• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why can't I bear these arms?

Crimefree said:
Arms means all arms, obsolete, current or yet to be invented the same as religion means all religions obsolete, current or yet to come. I must have written that a hundred times. Apparently you have difficulty with it but have yet to show what this difficulty is other than another of your crusades.

I have stated my position with reference to the 2A the only possible limitation that can be applied to arms was discussed by Halbrook. To keep and bear. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind the founders were quite happy with any arm that would be issued to infantry. It is ludicrous that anyone envisaging citizens defence against a tyrannical government should be hobbled by people frightened of technology. Nor should any power be given to government to weaken citizens defence. A republic puts the people in charge not government which the founding fathers repeatedly warned was not to be trusted.

The question is will government ever use nuclear arms against the people? Can government be trusted not to?

It is not can the people be trusted.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is not so. Many religious practices, past, present and future, are not protected by the 1A. Just as your right to freely swing your fist stops at my nose, your right to be armed does not include all manner of WMDs - biological, nuclear and/or chemical. The argument must then focus (as it does now) on what those limits are, in other words, can a law declaring that only 7 foot long, blaze orange, single shot, smooth bore guns become the only firearm protected by the 2A be called constitutional?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is not so. Many religious practices, past, present and future, are not protected by the 1A.
Click to expand...

You stopped short of proving your point. Which religions are not allowed to practice and that is what the constitution reads not your strawman argument.

Just as your right to freely swing your fist stops at my nose,
Click to expand...

I don't have a right to swing my fists and if I struck your nose that is assault. Something completely different.

your right to be armed does not include all manner of WMDs - biological, nuclear and/or chemical.
Click to expand...

These fall outside of the scope of the 2A as the right is to keep and bear.

The argument must then focus (as it does now) on what those limits are, in other words, can a law declaring that only 7 foot long, blaze orange, single shot, smooth bore guns become the only firearm protected by the 2A be called constitutional?
Click to expand...

The argument is clearly defined by the constitution why does it need another definition.
 
Cisero said:
So if (when ?) nukes are small enough to be carried, will having one at home be protected by the 2A ?
Click to expand...

You think you could afford one? And they do make them small enough now for missile use.

Where would you buy one? At your local gun shop?

Brain farts are just that.
 
Crimefree said:
You think you could afford one? And they do make them small enough now for missile use.

Where would you buy one? At your local gun shop?

Brain farts are just that.
Click to expand...

I agree but, can you answer the question ?
 
Cisero said:
I agree but, can you answer the question ?
Click to expand...

It's a loaded irrelevant question that seems to fascinate gun control brains. Nuke warheads are bombs nor arms.

How would you like me to answer that other than bombs are not covered by the 2A?

I'll ask again who could afford one and where would they buy it?
 
Crimefree said:
It's a loaded irrelevant question that seems to fascinate gun control brains. Nuke warheads are bombs nor arms.

How would you like me to answer that other than bombs are not covered by the 2A?

I'll ask again who could afford one and where would they buy it?
Click to expand...

Isn't arms just a synonym for weapons ? A bomb is a weapon, a nuke is a weapon (what does WMD stand for ?) Therefore the 2A covers bombs.

I agree, it's practically impossible to get your hands on a nuke. It was a hypothetical question meant to show that the 2A is already not being followed 100%. If we truly followed the 2A to the letter we would allow the sale of all weapons (grenades, RPGs, tanks etc.).
 
Cisero said:
Isn't arms just a synonym for weapons ? A bomb is a weapon, a nuke is a weapon (what does WMD stand for ?) Therefore the 2A covers bombs.

I agree, it's practically impossible to get your hands on a nuke. It was a hypothetical question meant to show that the 2A is already not being followed 100%. If we truly followed the 2A to the letter we would allow the sale of all weapons (grenades, RPGs, tanks etc.).
Click to expand...

Here is the point

1) arms within the meaning of the second amendment meant arms citizens would normally keep and bear

why?

2) because the right the second amendment recognized (a right that was NOT CREATED by the second amendment but rather a right that pre-existed government that the second amendment guaranteed) was the right of self defense.

Nukes are not weapons of individual self defense

BTW any firearm police are issued are for self defense. So until all those firearms are readily available for civilians then its worthless to debate stuff like RPGs and Grenades which civilian police are not issued for self defense
 
TurtleDude said:
Here is the point

1) arms within the meaning of the second amendment meant arms citizens would normally keep and bear

why?

2) because the right the second amendment recognized (a right that was NOT CREATED by the second amendment but rather a right that pre-existed government that the second amendment guaranteed) was the right of self defense.

Nukes are not weapons of individual self defense

BTW any firearm police are issued are for self defense. So until all those firearms are readily available for civilians then its worthless to debate stuff like RPGs and Grenades which civilian police are not issued for self defense
Click to expand...

