, but not that, very tricky.

    However I think firearms are about the limit, now where do you draw the line with firearms, I don't know, I would really have to think about it.

    Assault rifles, even full auto weapons should be included. As the weapons have definitely gotten better, crime and threats to our safety have also grown.

    By no means do I think it was meant to include dirty bombs, weapons of mass destruction or otherwise. I am sorry, but carrying a briefcase bomb is entirely unecessary.

    I think it was meant for people to be able to defend themselves, and their property, not to go take an offensive against people you don't like.



  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it clear from contemporary writings that the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to single person use small arms. Crew served weapons such as artillary were not intended. I also don't think that explosives were intended as at their time, explosives were essentially crew served as it required lots of people carrying lots of black powder to get a decent boom.
    While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree with your assessment of explosives in that grenades were invented LONG before the revolution........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenades

    IMHO, we should all be able to keep a battle rifle of our choosing, (with a grenade launching capability of course) an SMG, a shotgun, a pistol....and ammo "aplenty" for all weapons owned.
    But what about an RPG or two?.....maybe a couple of LAW rockets?.....both are "single person use"
    I say yes, the 2nd does cover such items...but we all know it ain't likely to happen



  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it clear from contemporary writings that the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to single person use small arms. Crew served weapons such as artillary were not intended. I also don't think that explosives were intended as at their time, explosives were essentially crew served as it required lots of people carrying lots of black powder to get a decent boom.
    While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree with your assessment of explosives in that grenades were invented LONG before the revolution........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenades

    IMHO, we should all be able to keep a battle rifle of our choosing, (with a grenade launching capability of course) an SMG, a shotgun, a pistol....and ammo "aplenty" for all weapons owned.
    But what about an RPG or two?.....maybe a couple of LAW rockets?.....both are "single person use"
    I say yes, the 2nd does cover such items...but we all know it ain't likely to happen

    Can anyone tell me when they could possibly need an RPG?

    I don't think they are covered. I do think it covers just about every gun, of course with no restriction on number of weapons owned.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    Comp-tech wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it clear from contemporary writings that the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to single person use small arms. Crew served weapons such as artillary were not intended. I also don't think that explosives were intended as at their time, explosives were essentially crew served as it required lots of people carrying lots of black powder to get a decent boom.
    While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree with your assessment of explosives in that grenades were invented LONG before the revolution........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenades

    IMHO, we should all be able to keep a battle rifle of our choosing, (with a grenade launching capability of course) an SMG, a shotgun, a pistol....and ammo "aplenty" for all weapons owned.
    But what about an RPG or two?.....maybe a couple of LAW rockets?.....both are "single person use"
    I say yes, the 2nd does cover such items...but we all know it ain't likely to happen

    Can anyone tell me when they could possibly need an RPG?

    I don't think they are covered. I do think it covers just about every gun, of course with no restriction on number of weapons owned.
    For the same reason one might need a machine gun.......or a .50 cal....or "every other gun" as you put it.
    IF it ever came to the need for a "militia", keep in mind that "they" would have WAY more than we would...more MGs...more ARMOR, more aircraft, more ?.....is the need THAT hard to comprehend?

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    openryan wrote:
    Comp-tech wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it clear from contemporary writings that the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to single person use small arms. Crew served weapons such as artillary were not intended. I also don't think that explosives were intended as at their time, explosives were essentially crew served as it required lots of people carrying lots of black powder to get a decent boom.
    While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree with your assessment of explosives in that grenades were invented LONG before the revolution........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenades

    IMHO, we should all be able to keep a battle rifle of our choosing, (with a grenade launching capability of course) an SMG, a shotgun, a pistol....and ammo "aplenty" for all weapons owned.
    But what about an RPG or two?.....maybe a couple of LAW rockets?.....both are "single person use"
    I say yes, the 2nd does cover such items...but we all know it ain't likely to happen

    Can anyone tell me when they could possibly need an RPG?

