Second Amendment question

[G4Y4HK]

So many people have said the second amendment protects the peoples' right to "arms", not "ordinance". And that's why Biden gets to flex with F-15s but we the people aren't allowed to have surface to air missiles to counter an air attack by a tyrannical government. We the people can have semi automatic "arms" like hunting rifles and shotguns but no 40mm 203 nades, stingers, other SAMs and nukes, which the government gets to use.

Is this view false? Does the second amendment say people can have nukes and anything else that can counteract a government's military power? If Biden is flexing F-15s on Americans, what can the people do to defend against that?

 

[Boghog1]

I should be able to buy anything I can afford.

 

[paul73]

what can the people do to defend against that?

in swiss they can have tanks and mobile artillery in their barns.
here people will have what government will allow them to have.

to get more into that - my opinion is not 100% in line with 2a purists, as i am not a proponent for an every household to have ability to host private nukes.
every soldier has to be equipped with the weapon he is sufficiently proficient with and is trained for. ownership of the gun you are not proficient with is mostly meaningless.

same as 2a real purpose was always to make sure an EVERY citizen is armed, but also presuming de-facto the an EVERY citizen is a militia member. that last part gets conveniently forgotten nowadays. basic military training is important, and, to some level, has to be a mandatory part of life. like in the mentioned above swiss.

 

[Shark_Cage]

Before the Ukraine war with a FFL07 and @60k you could have a fully armed T-72 delivered to your house. Just the tank no orderance.

On the atomic bomb thing. If you inquire about purchasing super high voltage capacitors. There was a show that wanted to experiment with Tesla’s “death ray”. They ordered some special super heavy duty capacitors and I believe the Dept of Energy paid them a visit to see what they would be used for.

 

[FrugalFannie]

So many people have said the second amendment protects the peoples' right to "arms", not "ordinance". And that's why Biden gets to flex with F-15s but we the people aren't allowed to have surface to air missiles to counter an air attack by a tyrannical government. We the people can have semi automatic "arms" like hunting rifles and shotguns but no 40mm 203 nades, stingers, other SAMs and nukes, which the government gets to use.

Is this view false? Does the second amendment say people can have nukes and anything else that can counteract a government's military power? If Biden is flexing F-15s on Americans, what can the people do to defend against that?

2A doesn't cover most of those issues definitively because those things were not invented when it was written. But the 2A did not prohibit canon or anything that was available at the time. The argument could be made, had jets and SAMs etc existed when the 2A was written, they would have been included. For those who would argue "no blah blah blah," my counter is well, the 1A doesn't cover internet and phones and radio and television as none of that was mentioned. IMO, the 2A was written SPECIFICALLY to put as much military power into the hands of "the people" as any government could have. As technology changes it should all be included.

 

[clampett]

On April 19th 1775 The Massachusetts Governor ordered his troops to seize not only gun powder from the citizens of Mass, he also wanted their cannons seized.
Fortunately, the citizens were tipped off of the impending raid, and they were able to bury the cannon barrels in their freshly tilled fields.

Cannons were in common use back when the constitution was written.

 

[Bonesinium]

So many people have said the second amendment protects the peoples' right to "arms", not "ordinance". And that's why Biden gets to flex with F-15s but we the people aren't allowed to have surface to air missiles to counter an air attack by a tyrannical government. We the people can have semi automatic "arms" like hunting rifles and shotguns but no 40mm 203 nades, stingers, other SAMs and nukes, which the government gets to use.

Is this view false? Does the second amendment say people can have nukes and anything else that can counteract a government's military power? If Biden is flexing F-15s on Americans, what can the people do to defend against that?

2A doesn't cover most of those issues definitively because those things were not invented when it was written. But the 2A did not prohibit canon or anything that was available at the time. The argument could be made, had jets and SAMs etc existed when the 2A was written, they would have been included. For those who would argue "no blah blah blah," my counter is well, the 1A doesn't cover internet and phones and radio and television as none of that was mentioned. IMO, the 2A was written SPECIFICALLY to put as much military power into the hands of "the people" as any government could have. As technology changes it should all be included.

The second amendment neither allows nor prohibits any things. The second amendment doesn’t cover any items.

All it’s intended for is as an enumeration of people’s inherent rights and as a prohibition of government from infringing on them.

Just even framing it as you two are doing in unintentionally giving credence to the governments position that they have authority to restrict our rights in the first place.

 

[fshalor]

in swiss they can have tanks and mobile artillery in their barns.
here people will have what government will allow them to have.

to get more into that - my opinion is not 100% in line with 2a purists, as i am not a proponent for an every household to have ability to host private nukes.
every soldier has to be equipped with the weapon he is sufficiently proficient with and is trained for. ownership of the gun you are not proficient with is mostly meaningless.

same as 2a real purpose was always to make sure an EVERY citizen is armed, but also presuming de-facto the an EVERY citizen is a militia member. that last part gets conveniently forgotten nowadays. basic military training is important, and, to some level, has to be a mandatory part of life. like in the mentioned above swiss.

I actually LIKE your point.

If I and my family unit can prove proficiency in a 155 mortar system. We should be able to own one. Heck. I'd even offer to be on a national defense call list for fire duties in my AO.

That said. (No I can't run one, but I actually understand how to lay in a string from plates to center) there is the second part.

Own vs authorized to use. Own vs use stupidly.

I think we should own anything. But if we EffUp and hurt something or someone, other laws which already exist already cover those consequences fully.

So. Why own + authorize as that adds.... Objective, subjective and ideological dead weight loss to the conversation.

 

[NHKevin]

I should be able to buy anything I can afford.

To that end, it's really only Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc. that are prevented from buying F-15s.

Edit to add: if they could find them for sale, I don't think there is anything preventing them from buying jet fighters.

 

[whatluck]

To that end, it's really only Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc. that are prevented from buying F-15s.

The f15 and moabs would be a lot cheaper if they weren't made by the govt

 

[Picton]

I actually LIKE your point.

If I and my family unit can prove proficiency in a 155 mortar system. We should be able to own one. Heck. I'd even offer to be on a national defense call list for fire duties in my AO.

That said. (No I can't run one, but I actually understand how to lay in a string from plates to center) there is the second part.

Own vs authorized to use. Own vs use stupidly.

I think we should own anything. But if we EffUp and hurt something or someone, other laws which already exist already cover those consequences fully.

So. Why own + authorize as that adds.... Objective, subjective and ideological dead weight loss to the conversation.

I agree.

Just because UH60s are military and PFC Joe Smith, who turns wrenches in the motor pool at Ft Stewart, is also military, doesn't mean PFC Smith can march through the gates of Hunter Army Airfield and sign out a Blackhawk.

The wise man doesn't keep and bear things he can't handle, I'd say. As to whether the .gov should be able to have a say in that? Well, I'd say no: 2A is very clear on that. It is unwise and very dangerous for Picton to try to fly an F16, but if I'm stupid enough to want to do it and prepared to accept the possible consequences, I think the .gov should butt out until after I've broken the law.

 

[Rat187]

So many people have said the second amendment protects the peoples' right to "arms", not "ordinance". And that's why Biden gets to flex with F-15s but we the people aren't allowed to have surface to air missiles to counter an air attack by a tyrannical government. We the people can have semi automatic "arms" like hunting rifles and shotguns but no 40mm 203 nades, stingers, other SAMs and nukes, which the government gets to use.

Is this view false? Does the second amendment say people can have nukes and anything else that can counteract a government's military power? If Biden is flexing F-15s on Americans, what can the people do to defend against that?

Bank of America is offering zero down, payment zero interest, for Black and Hispanic F-15 buyers. I'm so screwed

 

[paul73]

I agree.

Just because UH60s are military and PFC Joe Smith, who turns wrenches in the motor pool at Ft Stewart, is also military, doesn't mean PFC Smith can march through the gates of Hunter Army Airfield and sign out a Blackhawk.

The wise man doesn't keep and bear things he can't handle, I'd say. As to whether the .gov should be able to have a say in that? Well, I'd say no: 2A is very clear on that. It is unwise and very dangerous for Picton to try to fly an F16, but if I'm stupid enough to want to do it and prepared to accept the possible consequences, I think the .gov should butt out until after I've broken the law.

the beginning still should be a return of the mandatory conscription and mandatory armed service for boys, to become adequate enough in what they will be trained to handle.
ownership and responsibility always come together.

but, considering how far it all went here, it is not realistic at all to even suggest.

