Why Nuclear Weapons are not a Second Amendment Issue

[Rucker61]

If that's ALL a soldier has going to war, he isn't going to win it. If government wants to get tyrannical on you, you are going to need something a little more than just your piddly shotgun or semiautomatic, even if it has a bump stock on it. You think it's going to do anything against that M-1 tank barreling toward your house? LOL.

Are you familiar with LIC or asymmetric warfare? Besides, if the government gets tyrannical, what's to say that some of those tanks won't be on our side? The military swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution; a government that sends the military against its citizens is attacking that Constitution.

 

[ataraxia]

Scalia was trying to get Kennedy to sign on to the Heller decision. Some of those limits are not controversial such as some state laws. You do understand that without the commerce clause expansion, there could be no federal gun laws due to the tenth amendment

Nope. Scalia wrote that as part of the decision. It was not part of any negotiation. That's his interpretation of the Constitution. Don't make stuff up.

 

[Absentglare]

Scalia was trying to get Kennedy to sign on to the Heller decision. Some of those limits are not controversial such as some state laws. You do understand that without the commerce clause expansion, there could be no federal gun laws due to the tenth amendment

That's another lie. Without the commerce clause, they could have easily used other language in the constitution. Perhaps you simply don't understand the spirit of the constitution.

 

[ataraxia]

Are you familiar with LIC or asymmetric warfare? Besides, if the government gets tyrannical, what's to say that some of those tanks won't be on our side? The military swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution; a government that sends the military against its citizens is attacking that Constitution.

So if the military is going to be on your side, they will be. You having a handgun or semiautomatic or full auto really won't make a lick of difference. When it comes to military operations, those are all just cute little toys. If you are worried about government tyranny, you have to be thinking about the kind of weapons which could really stand up to that kind of tyranny. Otherwise, you are just playing in the sand.

 

[TurtleDude]

You must have not understood what i wrote. Your continued failure to rebut a single point speaks for itself.

you are lying yet again and what cops have has uber-importance to what civilians who are not cops ought to be able to own- cop weapons help those firearms meet both the Heller tests and establish an estoppel argument against gun banning government bureaucrats or politicians

 

[TurtleDude]

So if the military is going to be on your side, they will be. You having a handgun or semiautomatic or full auto really won't make a lick of difference. When it comes to military operations, those are all just cute little toys. If you are worried about government tyranny, you have to be thinking about the kind of weapons which could really stand up to that kind of tyranny. Otherwise, you are just playing in the sand.

are there people who are immune to small arms fire?

 

[Rucker61]

A well regulated militia, something like the National Guard, has full auto guns, tanks, and artillery.

________________
You really want your kooky neighbor to have free access to these weapons in common use by our well regulated militia?

A well regulated militia, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is whatever Congress decides that it is, and currently that's codified in 10 USC 311:

"10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Note that the 2nd Amendment and Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano don't protect the weapons of the militia, as that is completely under the auspices of Congress per Article 1 Section 8. It protects the weaponry of the citizens, which are all "bearable arms" that are either "in common use for lawful purposes" or "have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia".

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope. Scalia wrote that as part of the decision. It was not part of any negotiation. That's his interpretation of the Constitution.

so what gun regulation pending before the court was upheld in Heller?

do you understand the term DICTA?

 

[Rucker61]

So if the military is going to be on your side, they will be. You having a handgun or semiautomatic or full auto really won't make a lick of difference. When it comes to military operations, those are all just cute little toys. If you are worried about government tyranny, you have to be thinking about the kind of weapons which could really stand up to that kind of tyranny. Otherwise, you are just playing in the sand.

I didn't buy my weapons to fight government tyranny.

 

[TurtleDude]

I didn't buy my weapons to fight government tyranny.

me neither.

 

[Absentglare]

you must have forgotten what you wrote

Nope, and your inability to explain what you mean speaks for itself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope, and your inability to explain what you mean speaks for itself.

so you really believe that You are more knowledgeable on gun issues and that your posts are more edifying when it comes to the subject?

 

[Absentglare]

you are lying yet again and what cops have has uber-importance to what civilians who are not cops ought to be able to own- cop weapons help those firearms meet both the Heller tests and establish an estoppel argument against gun banning government bureaucrats or politicians

You still do not understand the argument. In a discussion on the limits of what weapons are justified in a civilian setting, the actual weapons that cops currently have access to are IRRELEVANT, because we're not arguing about what they already have access to, we're arguing about what they should have access to.

 

[Absentglare]

so you really believe that You are more knowledgeable on gun issues and that your posts are more edifying when it comes to the subject?

No, that's just your strawman.

 

[ataraxia]

are there people who are immune to small arms fire?

You're talking about bringing in a knife to a gunfight.

If you're gonna have a deterrent against potential government tyranny, you gotta have the right tools for the job.

 

[ataraxia]

I didn't buy my weapons to fight government tyranny.

That's the #1 reason given for why there should never be any limits on any arms.

So either you think there should never be any limits to arms, in which case attack helicopters and nuclear ordnances are fair game for civilians (so that we can fight potential government tyranny tit for tat and pose an effective deterrent, as was the original intention of the 2nd amendment), or you think there should be some limits for what a regular civilian should need firearms for, in which case they don't need anything more than a small caliber handgun for home use, and single shot rifles for hunting purposes.

It seems bizarre that you somehow read the 2nd amendment and your takeaway from it is that, for example, "natural rights" are that we should only have seimautomatics with bump stocks, but not full auto weapons or grenade launchers (or wherever you personally want to draw the line. I keep forgetting where each of you guys' personal opinions on where the line should be drawn should be). Seems like kind of a random line to draw, based more on personal tastes, opinions, and habits, than anything inherent in the Constitution or 'natural law".

 

[ataraxia]

A well regulated militia, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is whatever Congress decides that it is, and currently that's codified in 10 USC 311:

So it it's whatever Congress decides it is, I am not sure then why the argument is being made that it's somehow against "natural law" or the Constitution for the Congress to ban bump stocks or high capacity magazine clips.

 

[Rucker61]

So it it's whatever Congress decides it is, I am not sure then why the argument is being made that it's somehow against "natural law" or the Constitution for the Congress to ban bump stocks or high capacity magazine clips.

They can ban those for the militia. They are not empowered to ban those for the citizenry.

 

[Rucker61]

That's the #1 reason given for why there should never be any limits on any arms.

#1 as measured by whom? Posters on the internet?

So either you think there should never be any limits to arms, in which case attack helicopters and nuclear ordnances are fair game for civilians (so that we can fight potential government tyranny tit for tat and pose an effective deterrent, as was the original intention of the 2nd amendment), or you think there should be some limits for what a regular civilian should need firearms for, in which case they don't need anything more than a small caliber handgun for home use, and single shot rifles for hunting purposes.

No, I don't believe either of your scenarios are the only choices. "Need" doesn't play into what a regular civilian is allowed to own, and hunting/self defense in the home certainly is too limiting. According to Congress in the 1968 Gun Control Act, what should be legal for a civilian to own, in other words, protected from restriction by the government, are "firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity".

It seems bizarre that you somehow read the 2nd amendment and your takeaway from it is that, for example, "natural rights" are that we should only have seimautomatics with bump stocks, but not full auto weapons or grenade launchers (or wherever you personally want to draw the line. I keep forgetting where each of you guys' personal opinions on where the line should be drawn should be). Seems like kind of a random line to draw, based more on personal tastes, opinions, and habits, than anything inherent in the Constitution or 'natural law".

According to the Constitution as written, the government has not been empowered to restrict the arms of the people. Subsequent actions by Congress and SCOTUS have created powers where there were none intended, and as I don't intend to either rise up in armed resurrection or ignore those laws that would have me incarcerated, I'll abide by those restrictions per Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano. I'll vote against and lobby to prevent new unconstitutional restrictions and overturn existing unconstitutional restrictions. There is no reason that a rifle with a 16" barrel is unrestricted while the exact same rifle with a 15" barrel is treated as a machine gun is.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're talking about bringing in a knife to a gunfight.

If you're gonna have a deterrent against potential government tyranny, you gotta have the right tools for the job.

so what are the right tools and what expertise do you have in using them?

 

[ataraxia]

so what gun regulation pending before the court was upheld in Heller?

It looks like in issuing his opinion in the Heller case, Scalia left it kinda open:

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

But whatever it is, it's clear that he did not think it was "natural" to have no absolutely prohibitions or regulations on it whatsoever.

do you understand the term DICTA?

No. Please explain what that is. Never heard of it.

 

[ataraxia]

so what are the right tools and what expertise do you have in using them?

Leave it free and I will decide what I want to buy and which I will develop expertise in.

I may want the freedom to go to the grocery store like this:



Who are you to ask me questions about it? This is what is my natural rights under the Constitution, right?

I bet the checkout line I stand in is going to move extra fast, huh? :lol:

 

[Rucker61]

Leave it free and I will decide what I want to buy and which I will develop expertise in.

I may want the freedom to go to the grocery store like this:

View attachment 67224926

Who are you to ask me questions about it? This is what is my natural rights under the Constitution, right?

That would be brandishing. That's a crime.

 

[ataraxia]

They can ban those for the militia. They are not empowered to ban those for the citizenry.

Wut?

Man, now you are really going wild with your imagination. Where does it say that in the Constitution or any of the court cases?

So if true, they can ban nukes for the militia, but not for the citizenry too.

You are not making any sense.

 

[Rucker61]

Wut?

Man, now you are really going wild with your imagination. Where does it say that in the Constitution or any of the court cases?

So if true, they can ban nukes for the militia, but not for the citizenry too.

You are not making any sense.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has an enumerated power to limit or restrict the arms of citizens at all?