Question about guns

[JollyRoger]

Nukes are different than anything else on the planet. We don't want some COUNTRIES having nukes. The idea of letting an individual own them is even farther than even I am going to theorize.

The theory is the same used by gun grabbers everywhere.

 

[uppi]

The theory is the same used by gun grabbers everywhere.

Virtually everyone is a gun grabber and we are just arguing about the details, i.e. which weapons to control.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

So which one of you guys would let me lug around a controlled singularity in public?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Rate of fire and ammunition capacity before the need to reload, rate of overheating, etc. are all important distinctions on how destructive a weapon can be even if firing the same ammunition. A machine gun is distinct from an automatic rifle is distinct from a sub-machine gun.

I get that. I just don't see why that should LEGALLY make a difference.

At this point, do you expect facts to get in the way of his logic?

Again, I know the difference. Doesn't mean they should be illegal. Once again, guns don't kill, people do.

The theory is the same used by gun grabbers everywhere.

Virtually everyone is a gun grabber and we are just arguing about the details, i.e. which weapons to control.

Really, "Gun grabber" means taking away guns people own. It has nothing to do with what types.

And I know Jolly doesn't want civilians owning nukes either. How that fact is an argument against automatic weapons I don't know.

 

[JollyRoger]

Since the Constitution doesn't say "firearms" but does stipulate "shall not be infringed", I do not see how a textualist can be for the government restricting the keeping and bearing of nukes.

 

[JohnRM]

I don't agree. Didn't it apply to cannons too? If Iran needs a nuke to defend against Israel and Washington, then hawaians might want the too

You may not agree, but the reality is what it is. The 2nd Amendment does NOT cover cannons or nuclear weapons or tanks or any other weapons system, as such. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter.

 

[Farm Boy]

Wasn't there a distinction between arms and tactical weapons? Assuming you aren't being so naive as to be an idiosyncratic textualist?

 

[JohnRM]

I am respecting the judgment of the Supreme Court of these United States of America. To that, I have nothing to add.

 

[JollyRoger]

According to current Supreme Court jurisprudence, the scope of the 2nd Amendment right is to apply for a license to keep a handgun in one's home for self defense purposes. All other infringements are presumptively valid.

 

[JohnRM]

According to current Supreme Court jurisprudence, the scope of the 2nd Amendment right is to apply for a license to keep a handgun in one's home for self defense purposes. All other infringements are presumptively valid.

Am I mistaken in the belief that the Supreme Court ruled on aspects of either the '33-34 or the '68 federal laws?

Regardless, I choose, at this moment, to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. In lieu of a ruling on the matter, I choose to respect the federal and state laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, respectively. If I have any dispute with either governing body, I will take up that dispute at such time as it becomes appropriate. However, until such time, the laws of this land recognize the right to bear arms to refer exclusively to firearms and that they too may be regulated to a sensible degree.

 

[El_Machinae]

You may not agree, but the reality is what it is. The 2nd Amendment does NOT cover cannons or nuclear weapons or tanks or any other weapons system, as such. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter.

Yeah, I can see why that would happen. It's very easy to not actually want the 2A to do what it says, because the alternative is ricin-bomb carrying civilians.

Nukes are obviously a reductio ad absurdum, to make the point that the right to bear arms will be infringed (and really must be). That said, I really don't see why someone might think that an assault weapon ban violates the 2A, but (say) a grenade launcher doesn't violate the 2A. To me, the intent of the 2A was for common people to maintain the ability to bring warlike violence if it was necessary.

 

[Leoreth]

Wasn't there a distinction between arms and tactical weapons?

I'd say one is a subset of the other.

Nukes are different than anything else on the planet. We don't want some COUNTRIES having nukes. The idea of letting an individual own them is even farther than even I am going to theorize.

I love that reasoning. X is different. Why? It just is.

If you don't think private nukes are a good idea, you have entered pragmatic territory, and similar arguments against automatic weapons become valid.

 

[JohnRM]

Yeah, I can see why that would happen. It's very easy to not actually want the 2A to do what it says, because the alternative is ricin-bomb carrying civilians.

Nukes are obviously a reductio ad absurdum, to make the point that the right to bear arms will be infringed (and really must be). That said, I really don't see why someone might think that an assault weapon ban violates the 2A, but (say) a grenade launcher doesn't violate the 2A. To me, the intent of the 2A was for common people to maintain the ability to bring warlike violence if it was necessary.

Did I give the impression that I think that the AWB was a violation of the 2nd Amendment? Cause I really don't. I don't agree with the law, but I don't think that it was unconstitutional. The restriction on magazine size was borderline, but I think that still falls within the power of the states and federal government to regulate.

 

[Masada]

The M-29 Davy Crockett is man-portable. Does that mean the Constitution protects my right to own one?

 

[JohnRM]

The M-29 Davy Crockett is man-portable. Does that mean the Constitution protects my right to own one?

I think that that is what he's arguing, though I don't necessarily think he believes they ought to be legal for private citizens.

 

[Masada]

What flip-flopping democratic freedom hating nonsense. How else is one going to other-throw a totalitarian Amerikkan Republic under President Hussein?

 

[JohnRM]

What flip-flopping democratic freedom hating nonsense. How else is one going to other-throw a totalitarian Amerikkan Republic under President Hussein?

Vote.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think it should be possible to obtain any weapon that can be carried by hand. Missiles don't apply.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I think it should be possible to obtain any weapon that can be carried by hand.

That's what "man-portable" means.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I was reaffirming my own position since someone was discussing whether or not I did really mean that.

So yes, a grenade launcher should be possible to own, but a nuclear missile should not. The latter is not an "Arm" in any meaningful sense at all.