 

[Picton]

the beginning still should be a return of the mandatory conscription and mandatory armed service for boys, to become adequate enough in what they will be trained to handle.
ownership and responsibility always come together.

but, considering how far it all went here, it is not realistic at all to even suggest.

I disagree with you there. I used to think universal military service had more benefits than detriments, but I no longer think that. Because mandatory conscription is never "universal:" there are always ways out of it for connected people, so it's unfair. It's also fundamentally anti-American to compel a man to serve against his will, and I'm also a big believer that the way our military is structured at this point in our history means it will fight better with volunteers than with conscripts.

 

[NHKevin]

The f15 and moans would be a lot cheaper if they weren't made by the govt

Maybe, but still not affordable to other than the extremely wealthy.

 

[NHKevin]

I agree.

Just because UH60s are military and PFC Joe Smith, who turns wrenches in the motor pool at Ft Stewart, is also military, doesn't mean PFC Smith can march through the gates of Hunter Army Airfield and sign out a Blackhawk.

The wise man doesn't keep and bear things he can't handle, I'd say. As to whether the .gov should be able to have a say in that? Well, I'd say no: 2A is very clear on that. It is unwise and very dangerous for Picton to try to fly an F16, but if I'm stupid enough to want to do it and prepared to accept the possible consequences, I think the .gov should butt out until after I've broken the law.

You can build your own airplane with as much capability as you can afford. And legally fly it.
Used H60s are available to civilians also.

 

[paul73]

the way our military is structured at this point in our history means it will fight better with volunteers than with conscripts.

it is only working until this active military gets all wiped out in a direct mass land war conflict and you need to rely on your active reservists.
the rule of the land never changed for a millennia - in order to guarantee your country will survive - the whole 100% of male population need to have military training, somehow.

as of fairness argument - sure, it is not. yet, life is never fair to all. there are always some who are more equal.

 

[drgrant]

So many people have said the second amendment protects the peoples' right to "arms", not "ordinance". And that's why Biden gets to flex with F-15s but we the people aren't allowed to have surface to air missiles to counter an air attack by a tyrannical government. We the people can have semi automatic "arms" like hunting rifles and shotguns but no 40mm 203 nades, stingers, other SAMs and nukes, which the government gets to use.

Is this view false? Does the second amendment say people can have nukes and anything else that can counteract a government's military power? If Biden is flexing F-15s on Americans, what can the people do to defend against that?

You texting your moonbat friends again?

 

[NHKevin]

By the way, there are civilian owned F-16s. F-16s are stupid expensive to buy, and buying them is the cheap part of the equation.

Watch the First Privately Owned F-16 Take Flight

See who will use the old Fighting Falcon.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[headednorth]

the beginning still should be a return of the mandatory conscription and mandatory armed service for boys, to become adequate enough in what they will be trained to handle.
ownership and responsibility always come together.

but, considering how far it all went here, it is not realistic at all to even suggest.

Dude look around. Do you really think that military training for teens is a good idea in this country anymore? That ship sailed like 30-40 years ago

 

[fencer]

the beginning still should be a return of the mandatory conscription and mandatory armed service for boys, to become adequate enough in what they will be trained to handle.
ownership and responsibility always come together.

The Marine Corps used to say that the US military was far superior to the Russian, for a couple of reasons.
The first is a volunteer force, that actually signed up for whatever reason, will always be more motivated than recruits and conscripts forced into service.
The second is how non comms get their rank. The USSR would give new recruits a test. Score well and you are off to Sergeant school.
Dumbest thing I ever heard.

 

[paul73]

The Marine Corps used to say that the US military was far superior to the Russian, for a couple of reasons.
The first is a volunteer force, that actually signed up for whatever reason, will always be more motivated than recruits and conscripts forced into service.
The second is how non comms get their rank. The USSR would give new recruits a test. Score well and you are off to Sergeant school.
Dumbest thing I ever heard.

would be silly to argue there. i am not talking of them there, as all what happens there is moronic.
i was talking more about swiss. how a society surrounded by mostly unfriendly (historically) nations survives and how it structures their norms and regulations.

