The second admendment means even WMDs?

[BasketCase]

By deadbolt I meant deadbolt. Though I have no objection to a homeowner owning a gun if they so choose.

 

[Ecofarm]

A deadbolt is more effective, much cheaper, and almost infinitely easier to obtain legally.

A deadbolt is as effective as... nothing. I sleep with unlocked doors.

 

[JohnRM]

Since electronic media did not exist in 1783, it is not included in the definition of speech or press.

Besides, cannon did exist in 1783 - so I guess I'm allowed to own a howitzer, by your logic.

The point is, smart arse, that those things didn't exist at the time to even be thought about. You can't possibly say that the Second Amendment covers things such as WMD or stealth bombers, because those things didn't yet exist. We can debate all that we want what the forefathers would have thought about whether cannons are included in the right to bear arms or not, but there can be no argument whatsoever about WMD and bombers. They didn't exist, so it is clear that the interpretation has to be made by our people today. It is not situation where you can ask, "what was our forefathers intention."

 

[IglooDame]

The point is, smart arse, that those things didn't exist at the time to even be thought about. You can't possibly say that the Second Amendment covers things such as WMD or stealth bombers, because those things didn't yet exist. We can debate all that we want what the forefathers would have thought about whether cannons are included in the right to bear arms or not, but there can be no argument whatsoever about WMD and bombers. They didn't exist, so it is clear that the interpretation has to be made by our people today. It is not situation where you can ask, "what was our forefathers intention."

I really wasn't being a smartass. To claim that Constitutional rights are absent when it comes to new technology is to apply it to the whole Bill of Rights, not just the Second.

Conceptually, military aircraft are similar to warships of the day (as similar as this webserver is to the printing presses of yore), and there was private ownership of warships (as you probably know, they were termed privateers). So we don't have to be clueless about FF thoughts on that matter.

 

[Ecofarm]

Then again, I reaally hope I don't live to see the day a man from Texas claiming that it is his constitutional right to own a dirty bomb.. or that he needs it for "hunting".

We can debate all that we want what the forefathers would have thought about whether cannons are included in the right to bear arms or not, but there can be no argument whatsoever about WMD and bombers. They didn't exist, so it is clear that the interpretation has to be made by our people today. It is not situation where you can ask, "what was our forefathers intention."

Don't justify reconstructionism or a "living document" idoltry on a STRAWMAN.

Private citizens will never be allowed to purchase WMDs.

It's the best constitution in the world. Leave it alone, at least until a decent percentage of the world lives under some semblance of it.

 

[.Shane.]

Oh, man, I'm so spent on this topic.... I'd just cut/paste my legacy posts rather than try and rethink it all. Igloo, you have any links to our rounds-and-rounds on this stuff earlier?

Short version... the OP is (I think) making a point, that if the 2A is about arming a militia, why does it stop w/ rifles/pistols and not extend to, say, hand grenades, TNT, and onward. This is an argument that can be used to argrue against the validity of certain firearms, etc... but, its is a correct argument and I think that makes many supporters uncomfortable because of this whole "its a citizens militia" defense of the 2A. Meaning it makes it harder to defend the owning of a semi-automatic rifle when you can extend the logical argument to include, say, hand grenades because it makes John Q. Public start to question that logic and that gives Wayne LaPierre nightmares.

And I promised myself I wouldn't do that.

 

[JohnRM]

I really wasn't being a smartass. To claim that Constitutional rights are absent when it comes to new technology is to apply it to the whole Bill of Rights, not just the Second.

Conceptually, military aircraft are similar to warships of the day (as similar as this webserver is to the printing presses of yore), and there was private ownership of warships (as you probably know, they were termed privateers). So we don't have to be clueless about FF thoughts on that matter.

And I think that is exactly what we have to do. We can't just go back and say that since the forefathers wrote it, we apply it without consideration. On an issue such as free speech, it is a very simple thing to make the connection to electronic media, but it is not as easy with firearms. I would argue that it was the intent of the framers to establish the unrestricted right of Americans to bear arms, but they could not even fathom the realities of new technology in the form of nuclear weapons and strategic bombers. It is simply insane to take such a thing which was meant to apply to 18th Century weapons and without any discussion or thought whatsoever, apply that to modern technology.

 

[Ecofarm]

What I meant by strawman is The OP: We're gonna have WMDs private!!!!

And I suppose I made little sense when I was responding to the classic (and almost obligatory followup "should we legalize nukes" ):

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say.

The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, and the B-2 Stealth Bomber didn't even exist. The people who wrote the Constitution couldn't imagine such weapons even in their wildest dreams.

So, the answer is (and I like this answer because it gets a lot of people pissed off): "unknown".

I guess you got me. It just didn't get to me until there were a few more "OH NO! What do we do!? The constitution doesn't cover this!! Let's change the constitution"

The 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten.

It doesn't cover this strawman because it doesn't need to. It was written by genuises. You know what they meant. Deal with it.

 

[Ecofarm]

Oh, man, I'm so spent on this topic.... I'd just cut/paste my legacy posts rather than try and rethink it all. Igloo, you have any links to our rounds-and-rounds on this stuff earlier?

Short version... the OP is (I think) making a point, that if the 2A is about arming a militia, why does it stop w/ rifles/pistols and not extend to, say, hand grenades, TNT, and onward. This is an argument that can be used to argrue against the validity of certain firearms, etc... but, its is a correct argument and I think that makes many supporters uncomfortable because of this whole "its a citizens militia" defense of the 2A. Meaning it makes it harder to defend the owning of a semi-automatic rifle when you can extend the logical argument to include, say, hand grenades because it makes John Q. Public start to question that logic and that gives Wayne LaPierre nightmares.
And I promised myself I wouldn't do that.

Repeat in dumb people language please.

 

[Ecofarm]

I demand access to nuke icbms so that I can carry out the brainwashing of American brainwashing computer games. My suicase nukes no longer satisfy my need for security.

Is this assault on the 2A over?

 

[History_Buff]

There's no practical purpose for a nuke. If someone break into your house, and you shot him with a shotgun, he dies... no big deal. If you set off a nuke, lots of innocent people get hurt.

Ah, but nobody is dumb enough to mess with the crazy . .. .. .. .er rocking back and forth on his couch clutching his Nuke. Or even a guy who has a nuke walking down the street. If he's crazy enough to have a WMD, who knows what he'd do? You pull a knife, and before you can blink, You've got Ebola!

 

[JollyRoger]

It doesn't cover this strawman because it doesn't need to. It was written by genuises. You know what they meant. Deal with it.

Then why is it an Amendment? Shouldn't they have been smart enough to have drafted it in originally?

 

[JohnRM]

A healthy dose of common sense is needed on this issue. Rifles, pistols, and shotguns are covered by the Second Amendment, but automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not. Weapons of mass destruction are not. Strategic bombers are not. These things didn't exist in the 18th Century.

Now, we have to ask ourselves what is practical for modern times and what our forefathers would have thought if these things did exist. I don't think that the 2nd Amendment would cover nuclear weapons and B-2 Spirits. I do think that they would have covered semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Those in power disagree on at least one point, with me (automatics), so that is where we stand. Deal with it.

 

[bhsup]

Then why is it an Amendment? Shouldn't they have been smart enough to have drafted it in originally?

There was an argument that codifying rights would imply those were the only rights that existed. Some wanted to leave it alone and not codify any particular rights, leaving it clear that unless expressly banned, you're good to go.

 

[IglooDame]

Oh, man, I'm so spent on this topic.... I'd just cut/paste my legacy posts rather than try and rethink it all. Igloo, you have any links to our rounds-and-rounds on this stuff earlier?

Short version... the OP is (I think) making a point, that if the 2A is about arming a militia, why does it stop w/ rifles/pistols and not extend to, say, hand grenades, TNT, and onward. This is an argument that can be used to argrue against the validity of certain firearms, etc... but, its is a correct argument and I think that makes many supporters uncomfortable because of this whole "its a citizens militia" defense of the 2A. Meaning it makes it harder to defend the owning of a semi-automatic rifle when you can extend the logical argument to include, say, hand grenades because it makes John Q. Public start to question that logic and that gives Wayne LaPierre nightmares.

And I promised myself I wouldn't do that.

I don't keep links, I just use the search function, sorry.

And I don't know why "it's a citizens militia" supporters should be uncomfortable, they usually follow up with "and the National Guard has taken that role, so banning private ownership of guns is constitutional" in the same breath.

 

[BasketCase]

Then why is it an Amendment? Shouldn't they have been smart enough to have drafted it in originally?

In other words (and by all means correct me if I interpret you wrong!) what you're saying is that the Founding Fathers made a mistake.

That explains the whole thing right there. What if they meant to include the right to keep and bear arms in the original document, but made a mistake???