Thanks for your clear response, hadn't thought about it that way !
I've heard people argue civilians require RPGs in order to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. What would you say to them ?

(Disclaimer : I'm not ok with giving RPGs to anybody :2razz:)
 
Cisero said:
Isn't arms just a synonym for weapons ? A bomb is a weapon, a nuke is a weapon (what does WMD stand for ?) Therefore the 2A covers bombs.
Click to expand...

Weapon of Mass Destruction.

When reading the constitution it is often best to refer to a good dictionary. If one wants the 1928 Merriam-Webster is on line so even a period reference can be found.

Full Definition of arm~~ Arms | Definition of Arms by Merriam-Webster

transitive verb

1 : to furnish or equip with weapons
2 : to furnish with something that strengthens or protects <arming citizens with the right to vote>
3 : to equip or ready for action or operation <arm a bomb>
intransitive verb

: to prepare oneself for struggle or resistance <arm for combat>

Origin and Etymology of arm

Middle English armen, from Anglo-French armer, from Latin armare, from arma weapons, tools; akin to Latin ars skill, Greek harmos joint, arariskein to fit

First Known Use: 12th century

The 2A is based on the British bill of rights which states "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

So we see it means personal weapons not all weapons. The 2A is limiting in the same way "to keep and bear"

of interest "as allowed by law" would have defeated the objective of the 2A

I agree, it's practically impossible to get your hands on a nuke. It was a hypothetical question meant to show that the 2A is already not being followed 100%.
Click to expand...

No it is a loaded question specifically to cast doubt on the validity of the 2A. Bombs are not weapons of defence and there is no doubt the 2A was constructed for the purpose of defence. Gun control does not ask sensible questions.

If we truly followed the 2A to the letter we would allow the sale of all weapons (grenades, RPGs, tanks etc.).
Click to expand...

Grenades fall into the same group of ordinance, explosives, bombs and warhead/explosive type missiles. I don't think the founders thought much of a problem with somebody with a cannon and explosive ammunition which existed at the time. Quite rightly such weapons then were not personal. Is a RPG7 a personal arm? It's "ammunition" rules it out. There is no reason one could not have an RPG7 without ammo. People do own tanks.;)

I hope this helps. You certainly made me think and I enjoy that.
 
TurtleDude said:
Here is the point

1) arms within the meaning of the second amendment meant arms citizens would normally keep and bear

why?

2) because the right the second amendment recognized (a right that was NOT CREATED by the second amendment but rather a right that pre-existed government that the second amendment guaranteed) was the right of self defense.

Nukes are not weapons of individual self defense

BTW any firearm police are issued are for self defense. So until all those firearms are readily available for civilians then its worthless to debate stuff like RPGs and Grenades which civilian police are not issued for self defense
Click to expand...

Great points thanks I approached it from a different direction so covered on all fronts.
 
Cisero said:
Thanks for your clear response, hadn't thought about it that way !
I've heard people argue civilians require RPGs in order to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. What would you say to them ?

(Disclaimer : I'm not ok with giving RPGs to anybody :2razz:)
Click to expand...

the natural right recognized is one of self defense.

the founders clearly saw an armed citizenry as a check and ultimately a reset button against a tyrannical government but the recognition of the right was based on the concept of self defense. And while some would argue an RPG is useful for self defense against a rogue tank, I see a RPG as ordnance not as an arm within the meaning of one a citizen would normally keep and bear.

SO that is why I use the police litmus test. civilian governments have decreed and approved of certain weapons as being suitable for CIVILIAN employees of theirs to be used for self defense in a civilian environment. By definition, the government(s) have stated that such weapons are the most appropriate for self defense.

Based on concepts of equitable estoppel and collateral estoppel, its inconceivable that the same governments that equip civilian police officers with certain firearms-such as select fire carbines- to patrol the streets and guard public officials can also claim there is no possible reason for honest private citizens to merely be able to own these same firearms in their homes.
 
TurtleDude said:
the natural right recognized is one of self defense.

the founders clearly saw an armed citizenry as a check and ultimately a reset button against a tyrannical government but the recognition of the right was based on the concept of self defense. And while some would argue an RPG is useful for self defense against a rogue tank, I see a RPG as ordnance not as an arm within the meaning of one a citizen would normally keep and bear.

SO that is why I use the police litmus test. civilian governments have decreed and approved of certain weapons as being suitable for CIVILIAN employees of theirs to be used for self defense in a civilian environment. By definition, the government(s) have stated that such weapons are the most appropriate for self defense.

Based on concepts of equitable estoppel and collateral estoppel, its inconceivable that the same governments that equip civilian police officers with certain firearms-such as select fire carbines- to patrol the streets and guard public officials can also claim there is no possible reason for honest private citizens to merely be able to own these same firearms in their homes.
Click to expand...

Since the RPG7 only has explosive ordnance like the hand held grenade or missile launchers that would rule them out for civilian use and self-defence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom