• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Second Amendment question

Bonesinium said:
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.
Click to expand...
Correct, "shall not be infringed" sounds pretty absolute to me.
 
G4Y4HK said:
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?
Click to expand...
You need to go back under your bridge. Thank you for playing.
 
Nothing should be off limits.

This is like the lie Biden touts constantly about "people didn't own cannons" they most certainly did. But then again he is a total moron who has zero principals.

Also:
www.cbsnews.com

Flashback 1996: Man sues Pepsi for not giving him a Harrier Jet

A 21-year-old collected the 7 million Pepsi points needed to win the jet offered in Pepsi's commercial; but the soda maker refused to give him his prize
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
G4Y4HK said:
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?
Click to expand...
Theoretically, yes. From a practical standpoint, the cost would be prohibitive; far more than any individual, even a wealthy celebrity, could afford. Just look at how defense spending is contributing to our national debt. Sure, some countries received "gifts" of advanced tactical aircraft and air defense systems, like North Vietnam did from the former Soviet Union, but that was a political strategy. If the Communists won, which they did, it was a victory for the Soviet Union as well. We managed to return the favor by supplying MANPADS to Mujahedeen guerrillas fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainian troops who are currently fighting the Russian invaders.
 
Boghog1 said:
I should be able to buy anything I can afford.
Click to expand...
I should be able to buy anything I can afford, plus the next trillion dollar tax credit supplement. If we’re still giving away free money, why stop at what you can afford?
 
eddy1953 said:
Theoretically, yes. From a practical standpoint, the cost would be prohibitive; far more than any individual, even a wealthy celebrity, could afford. Just look at how defense spending is contributing to our national debt. Sure, some countries received "gifts" of advanced tactical aircraft and air defense systems, like North Vietnam did from the former Soviet Union, but that was a political strategy. If the Communists won, which they did, it was a victory for the Soviet Union as well. We managed to return the favor by supplying MANPADS to Mujahedeen guerrillas fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainian troops who are currently fighting the Russian invaders.
Click to expand...
General Smedley D. Butler had a thing or two to say about this ...

 
AKMa3di said:
Biden and his clan get to flex on the poors of the non elitist cabal with jets, organized armed forces, the Secret Service, mechanized artillery and the like

and I'm limited to a semi auto AR comprised of an Anderson lower (no logo version so you can't tell right away that it's shit teir) and my Palmetto State Armory Blem $179.99 Daily Deals 16" Upper.

Seems kind of unfair
Click to expand...

Haha that and they still want to take what you own away, or at least not let you have another.
 
G4Y4HK said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think any sane person would recognize that allowing citizens to posses nukes would pose a threat to humanity.
It's doubtful that the founding fathers envisioned weapons that were capable of killing indiscriminately in such high numbers, and would making large areas uninhabitable. To use them to overthrow a corrupt government would be immoral, due to the number of innocents that would die.
The founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny, not to bring on Armageddon.

I also don't think that private citizens should be able to own F-15's. But they should be able to own weapons that can defend against them.
 
Yup, the Bill of Rights (which of course includes the Second Amendment) is all about what the Federal Government can't do. It actually has nothing to do with you as a citizen can do. It's specifically calling out some of the more important "unalienable rights" that the federal government can't f*** with. You can own a tank with a fully functional main gun if you have the money and are willing to jump through some hoops (and just remember that each individual round is considered a "destructive device" and needs its own $200 NFA tax stamp). It might be a bit more difficult if you want it fully armed with its complement of machine guns, since the FOPA Act of 1986 did put some restrictions on the transfer and ownership of them. However, there are several private companies that own tanks and will let you drive them around and crush things for an exorbitant fee. You can also own an F15 if you can afford it.

I think it is very important that folks understand that the Constitution does not "grant" US citizens any rights. It is the citizens granting the Federal government certain powers to govern them. The rights of the citizens are "unalienable" and can not be revoke or "infringed on" by the Federal government.
 
G4Y4HK said:
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?
Click to expand...

If your intention is to ask what people here think the 2A should mean, then mission accomplished.