    I don't think they are covered. I do think it covers just about every gun, of course with no restriction on number of weapons owned.
    For the same reason one might need a machine gun.......or a .50 cal....or "every other gun" as you put it.
    IF it ever came to the need for a "militia", keep in mind that "they" would have WAY more than we would...more MGs...more ARMOR, more aircraft, more ?.....is the need THAT hard to comprehend?
    And if that "militia" is going to stand any chance, you can bet it is going to have to be quite, quite large in number, which is probably going to include a lot of government and military personnel. They would turn on their own.

    But, I was wrong, I am changing my answer. The second ammendment now includes fighter jets, nukes, rpgs, laws, tanks, apc's, and anything else you want.

    Honestly though, even if you had RPG's, and LAW's, and the military and police didn't turn on their employer like the common folk, it would still be hard to defend.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    LOL....dayum!...I wasn't talking in terms of a revolution per se...I was actually thinking more along the lines of us being the militia helping out our military in case of invasion etc.....
    I don't think that the 2nd would include tanks, APCs, nukes etc. but IMHO, it should include any and all "single person use" weapon that a militia could use....hell, I'd even be open to some "team" type weapons being included like .50 BMGs etc......why not?

  10. #10
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    "I am not sure if destructive capability is the limiting factor in the 2A. Would the antis even accept the OC of BP revolvers? Or flintlock pistols?"

    The above statement from ilbob is soooo true! I remember going to a Revolutionary War Re-Enactment in Bennington, Vermont. There was a family there from Massachusetts (Massholes). Kids in $300 Northface Jackets, Dad with his dapper white collar dress pants and signature polo shirt. I remember 2 Re-Enactors walked by with shouldered muskets and "dad" literally shuddered with fear! His son asked "are those guns real"? Dad answered "yes I am afraid they are son, remember whatI told you... Guns are evil"! I remember getting red and had to walk away to keep from giving him my piece of mind and telling him to get the hell out of Vermont! Ask a REAL Vermonter who they dislike the most and th answer will ALWAYS by "flatlanders from NY, NJ and Mass"!

    Theseare the kind of idiots we are breeding. People like him would just like to give up our sovereignty to the UN, and have Nelson Mandela run the US! This is why we need Ron Paul for President!

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    vermonter wrote:
    "I am not sure if destructive capability is the limiting factor in the 2A. Would the antis even accept the OC of BP revolvers? Or flintlock pistols?"

    The above statement from ilbob is soooo true! I remember going to a Revolutionary War Re-Enactment in Bennington, Vermont. There was a family there from Massachusetts (Massholes). Kids in $300 Northface Jackets, Dad with his dapper white collar dress pants and signature polo shirt. I remember 2 Re-Enactors walked by with shouldered muskets and "dad" literally shuddered with fear! His son asked "are those guns real"? Dad answered "yes I am afraid they are son, remember whatI told you... Guns are evil"! I remember getting red and had to walk away to keep from giving him my piece of mind and telling him to get the hell out of Vermont! Ask a REAL Vermonter who they dislike the most and th answer will ALWAYS by "flatlanders from NY, NJ and Mass"!

    Theseare the kind of idiots we are breeding. People like him would just like to give up our sovereignty to the UN, and have Nelson Mandela run the US! This is why we need Ron Paul for President!
    +1 and then some......

    LOL....Massholes.......ROFLMAO!!!


  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I see no mention of 'need' in the Second Amendment but only of "shall not be infringed."

    Only a willing tyrant will debate reasonableness and safety.

    Safety is a good tool for tyrants; no one can be against safety.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    Comp-tech wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it clear from contemporary writings that the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to single person use small arms. Crew served weapons such as artillary were not intended. I also don't think that explosives were intended as at their time, explosives were essentially crew served as it required lots of people carrying lots of black powder to get a decent boom.
    While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree with your assessment of explosives in that grenades were invented LONG before the revolution........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenades

    IMHO, we should all be able to keep a battle rifle of our choosing, (with a grenade launching capability of course) an SMG, a shotgun, a pistol....and ammo "aplenty" for all weapons owned.
    But what about an RPG or two?.....maybe a couple of LAW rockets?.....both are "single person use"
    I say yes, the 2nd does cover such items...but we all know it ain't likely to happen

    Can anyone tell me when they could possibly need an RPG?

