How far does it go?

[utbagpiper]

Idunno...not using it, if nobody knows...nope, no rights violation. Law violation? Launch and kill them...yeah, rights violation(s).

So no violation if you shoot randomly into the air in a crowded urban area....until a falling bullet strikes someone?

No violation if I sight in on you...unless I actually pull the trigger...and even then, no rights violation until the bullet strikes you? Where is the harm if the bullet wizzes past your head, striking the earth behind you?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Go read Marshaul's post on excessive risks being a harm even if no physical harm occurs.

A mistake with a gun has limited enough effects while the benefits of widespread private ownership are high enough that society must live with the risks and respect the individual RKBA.

A mistake with a WMD is high enough, while the benefits of widespread private ownership so utterly non-existent as to demand a ban on such ownership.

We can talk about whether recreational drugs should be legal or not. But even if they are, you don't get to cook up meth in your home, next door to my home. That is properly zoned into an industrial area next to refineries, munitions plants, firework facilities, and other such endeavors. If you can't possibly contain the damage from an entirely predictable mistake, then your "rights" to use your property have to be weighed against your neighbors' rights not to have their property damaged or lives and limbs harmed.

Charles

 

[countryclubjoe]

This thread is really though-provoking, plus I get to watch head-to-head debate between some members I hold in a high regard (also conducive to thought-provoking debate).
I would just like to interject with the following:
I love the fact that despite the obviously heated/passionate discussion, the members involved are able to carry on in a civil manner without having the entire conversation degenerate into a "flame war."

Carry on.

Indeed. +1

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

The second amendment is not a two part amendment, or otherwise we would have had 11 amendments.

This frankly does not make any sense.

The right to keep and bear arms had a specific purpose, and that purpose was very clear at the dawn of our country.

I'm not disagreeing with you insofar as what the reasoning behind the right may be. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Reason, purpose, intent etc makes no difference. The fact is the RKBA is protected against infringement. It could say since clowns with frown makeup instead of smiley makeup are scary, the RKBA shall not be infringed.
Since the purpose doesn't cover hunting I assume you would support the Fed's power to ban arms that are only designed and used to hunt?

 

[countryclubjoe]

Great debate folks and articulated well by all..

We do not have a right to drive, however we have a right to " Travel". See "Robertson v Department of Public works, 180 Wash 133, 147

or for a more definitive explanation, google DRIVER LICENSING VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL.

Some interesting case law concerning right to travel and the privilege to drive...

Regarding the OP.... If the framers had the foresight to see 200 years into the future, the 2A may have read something like this... " Citizens have the right to keep and possess any weaponry that is possessed by the Government and the right shall not be infringed".

We cannot change the wording of the 2A to suit our needs.... Arms in the 18th century, I assume meant, canons, bayonets, bow and arrows, hand guns, rifles, knives and any other object that could be used to protect a citizens right to life and property...

In the 21st century "arms" may mean, bombs, fighter planes, chemical weapons, nukes, etc...

Another question I would ask, are there presently any nuke manufacturing company's selling nukes to the general public? I think not, however we have plenty of gun manufacturing company's selling us guns/weapons so that we can exercise our right " to keep an bear arms"..

When the manufacturing and selling of nukes is available to the general public, I would venture to say the world will be a more horrible place to live and that only the very wealthy and criminals will have the means to keep and bear/possess them.. I can see the saying now, he bought his AR 47 and 357 magnum to a nuke fight..

My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by WalkingWolf

The right to keep and bear arms had a specific purpose, and that purpose was very clear at the dawn of our country.

This frankly does not make any sense.

I'm not disagreeing with you insofar as what the reasoning behind the right may be. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Reason, purpose, intent etc makes no difference. The fact is the RKBA is protected against infringement. It could say since clowns with frown makeup instead of smiley makeup are scary, the RKBA shall not be infringed.
Since the purpose doesn't cover hunting I assume you would support the Fed's power to ban arms that are only designed and used to hunt?

The wonderful 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is about hunting, target and sport shooting, collecting, et al reasons "to keep and bear arms.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

When the manufacturing and selling of nukes is available to the general public, I would venture to say the world will be a more horrible place to live and that only the very wealthy and criminals will have the means to keep and bear/possess them.. I can see the saying now, he bought his AR 47 and 357 magnum to a nuke fight..

My .02
Regards
CCJ

Only the wealthy criminals have them now... :banana:

 

[countryclubjoe]

Only the wealthy criminals have them now... :banana:

In the words of Josie Wales, " Reckon So"...

CCJ

 

[Grapeshot]

In the words of Josie Wales, " Reckon So"...

CCJ

Matthew Quigley would trade in his Sharps rifle.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

When the manufacturing and selling of nukes is available to the general public, I would venture to say the world will be a more horrible place to live and that only the very wealthy and criminals will have the means to keep and bear/possess them.. I can see the saying now, he bought his AR 47 and 357 magnum to a nuke fight..