Otherwise, our courts have held that the 2A covers bearable arms (you can carry them) that the people commonly possess for lawful purposes. Compare to the 1A, which doesn't protect incitement to imminent lawless action.
 
cathouse01 said:
Yup, the Bill of Rights (which of course includes the Second Amendment) is all about what the Federal Government can't do. It actually has nothing to do with you as a citizen can do. It's specifically calling out some of the more important "unalienable rights" that the federal government can't f*** with. You can own a tank with a fully functional main gun if you have the money and are willing to jump through some hoops (and just remember that each individual round is considered a "destructive device" and needs its own $200 NFA tax stamp). It might be a bit more difficult if you want it fully armed with its complement of machine guns, since the FOPA Act of 1986 did put some restrictions on the transfer and ownership of them. However, there are several private companies that own tanks and will let you drive them around and crush things for an exorbitant fee. You can also own an F15 if you can afford it.

I think it is very important that folks understand that the Constitution does not "grant" US citizens any rights. It is the citizens granting the Federal government certain powers to govern them. The rights of the citizens are "unalienable" and can not be revoke or "infringed on" by the Federal government.
Click to expand...

And, "We The People" have the right to abolish (by any means necessary) ANY regime or government that WE decide is detrimental to our liberty. It may be painful, but 100% legal.
 
Biden keeps bringing up the F15 because that’s the only thing that lebodomized demetia’d brain housing group can come up with. He has no clue about any other US Ordinance besides that and Hellfire missiles. And of course that dickhead threatened to shoot his political opposition with hellfires from an F15.

Fun fact:
F15’s don’t carry hellfires and never have nor will they ever.

The scary part is ppl vote for this guy.
 
fencer said:
The Constitution specifically tells us that it is our duty to shed a tyrannical government should one exist.
Click to expand...

No it does not. The word tyranny and any other form of the word does NOT appear in the Constitution.
 
fencer said:
I think any sane person would recognize that allowing citizens to posses nukes would pose a threat to humanity.
It's doubtful that the founding fathers envisioned weapons that were capable of killing indiscriminately in such high numbers, and would making large areas uninhabitable. To use them to overthrow a corrupt government would be immoral, due to the number of innocents that would die.
The founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny, not to bring on Armageddon.

I also don't think that private citizens should be able to own F-15's. But they should be able to own weapons that can defend against them.
Click to expand...
The founding fathers were pretty smaht. I suspect rather than including nukes for the citizens, they would have prohibited government from owning them.

I find it hard to take seriously any argument for Joe Sixpack owning them. It’s just dumb.
 
meh said:
If your intention is to ask what people here think the 2A should mean, then mission accomplished.

Otherwise, our courts have held that the 2A covers bearable arms (you can carry them) that the people commonly possess for lawful purposes. Compare to the 1A, which doesn't protect incitement to imminent lawless action.
Click to expand...

The "bear" part of 2A is something that also gives me pause. I can't bear a tank. I do agree that, by and large, the Framers wouldn't have intended that we can own nukes.

But the rub is that until the NFA, including during the time the BoR was written, private citizens could and did buy and use non-bearable arms for all sorts of lawful purposes. The obvious example is a shipowner, who could equip his vessel with any number of cannon and any amount of powder and shot he deemed necessary for the ship's defense against... well, who knew? Pirates? Privateers? Unfriendly nations? It didn't matter.

I'm perfectly content, personally, owning bearable arms. But I'm not sure the Framers would have intended that the .gov should ban ownership of non-bearable arms. It's very important to note, too, that even though a private citizen can buy and operate F16s and tanks, that citizen cannot equip them with missiles or bombs, nor with MGs without a great deal of scrutiny. It's not the F16 that gives the government its Biden-perceived supremacy: it's the ordnance hanging from that F16's pylons, and the training of the pilot who knows how to employ it.
 
Picton said:
It's very important to note, too, that even though a private citizen can buy and operate F16s and tanks, that citizen cannot equip them with missiles or bombs, nor with MGs without a great deal of scrutiny. It's not the F16 that gives the government its Biden-perceived supremacy: it's the ordnance hanging from that F16's pylons, and the training of the pilot who knows how to employ it.
Click to expand...
if you will extend this hypothesis, then you will end up with what any cyberpunk scenario describes - private corporations owning their own private armies, armed with all the available modern weaponry including mass destruction tools.
as if private citizen will be allowed to own fully armed f16 with all the ordinances, then why would corporation be restricted of doing the same?
how far should it go then?
 
paul73 said:
if you will extend this hypothesis, then you will end up with what any cyberpunk scenario describes - private corporations owning their own private armies, armed with all the available modern weaponry including mass destruction tools.
as if private citizen will be allowed to own fully armed f16 with all the ordinances, then why would corporation be restricted of doing the same?
how far should it go then?
Click to expand...

It's been done before. At the time the BoR was written, the three presidencies of the British East India Company had their own private armies with all the capabilities of any national army at that time. No doubt the men who wrote the Constitution knew about it: many had trade interests in the Far East, and would have had to deal with the Company.

I'm not sure they would have seen corporate armies as a "bad thing."
 
Picton said:
It's been done before. At the time the BoR was written, the three presidencies of the British East India Company had their own private armies with all the capabilities of any national army at that time. No doubt the men who wrote the Constitution knew about it: many had trade interests in the Far East, and would have had to deal with the Company.

I'm not sure they would have seen corporate armies as a "bad thing."
Click to expand...
This is where letters of marque and reprisal come in. This is what Blackwater (out whatever their name is today) is. Private mercenaries have been around forever and are a core concept that parallels 2A
 
meh said:
Otherwise, our courts have held that the 2A covers bearable arms (you can carry them) that the people commonly possess for lawful purposes. Compare to the 1A, which doesn't protect incitement to imminent lawless action.
Click to expand...
I don't think SCOTUS has ever ruled that the Second only applies to bearable arms or that it extends to all bearable arms, without restrictions. What they did say, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, is that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." It does not say that it "only" extends to bearable arms. In United States v. Miller it only found that a sawed-off shotgun, which is certainly bearable, was not "suitable" for use in the militia. In fact, as far as I can find, the Supreme Court has been resolutely silent on crew served weapons.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can see, there is only one Federal Law banning any type of firearm. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 makes it "unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun" unless it was "a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect." The National Firearms act of 1934 doesn't ban anything, it just taxes it and requires registration.

All the other laws are restrictions on who can own a firearm, not what they can own. There are only State laws banning what a non-prohibited person can own.
 
Picton said:
The "bear" part of 2A is something that also gives me pause. I can't bear a tank. I do agree that, by and large, the Framers wouldn't have intended that we can own nukes.
Click to expand...
The intentions of the framers are only relevant insofar as one is trying to interpret what the constitution does say. The 2A explicitly prevents the government from infringing on a certain natural/pre-existing right. The Heller decision has page after page discussing what the amendment meant in historical context, the upshot being that it is about personal, bearable weapons. As interpreted by the courts, neither the 2A in particular nor the constitution in general have anything to say one way or the other about a supposed "right" to own a cannon, or a tank, or an F15, or bioweapons, or a nuke. Certainly, the 2A was not meant to cover WMDs. Maybe you have a God-given right to own a WMD or maybe you don't. There just isn't anything in the constitution that says the government can't infringe on that right, at least via state law. There are a ton of federal laws that in a more perfect world would have been found unconstitutional under the 10th amendment, but here again, what we think ought to be the case isn't relevant. The legislative process is the only one open to us if we disagree with what Congress has done in such areas.
 

Similar threads

Propaganda. This trans person is insanely pro-second amendment.
Replies
8
Views
379
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Gun Owners of America announces ‘premiere’ Second Amendment convention
Replies
5
Views
228
MGnoob
MGnoob
Joe Biden: “I Used Teach the Second Amendment in Law School… There Are Limitations… You Couldn’t Own a Cannon!” (VIDEO)
Replies
22
Views
466
REM870
REM870
If Biden were to be elected, what actions could he take to support the Second Amendment (2A)?
Replies
13
Views
309
s&w3913
S
Still going to FA10? Top Pentagon Insider: Abolish Second Amendment, Deploy National Guard For Mass Gun Confiscation Effort
Replies
29
Views
1K
1919FAN
1919FAN
Back
Top Bottom