    I don't think they are covered. I do think it covers just about every gun, of course with no restriction on number of weapons owned.
    For destroying the vehicles of an oppressive government. The 2nd amendment was written as a safeguard so that the regular military could not be more powerful than the civilian militia. We should absolutely be allowed to have grenades and RPGs, because they are individually operated weapons that would be required to conduct any military operation. I agree entirely with Comp-tech.

    Besides, when did gun rights become about "need"? Do I "need" my AK47 or my standard capacity magazines? Why do you get to decide what I need, anyway?

    If I have to fight my own government (which is why the 2nd amendment was written), I should be able to access the same kind of small arms that the soldiers of that government are able to access. That means grenades and RPGs.

    I don't believe that dirty bombs or WMDs are covered, because I support that the second amendment is an individual right, not a collective right, and those aren't meant to be individually operated weapons.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it clear from contemporary writings that the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to single person use small arms. Crew served weapons such as artillary were not intended. I also don't think that explosives were intended as at their time, explosives were essentially crew served as it required lots of people carrying lots of black powder to get a decent boom.
    While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree with your assessment of explosives in that grenades were invented LONG before the revolution........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenades

    IMHO, we should all be able to keep a battle rifle of our choosing, (with a grenade launching capability of course) an SMG, a shotgun, a pistol....and ammo "aplenty" for all weapons owned.
    But what about an RPG or two?.....maybe a couple of LAW rockets?.....both are "single person use"
    I say yes, the 2nd does cover such items...but we all know it ain't likely to happen
    I need to clarify as I left my explosives comment way too general. I wasn't thinking about black powder or even run of the mill hand grenades. I'm thinking high explosives, plastique, etc. Military grade stuff. Stuff that requires some really special knowlege to use, as opposed to the makings for a black powder pipe bomb we set off on the back 40 jacking around.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I don't have any special knowlege! In high school I was taught/learned to make azides, picrates, NI3, ... are these 'unreasonable'?

    Just because you don't know something doesn't make the knowlege special. This common sensical ignorance is the result of goverment education

    Sorry. Only eager tyrants will debate 'reasonableness' in the face of the Second Amendment that "shall not be infringed."

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Comp-tech wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it clear from contemporary writings that the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to single person use small arms. Crew served weapons such as artillary were not intended. I also don't think that explosives were intended as at their time, explosives were essentially crew served as it required lots of people carrying lots of black powder to get a decent boom.
    While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree with your assessment of explosives in that grenades were invented LONG before the revolution........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenades

    IMHO, we should all be able to keep a battle rifle of our choosing, (with a grenade launching capability of course) an SMG, a shotgun, a pistol....and ammo "aplenty" for all weapons owned.
    But what about an RPG or two?.....maybe a couple of LAW rockets?.....both are "single person use"
    I say yes, the 2nd does cover such items...but we all know it ain't likely to happen
    I need to clarify as I left my explosives comment way too general. I wasn't thinking about black powder or even run of the mill hand grenades. I'm thinking high explosives, plastique, etc. Military grade stuff. Stuff that requires some really special knowlege to use, as opposed to the makings for a black powder pipe bomb we set off on the back 40 jacking around.
    Doesn't that lend itself, though, to being used by the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"?

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    This is an interesting topic. Does a B-52 count as arms under the 2A or is it something else? Is an ICBM "arms" in the common sense of the word. Again, it is clear from contemporary writings that the intent was to secure the natural right of the citizens to be armed with individual use/deployed contemporary weapons.

    While one person can climb into a fully armed F-15 carrying a nuclear payload and fly that aircraft by themselves to a certain target and launch the nuclear weapon on target, and then destroy numerous other targets outside of the blast radius with the remaining conventional weapons, and while it is only one guy with a big ass fighter aircraft strapped to his back, I just don't think that is the intent or the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Are we going to argue that any fighter/bomber aircraft that can be operated by a sole pilot is not a crew-served/deployed asset and therefore falls under the 2nd Amendment? So a B-52 can be restricted but we each have a constitutional right to own and operate a fully armed F-16 if we can afford it?