.... Wait, you mean now?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Only the wealthy criminals have them now... :banana:

Oh darn, you beat me to it.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I haven't read 100% of replies, so forgive me... But I just wanted to add a tick to the count of those that tend to lean toward the reasoning that we should not interfering with mere possession, regardless of the item. Every line of reasoning I try to go down to justify prohibiting possession of a weapon, based solely on the weapon's destructive power, falls short, and could easily be applied to any weapon of choice just by tossing in a dash of fear mongering.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The wonderful 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is about hunting, target and sport shooting, collecting, et al reasons "to keep and bear arms.

You forgot your sarcasm smiley...

[video=youtube;51clP7JRqv8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51clP7JRqv8[/video]

"This thing is totally for hunting"

 

[Bikenut]

Interesting video WalkingWolf.... the part I found especially interesting (beginning at the 30second mark) was about limiting the weapon "allowed" under "shall not be infringed" according to it's firepower and the public's perception of the weapon itself.

Of course the video is sarcasm yet that sarcasm holds a grain of truth concerning the thought processes of those who would consider "shall not be infringed" to mean something other than "shall not be infringed".

Oh... my post is not directed at any individuals ... just the video.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The wonderful 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is about hunting, target and sport shooting, collecting, et al reasons "to keep and bear arms.

The object of the hunt that bothers some......

 

[WalkingWolf]

Interesting video WalkingWolf.... the part I found especially interesting (beginning at the 30second mark) was about limiting the weapon "allowed" under "shall not be infringed" according to it's firepower and the public's perception of the weapon itself.

Of course the video is sarcasm yet that sarcasm holds a grain of truth concerning the thought processes of those who would consider "shall not be infringed" to mean something other than "shall not be infringed".

Oh... my post is not directed at any individuals ... just the video.

If you think that the second was ever intended to kill "the people" when written you are in need of some help. The video was about FIREARMS!

Do you understand?

I am amazed at how incredibly obtuse you are with continuing this ongoing drama, over something you claim you do not want. I call BS! The argument you make gives ammo to the gun control mob, because "If we let them have guns, those idiots will want nukes!".

If you truly believe the garbage you are pushing why don't you contact Alan Gura and take it to court? Then you will have your citation, let us know when he stops laughing at you.

If you have not got the balls to do that, then you are just being a agent provocateur.

BTW the point of the video is exactly what I have been trying to beat into your thick skull. The second amendment is not about collecting nukes, or any other claim that has been tacked on.

It had one purpose and that was spelled out in the amendment or they would have left it out. SECURITY OF A FREE STATE!

No body in their right mind thinks nukes will have anything to do with a free state.

 

[Bikenut]

If you think that the second was ever intended to kill "the people" when written you are in need of some help. The video was about FIREARMS!

Do you understand?

I am amazed at how incredibly obtuse you are with continuing this ongoing drama, over something you claim you do not want. I call BS! The argument you make gives ammo to the gun control mob, because "If we let them have guns, those idiots will want nukes!".

If you truly believe the garbage you are pushing why don't you contact Alan Gura and take it to court? Then you will have your citation, let us know when he stops laughing at you.

If you have not got the balls to do that, then you are just being a agent provocateur.

BTW the point of the video is exactly what I have been trying to beat into your thick skull. The second amendment is not about collecting nukes, or any other claim that has been tacked on.

It had one purpose and that was spelled out in the amendment or they would have left it out. SECURITY OF A FREE STATE!

No body in their right mind thinks nukes will have anything to do with a free state.

Enough! I never said I wanted any kind of WMD. Your continued insistance that I do is becoming tiresome.

 

[FreeInAZ]

Nothing worse than watching two people that love freedoms beat (type) each other about the head with it.

Some of us here in the pro2A / civil rights boat, should buy "boat loads" of flex-shot. Why? We need something to seal the holes we keep shooting in the bottom of the boat we are all in. ???
http://youtu.be/17zyezuw07U

 

[Grapeshot]

Nothing worse than watching two people that love freedoms beat (type) each other about the head with it.

Some of us here in the pro2A / civil rights boat, should buy "boat loads" of flex-shot. Why? We need something to seal the holes we keep shooting in the bottom of the boat we are all in. ???
http://youtu.be/17zyezuw07U

Personal, public squabbles only serve to divide us and thereby benefit the antis.

Please, gentlemen enough.

 

[J_dazzle23]

You guys can have your nukes. I'll be happy with a crew - served weapon system or even just a LAW rocket, tbh.

......I've been watching FPSRUSSIA on youtube too much lol

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So far the only ones to kill innocents with nukes has been a state.

I take no assurance and comfort from mutual wholesale destruction.