 

[sig shooter]

If the government can have it, we can have it. This should be apparent to anyone with a basic grasp of the revolutionary war period.

 

[In God We Trust]

I hate to agree with any point a lefty has made, but I don’t think our forefathers envisioned nukes and VX gas when they wrote that. I also don’t think it’s a human right to own a nuke. I don’t think governments should have that stuff either.

The “well THEY have it, so should I!” Argument to me is like saying “the elites get to rape children with impunity, I should be allowed to also!”

As far as anti tank rockets, mortars, grenades, belt fed machine guns, etc then yes I believe we have a right to own them to defend against hostile armies including our own.

 

[paul73]

I hate to agree with any point a lefty has made, but I don’t think our forefathers envisioned nukes and VX gas when they wrote that. I also don’t think it’s a human right to own a nuke. I don’t think governments should have that stuff either.

As far as anti tank rockets, mortars, grenades, belt fed machine guns, etc then yes I believe we have a right to own them to defend against hostile armies including our own.

yep, it is way easier to be an absolutist than to try to offer a realistically workable scenario there.
as if you agree with what you said - you accept for a fact that a nuke is not an equal weapon with a handgun. and that presumes some scale. and that presumes somebody to be in charge of that scale and evaluations, and - bingo - bans on things that fall to other side of the scale, which in most countries eventually ends up to be everything.

 

[In God We Trust]

Also, things are so skewed from where they were 200 years ago. The Posse Comitadus (spelling?) was supposed to ensure we never had to fight the military. FDA and department of education didn’t have SWAT teams with APCs and machine guns 20 years ago either.

If things were normal again, a few guys with armor and semi auto rifles would be able to hold off the feds.

 

[Dadstoys]

Not to worry, if you play it smart when SHTF , you too will own these things.

 

[fencer]

Is this view false? Does the second amendment say people can have nukes and anything else that can counteract a government's military power?

You are being deliberately obtuse. Have you actually read it?
Of course the Constitution doesn't say anything about nukes. But there is also no language that civilians must be limited to arms that are not capable of over throwing the government. In fact, just the opposite. The Constitution specifically tells us that it is our duty to shed a tyrannical government should one exist.
Every word of the Constitution was carefully considered and chosen, and they wanted to make sure that one thing was not open to interpretation. That is why they used the words "Shall not be infringed".

 

[G4Y4HK]

You are being deliberately obtuse. Have you actually read it?
Of course the Constitution doesn't say anything about nukes. But there is also no language that civilians must be limited to arms that are not capable of over throwing the government. In fact, just the opposite. The Constitution specifically tells us that it is our duty to shed a tyrannical government should one exist.
Every word of the Constitution was carefully considered and chosen, and they wanted to make sure that one thing was not open to interpretation. That is why the included the words "Shall not be infringed".

Deliberately? Why must you assume the worst? The 2A states right to bear "arms" shall not be infringed. I get that a lot of arms are already infringed... no FN P90s and HK MP7s for you, etc. Would suitcase nukes and AIM-120s fit in that category and be protected under rights of bearing and ownership? That was sort of the spirit of my question. Sorry if unclear.

 

[Drix]

So many people have said the second amendment protects the peoples' right to "arms", not "ordinance". And that's why Biden gets to flex with F-15s but we the people aren't allowed to have surface to air missiles to counter an air attack by a tyrannical government. We the people can have semi automatic "arms" like hunting rifles and shotguns but no 40mm 203 nades, stingers, other SAMs and nukes, which the government gets to use.

Is this view false? Does the second amendment say people can have nukes and anything else that can counteract a government's military power? If Biden is flexing F-15s on Americans, what can the people do to defe

I'm actually a fan of the arms not ordinance argument, but realistically the militia pre 1776 definitely had cannons this is one of the reasons for the March on concord.

The "right to bear arms" surely was meant to be all armaments, but on the same card, I would then have to concede the point that anyone should be able to own nukes, and I don't trust any gun owners that don't post on NES

nd against that