• 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!

What is protected under the 2nd amendment.

What weapons should be legal for civilians to own?


  • Total voters
    33

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,987
Reaction score
5,421
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The thread up on civilians owning fully automatic firearms has me curious. I know we have some very strong supporters of 2nd amendment rights here on the board, and I'm curious how far some of you think the protection of the 2nd amendment extends. What weapons do you believe it should be legal for civilians to own?
 
The thread up on civilians owning fully automatic firearms has me curious. I know we have some very strong supporters of 2nd amendment rights here on the board, and I'm curious how far some of you think the protection of the 2nd amendment extends. What weapons do you believe it should be legal for civilians to own?

The Supreme Court has held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is protected for 1.) self defense and 2.) so that the government can't disable the citizen's militia and in so doing enable a standing army to rule. It has allowed regulation of some weapons, such as sawed off shotguns, using the thinking that they are not commonly associated with home defense or practical for militia use.

If I use the same thought process, I think the right itself applies to handguns, rifles, shotguns, and many automatic weapons. When you include much more than that (explosives, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, etc.) then I think you're into full scale war (military) not militia. I think it's right to expect a normal citizen to be able to show up on short notice in order to help in militia service with his own handgun, rifle, or machine gun, etc. But all out military service would be supplied differently.

However, I do think it's possible that some of the more serious items should be allowed with registration if it can be proved that the registrant is trained and has a legitimate need for the items to be in his/her possession - much like the sawed-off shotgun. In my mind, it's obvious that the criteria would get more difficult to meet as the potential for destruction becomes more difficult to contain.
 
I think the entire amendment needs to be rewritten to address the obvious change in reality that's taken place since the late 1700s. Back then owning a firearm meant owning a single shot musket which even the most skilled hands took up to 20 seconds to reload, the Founding Fathers didn't have to worry about things like mass murder or the potential killing power a single weapon could give a single person because the technology didn't exist.

Now how it can be written I don't know, but it definitely deserves a serious dialogue where compromises will have to be made by all concerned.
 
I feel like we've had this discussion and only Agent Ferris advocated for private ownership of nukes.

It would be impossible anyway unless you have a billion or so dollars to spend anyway. Who would actually buy one and who sell a product that has no consumer base? If someone was that rich would they really be buying nukes? I doubt it.

Unless I have no idea what I'm talking about it's an empty fear.
 
Last edited:
It would be impossible anyway unless you have a billion or so dollars to spend anyway. Who would actually buy one and who sell a product that has no consumer base? If someone was that rich would they really be buying nukes? I doubt it.

Unless I have no idea what I'm talking about it's an empty fear.

I can think of a few people who would buy a nuclear weapon if they were available on the market
 
I can think of a few people who would buy a nuclear weapon if they were available on the market

Who? Are they countries that just get them anyway? Terrorists? Who?
 
Who? Are they countries that just get them anyway? Terrorists? Who?

I think the leaders of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, North Korea, probably a few others would be interested in purchasing them. Of course they couldn't do it directly, but 3rd party purchasing and smuggling are nothing new.

In fact having the individual freedom to purchase a nuke, which again you say you would never use anyway, would actually be a greater threat to your freedoms since so many would be after US nuclear weapon technology
 
I think the leaders of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, North Korea, probably a few others would be interested in purchasing them. Of course they couldn't do it directly, but 3rd party purchasing and smuggling are nothing new.

In fact having the individual freedom to purchase a nuke, which again you say you would never use anyway, would actually be a greater threat to your freedoms since so many would be after US nuclear weapon technology

All those countries could get them today. Even terrorists can get them if they really wanted them. Making something illegal doesn't stop criminals from getting it.
 
Even terrorists can get them if they really wanted them.

Well they do really want them... and they haven't got them. (Not to say they MIGHT not eventually get them anyway).

You're a little slow off the mark aren't you?
 
All those countries could get them today. Even terrorists can get them if they really wanted them. Making something illegal doesn't stop criminals from getting it.
Well, I'm pretty sure that the amount of effort made 1.) keeping criminals from getting something and 2.) punishing them for having something has a direct impact on how many criminals get whatever it is that they're trying to get. And, the first step in the process is making it illegal. Then, effort has to be spent shutting down supply lines and distribution lines, etc.

If criminals get things that are "illegal" it's often because the term "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean "actively enforced with required resources".
 
lol, you mad?

he-aint-even-mad.jpg
 
I think the leaders of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, North Korea, probably a few others would be interested in purchasing them.

Why would the leaders of Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, and North Korea want nuclear weapons? They already have them.
 
I believe that the 2nd Amendment potentially applies to all small arms which meet the following criteria:

1. Suitable for Infantry Militia use. Specifically, can be carried and operated by one person; of a general type in common use by the US Infantry soldier; does not qualify as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
...OR...
2. Any weapon primarily useful for self-defense, hunting, sport, or other lawful purposes.

Weapon of Mass Destruction: a weapon that cannot be used for individual self-defense against another individual, because of its inherent tendency to affect large numbers of people within an area of effect in an uncontrolled fashion; chiefly toxic, biological, radiological or nuclear in nature.

Weapons that would definitely be protected (for individual use) under the 2A by this definition: knives, swords, sticks, pistols, shotguns, rifles, selective-fire rifles/shotguns/pistols/subguns capable of firing short controlled bursts.

