Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 02-01-2011, 12:50 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
When does the right to bear arms end?

Quote:
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.
however the definition of arms includes weapons of any type, with very few definitions even saying especially firearms and none say only firearms,

so according to the constitution shouldn't I as a private citizen be able to own a couple intercontinental ballistic missiles? or a nuke?

I'm not trying to make an anti-second amendment post here, I support the right to own guns but it does seem this amendment is a bit too vague.

legally how does someone say the constitution protects guns but not brass knuckles? or a machine gun, or a nuke? where does the line get drawn based on the constitution?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 02:24 PM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
While 2A certainly pertains to the individual owning small arms to defend himself, his family and his property, I don't think it necessarily extends to owning nukes. That said, I would be in favor of (heavily) secured facilities owned and operated by militia groups in which arms typically not owned by individuals might be stored. Maybe county-wide (or smaller) militias could collectively be responsible for storing grenades, full-auto/high-caliber firearms, and maybe even more potent items, etc. and state-wide militia compounds might house the really nasty stuff like tactical nukes.

Looking at 2A in the context that military might should rest with the people rather than a strong central military, it seems inappropriate that today the vast arsenal of the U.S. is banned to anyone but that strong central military.
__________________

__________________
February is PALIN-FREE month. Whatever you do, don't mention Sarah Palin's name. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 02:37 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian View Post
While 2A certainly pertains to the individual owning small arms to defend himself
where does it say anything like that at all?, you say certainly as if it is written in there, yes people think it means less but that is NOT what the words say

it says militia, I would take that so the citizens can defend themselves against ANYTHING, we can't take down a repressive government's gunships with hunting rifles now can we?, we need rpg's. we don't need a militia to defend ourselves from a thief or wild animals, we need militias to protect ourselves from governments.

either we need to follow it and allow all arms or rewrite it to be more specific (I would prefer this).
Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 02:41 PM  
Senior Member
 
Funetical's Avatar

Austin
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 345 | Kudos: +20
It doesn't. It should be my right to own a tank.

"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."

They have tanks. They are the people I would need to regain my security from.

Therefore,

Me + Tank = Freedom

Me - Tank + continued limitations of my rights = Not freedom, that's for sure.

I'm also a big fan of me owning missiles.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2011, 11:57 AM  
Poison Idea

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 368 | Kudos: +21
If it's accessible to troops it should be accessible to civilians. If it's accessible to a group of troops it should be accessible to state militia and National Guard.

The whole idea originally was that states were more or less their own country and we are supposed to simply be just what the country is called, United States, with a basic overall federal government to deal with specific issues laid out in the Constitution. There isn't supposed to be a national standing army except in times of war.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2011, 12:07 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motorcharge View Post
......The whole idea originally was that states were more or less their own country and we are supposed to simply be just what the country is called, United States, with a basic overall federal government to deal with specific issues laid out in the Constitution. There isn't supposed to be a national standing army except in times of war.

I agree as to what things were supposed to be.....But that ship sailed after the Civil War (AKA "war of northern aggression").
Having a centralized military prevents that kind of thing......(States rights).
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2011, 02:09 PM  
Senior Member
 
Funetical's Avatar

Austin
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 345 | Kudos: +20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motorcharge View Post
If it's accessible to troops it should be accessible to civilians. If it's accessible to a group of troops it should be accessible to state militia and National Guard.

The whole idea originally was that states were more or less their own country and we are supposed to simply be just what the country is called, United States, with a basic overall federal government to deal with specific issues laid out in the Constitution. There isn't supposed to be a national standing army except in times of war.
I'm stealing that for future arguments. Good show sir.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2011, 02:44 PM  
Senior Member
 
neophyte's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 668 | Kudos: +12
Reading History;

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

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 ratified by the States:

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.
The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.


Reading this; reading the history, reading back the right to bear arms. What is/was the master plan. Protect the citizens from an oppressive government.

These 'writer' had seperated recently from a war of oppression, knowing full and well what an oppressive government could and would do.
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2011, 03:48 PM  
Junior Member

Ansonia, CT
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5 | Kudos: +12
To those who wish to reinterpret the Constitution (Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, and lawyers):

The meaning of the United States Constitution is literal. Do not attempt to twist words, and instill a meaning that fits your agenda. We patriots will defend the Constitution to the last. Don't tread on me!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2011, 04:54 PM  
Me

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6 | Kudos: +10
When this country was founded, people could and did own state of the art warships. Try that today.

While it is an interesting argument to bring up the nuke aspect, it is bogus. First off, if you made it legal for the average citizen to own a nuke, it would not matter in the least since it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find someone to sell you one. The second problem would be in having enough money to buy it. Very few people would be able to afford one and I suspect that most of those that could, would not want to have one. The safety aspects would also present a problem, as well as keeping it functional.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.