    If not, where is that line drawn. Certain high yield explosives? Nuclear devices? RPGs?

    Generally I am not worried about fellow law-abiding American citizens owning/possessing such weapons. The problem is that people, even law-abiding people, are generally stupid. I keep thinking about that guy, I think it was in PA, who had his BAR stolen from his apartment. He was keeping it locked up in a cabinet that I doubt was a tough as what I keep my tools in. So now we have a fully automatic .30 cal machine gun in the hands of criminals because that dumbass stuck it in a cabinet my mother could open with a pry bar and then went out and bragged about owning it. This tool spent $20k (IIRC) on the rifle but not $1k on a decent safe. That is what worries me. I'm not worried about Imperialism, Tarzan or Openryan for example, having an RPG in their gun safe. (Actually I would love to see the video of it being deployed for self-defense - "Freeze or I'll blow up half my house!" Laff), I'm worried about some dill-hole having it in their weakly locked garage next to bulk container of motor oil.


    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  18. #18
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    The constitution does place limits on both individuals and states. We know that there was never an intent to have unlimited firepower. The greatest firepoweraround when the Constitutionwas written was the ship of the line. Naval power was limited to the Federal Government, for both the Navy and the authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    This is an interesting topic. Does a B-52 count as arms under the 2A or is it something else? Is an ICBM "arms" in the common sense of the word. Again, it is clear from contemporary writings that the intent was to secure the natural right of the citizens to be armed with individual use/deployed contemporary weapons.

    While one person can climb into a fully armed F-15 carrying a nuclear payload and fly that aircraft by themselves to a certain target and launch the nuclear weapon on target, and then destroy numerous other targets outside of the blast radius with the remaining conventional weapons, and while it is only one guy with a big ass fighter aircraft strapped to his back, I just don't think that is the intent or the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Are we going to argue that any fighter/bomber aircraft that can be operated by a sole pilot is not a crew-served/deployed asset and therefore falls under the 2nd Amendment? So a B-52 can be restricted but we each have a constitutional right to own and operate a fully armed F-16 if we can afford it?

    If not, where is that line drawn. Certain high yield explosives? Nuclear devices? RPGs?

    Generally I am not worried about fellow law-abiding American citizens owning/possessing such weapons. The problem is that people, even law-abiding people, are generally stupid. I keep thinking about that guy, I think it was in PA, who had his BAR stolen from his apartment. He was keeping it locked up in a cabinet that I doubt was a tough as what I keep my tools in. So now we have a fully automatic .30 cal machine gun in the hands of criminals because that dumbass stuck it in a cabinet my mother could open with a pry bar and then went out and bragged about owning it. This tool spent $20k (IIRC) on the rifle but not $1k on a decent safe. That is what worries me. I'm not worried about Imperialism, Tarzan or Openryan for example, having an RPG in their gun safe. (Actually I would love to see the video of it being deployed for self-defense - "Freeze or I'll blow up half my house!" Laff), I'm worried about some dill-hole having it in their weakly locked garage next to bulk container of motor oil.

    You have a lot more faith in people than I do.




  20. #20
    Guest

    Post imported post

    This might interest.. around page 112. The whole thing is somewhat interesting, though long.

    http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/thesi...lverbullet.pdf

    Personally I think full auto's are included in the 2ndA. Tax and registration is an infringement.

    Beyond that I'll have to think about it..



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Oley, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    In principal the only limting power the goverment should have is the power to limit themselves...

    Where do you draw the line? You don't, free men and women and 16 year olds, and people of colour and people from other countries and people with disabilities, and gay people, andappalachian americans, and native americans, andevenNew Yorkers, should have the right to do as they please. Realistically very few people are going to be able to own such things. And those who can now probably do and we just don't know. If they and by they I mean anyone has the ability to purchase or obtain such things can, than there is no reasonsound enough for me not to have the same power.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    This is an interesting topic. Does a B-52 count as arms under the 2A or is it something else? Is an ICBM "arms" in the common sense of the word. Again, it is clear from contemporary writings that the intent was to secure the natural right of the citizens to be armed with individual use/deployed contemporary weapons.

    While one person can climb into a fully armed F-15 carrying a nuclear payload and fly that aircraft by themselves to a certain target and launch the nuclear weapon on target, and then destroy numerous other targets outside of the blast radius with the remaining conventional weapons, and while it is only one guy with a big ass fighter aircraft strapped to his back, I just don't think that is the intent or the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Are we going to argue that any fighter/bomber aircraft that can be operated by a sole pilot is not a crew-served/deployed asset and therefore falls under the 2nd Amendment? So a B-52 can be restricted but we each have a constitutional right to own and operate a fully armed F-16 if we can afford it?

    If not, where is that line drawn. Certain high yield explosives? Nuclear devices? RPGs?

    Generally I am not worried about fellow law-abiding American citizens owning/possessing such weapons. The problem is that people, even law-abiding people, are generally stupid. I keep thinking about that guy, I think it was in PA, who had his BAR stolen from his apartment. He was keeping it locked up in a cabinet that I doubt was a tough as what I keep my tools in. So now we have a fully automatic .30 cal machine gun in the hands of criminals because that dumbass stuck it in a cabinet my mother could open with a pry bar and then went out and bragged about owning it. This tool spent $20k (IIRC) on the rifle but not $1k on a decent safe. That is what worries me. I'm not worried about Imperialism, Tarzan or Openryan for example, having an RPG in their gun safe. (Actually I would love to see the video of it being deployed for self-defense - "Freeze or I'll blow up half my house!" Laff), I'm worried about some dill-hole having it in their weakly locked garage next to bulk container of motor oil.

    You have a lot more faith in people than I do.


    Laff... er, I kinda didn't express what I meant there. I didn't mean to suggest that I thought any law-abiding American should be able to own a nuclear device. I got interrupted a dozen times writing that post and sort of lost my place.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    How does this sound?

    The Second Amendment covers all weapons that use a projectile or multiple projectiles as the primary means of inflicting damage.

    That would include all of our guns, RPGs, grenades (er, fragmentation), landmines, even missiles. But would exclude nuclear weapons, biological/chemical/radiological weapons, and strangely those "stun guns" that rely on contact to work.

    :?

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    How does this sound?

    The Second Amendment covers all weapons that use a projectile or multiple projectiles as the primary means of inflicting damage.

    That would include all of our guns, RPGs, grenades (er, fragmentation), landmines, even missiles. But would exclude nuclear weapons, biological/chemical/radiological weapons, and strangely those "stun guns" that rely on contact to work.

    :?
    Getting close I think...

  25. #25
    Regular Member Springfield45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Central Pennsylvania
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    vermonter wrote:
    "I am not sure if destructive capability is the limiting factor in the 2A. Would the antis even accept the OC of BP revolvers? Or flintlock pistols?"

    The above statement from ilbob is soooo true! I remember going to a Revolutionary War Re-Enactment in Bennington, Vermont. There was a family there from Massachusetts (Massholes). Kids in $300 Northface Jackets, Dad with his dapper white collar dress pants and signature polo shirt. I remember 2 Re-Enactors walked by with shouldered muskets and "dad" literally shuddered with fear! His son asked "are those guns real"? Dad answered "yes I am afraid they are son, remember whatI told you... Guns are evil"! I remember getting red and had to walk away to keep from giving him my piece of mind and telling him to get the hell out of Vermont! Ask a REAL Vermonter who they dislike the most and th answer will ALWAYS by "flatlanders from NY, NJ and Mass"!

    Theseare the kind of idiots we are breeding. People like him would just like to give up our sovereignty to the UN, and have Nelson Mandela run the US! This is why we need Ron Paul for President!
    +1 hahahaaha ROFL ... @ "Massholes"

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •