headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,711
- Likes
- 49,322
How about anything available to an infantry unit needs to be available to citizens?
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Correct, "shall not be infringed" sounds pretty absolute to me.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.
You need to go back under your bridge. Thank you for playing.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?
wow. bunch of internet tough guys out in full force tonight. is that something you would say to someone to his face?You need to go back under your bridge. Thank you for playing.
I know ReggieB9mm...pretty sure he would.wow. bunch of internet tough guys out in full force tonight. is that something you would say to someone to his face?
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.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?
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?I should be able to buy anything I can afford.
General Smedley D. Butler had a thing or two to say about this ...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.
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
I think any sane person would recognize that allowing citizens to posses nukes would pose a threat to humanity.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.
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?
Without hesitation. Not trying to be a tough guy.wow. bunch of internet tough guys out in full force tonight. is that something you would say to someone to his face?
wow. bunch of internet tough guys out in full force tonight. is that something you would say to someone to his face?
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.
It would also result in true "Sovereign Citizens"I think any sane person would recognize that allowing citizens to posses nukes would pose a threat to humanity.
Isn’t that the only reason why you post here…for the attentionwow. bunch of internet tough guys out in full force tonight. is that something you would say to someone to his face?
The Constitution specifically tells us that it is our duty to shed a tyrannical government should one exist.
The founding fathers were pretty smaht. I suspect rather than including nukes for the citizens, they would have prohibited government from owning them.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.
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.
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.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.
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?
no, it is where it is a hard stop for me.I'm not sure they would have seen corporate armies as a "bad thing."
no, it is where it is a hard stop for me.
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 2AIt'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."
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.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.
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.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.