Weapons that might, debateably, be protected under the 2A by this definition: full-auto infantry light machineguns, certain infantry-borne anti-tank or anti-aircraft missile systems... perhaps grenades, grenade-launchers, that sort of thing.

One could reasonably add the caveat to #1 that says "must be capable of damaging only a single target when used by a skillful operator". That would exclude explosives, and perhaps full-auto-only LMGs.

In other words, I think blades, pistols, shotguns and rifles are covered without question. Selective-fire weapons capable of burst fire, probably yes. Heavier stuff is debateable... I wouldn't necessarily object to some more stringent background checks and storage requirements and permits for those.

Well gosh, come to think of it that's not much different from how things are in many or most States already.... you can buy handguns rifles and shotguns with just a quick NICS background check, and you can buy a .50 machine gun if you have a Class III license (which comes with some fairly stringent checks and storage requirements, etc).

The main sticking point seems to be selective-fire rifles.... M-16s, AK47s, M4s, and so forth that are capable of auto or burst fire. Given that those are standard-issue for American Infantry soldiers, considered a small-arm and personal weapon, capable of targeting a single target when used correctly, not a WMD, also used by Police, etc.... I see no reason to restrict ownership to any great degree.

As a matter of strict principle, I think the Fed mandate for NICS checks may violate the 2A.... but on the side of pragmatism I really don't object to it. It's quick, the intrusiveness and infringement is brief and not overly cumbersome, and maybe it even helps a little to keep felons and nutters from legally buying guns, forcing them to turn to the black market.... well yeah when all is said and done it doesn't really keep anybody from illegally getting a gun, but it makes the hoplophobes feel a little safer, so whatever. :lol: :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Why would the leaders of Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, and North Korea want nuclear weapons? They already have them.

I'm talking about US nuclear weapons, which frankly are better made in terms of long term reliability, storage, size, and power. North Korean nukes for example are too large to fit on their missiles, and so far their tests have been "ify" because they can't get the thing to detonate properly. Access to US nuclear weapon technology would solve those problems for them.
 
All those countries could get them today. Even terrorists can get them if they really wanted them. Making something illegal doesn't stop criminals from getting it.

Using that logic, why make anything illegal? Serious question, if the US can't even stop criminals from stealing nuclear weapons hell what laws can we enforce? Might as well throw our bets on the good of humanity.

Also, no those countries cannot just get them today, neither could any terrorist group, precisely because of the security which surrounds them. I'm going to assume you meant "today" to mean "very quickly" because there's no way in hell you meant that literally, as in its only the wishes of the leaders of those countries or different terrorist groups that's stopping these weapons from ending up in their hands. Secondly, no countries or terrorist groups could get at them even quickly or at all, what possible reason do you have to support that kind of conclusion besides your belief that laws are impossible to enforce.
 
I know it is on the poll, but by gosh why are we even talking about nukes?? Nukes have nothing to do with the 2A by any stretch of the imagination.

Guns, yes. Swords and knives, okay. Grenades and mortars, we could debate that maybe. Nukes?? Are you effin' kidding me?


Can we bring the conversation back to something half-ass within the bounds of reason?
 
Last edited:
I feel like we've had this discussion and only Agent Ferris advocated for private ownership of nukes.

Not even I go that far. Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced that national governments should be allowed to own nukes.

On the other hand, if one man can carry it and fire it directly without killing himself in the process, I think any man should be allowed to own it.
 
Not even I go that far. Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced that national governments should be allowed to own nukes.

On the other hand, if one man can carry it and fire it directly without killing himself in the process, I think any man should be allowed to own it.


I know a guy who actually got to play with that bazooka-like portable Tac-Nuke launcher they used to have back in the 70's. He said the instruction manual was hilarious: "Operator is advised to take cover immediately after firing." No ****, Sherlock?? :lamo
 
The thread up on civilians owning fully automatic firearms has me curious. I know we have some very strong supporters of 2nd amendment rights here on the board, and I'm curious how far some of you think the protection of the 2nd amendment extends. What weapons do you believe it should be legal for civilians to own?

Civilians should be able to get their hands on what ever the military can get and there should be no restrictions. Some of the reasons the second amendment exist are to protect the people from the government and for the people to overthrow the government if it became too tyrannical. Therefore the government has no business trying to infringe on people's rights to keep and bear arms.

Technically Tanks and Jets are vehicles not weapons, its the stuff on them that are weapons.
 
Last edited:
It would be impossible anyway unless you have a billion or so dollars to spend anyway. Who would actually buy one and who sell a product that has no consumer base? If someone was that rich would they really be buying nukes? I doubt it.

Unless I have no idea what I'm talking about it's an empty fear.

Billion? What makes you think it's that high? No one is advocating MAKING your own nuke. You simply buy an existing one. Furthermore, have you seen the state of Russian finances? Not to mention how poorly their military is paid? The same military who guards the nukes?
 
Who (over 200 years ago) could of predicted our current weapons we have today, for starters. They couldn't so therefore the constitution has no say on the matter. How does a vehicle mounted weapon help you defend your home? and for that matter, from who!?
 
Who (over 200 years ago) could of predicted our current weapons we have today, for starters. They couldn't so therefore the constitution has no say on the matter. How does a vehicle mounted weapon help you defend your home? and for that matter, from who!?

These guys:

d8ec3dde11b7cb9ca398d473d68be27e.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom