# How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.

Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


----------



## BackAgain (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?

Good idea. I think we should all have us some.


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


We should be allowed to have nukes. Anything less is an infringement.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> We should be allowed to have nukes. Anything less is an infringement.


For those who say the 2nd amendment does not allow restrictions on arms, I would say you are right.


----------



## Esdraelon (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.


Do you know what a coward you sound like?  Maybe it's just an expression of hate for others you disagree with but the way you folks bitch and whine about your neighbors refusing to accept "government protection" from all the dangers they warn you of, makes you sound like you cower hoping someday the government will tell you it's safe to come out and live.  Pathetic...


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 2, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> We should be allowed to have nukes. Anything less is an infringement.


We can. Good look getting the material for it though.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> For those who say the 2nd amendment does not allow restrictions on arms, I would say you are right.


The 2nd amendment also does not allow restrictions on arms. Weird huh?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


Look at your control freak ass.

You're such a scaredy-cat.  Oh no. There's an epidemic of drone attacks. Mass drone killers are soon to destroy us all.

Government save us.


----------



## BackAgain (Aug 2, 2022)

I just read that GUN CONTROL only means using both hands.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> Do you know what a coward you sound like?  Maybe it's just an expression of hate for others you disagree with but the way you folks bitch and whine about your neighbors refusing to accept "government protection" from all the dangers they warn you of, makes you sound like you cower hoping someday the government will tell you it's safe to come out and live.  Pathetic...


What in the hell are you talking about. 
I believe in gun ownership with common sense restrictions.
I say we have been putting restrictions on arms as the arms, available, have become more deadly.
I say if you feel arms should not be restricted then you are a coward if you don't fight for weaponized drones.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?
> 
> Good idea. I think we should all have us some.


Weaponized drones are an arm. The 2nd amendment is about arms, not guns.


----------



## kaz (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?



You can't take a gun and aim it at a person or a crowd threatening people who haven't threatened you.

Sure, you should be able to own a weaponized drone, but that doesn't waive the right of people to not be threatened by any weapon, including weaponized drones.

Fly it in your yard is perfectly fine.  If you take it outside your property, you are by definition on the property of others and subject to their rules ...

... like any other weapon.  I don't really get the point of the question, it's kind of no duh


----------



## kaz (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Weaponized drones are an arm. The 2nd amendment is about arms, not guns.



Guns are arms


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Weaponized drones are an arm. The 2nd amendment is about arms, not guns.


Right.  Shall not be infringed. 

what are you crying about?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

kaz said:


> You can't take a gun and aim it at a person or a crowd threatening people who haven't threatened you.
> 
> Sure, you should be able to own a weaponized drone, but that doesn't waive the right of people to not be threatened by any weapon, including weaponized drones.
> 
> ...


Your opinion is the 2nd amendment covers weaponized drones.
Go try and buy one and see what happens.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Right.  Shall not be infringed.
> 
> what are you crying about?


The government will not allow citizens to buy weaponized drones.
Start fighting for the right to buy them.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

kaz said:


> Guns are arms


Guns are arms but many other weapons are arms.
Almost all other arms but guns have been restricted from being owned by citizens.
What is with that.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 2, 2022)

Did y'all lefties fall asleep in Civics 101? The Bill of Rights only applies within in the geographical limits of the U.S. Maybe that's why y'all lefties keep getting arrested for drug possession in foreign countries.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

whitehall said:


> Did y'all lefties fall asleep in Civics 101? The Bill of Rights only applies within in the geographical limits of the U.S. Maybe that's why y'all lefties keep getting arrested for drug possession in foreign countries.


I am asking, does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones for US citizens within the USA.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


Repeal the NFA


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> What in the hell are you talking about.
> I believe in gun ownership with common sense restrictions.
> I say we have been putting restrictions on arms as the arms, available, have become more deadly.
> I say if you feel arms should not be restricted then you are a coward if you don't fight for weaponized drones.





ElmerMudd said:


> I believe in gun ownership with common sense restrictions.


Whose version of 'common sense'?


----------



## BackAgain (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Weaponized drones are an arm. The 2nd amendment is about arms, not guns.


I don’t recall asking or expressing any confusion.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Repeal the NFA


Hell ya!


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Whose version of 'common sense'?


Common sense is try and keep fire arms out of the hands of those designated dangerous. Mentally ill, criminals, young kids. Required registration, background checks.
Mandate training if you own a gun.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


It sounds like it would be a great shooting sport.  More fun than rifle and pistol target shooting.

Can you articulate a reason that my government should take my money to buy itself weaponized drones, and then use those weaponized drones to prevent from buying a weaponized drone and that I should be happy with that division of labor?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It sounds like it would be a great shooting sport.  More fun than rifle and pistol target shooting.
> 
> Can you articulate a reason that my government should take my money to buy itself weaponized drones, and then use those weaponized drones to prevent from buying a weaponized drone and that I should be happy with that division of labor?


Just looking for your opinion


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Common sense is try and keep fire arms out of the hands of those designated dangerous. Mentally ill, criminals, young kids. Required registration, background checks.
> Mandate training if you own a gun.





ElmerMudd said:


> Required registration,


nope



ElmerMudd said:


> background checks.


Uniiversal?
nope



ElmerMudd said:


> Mandate training if you own a gun.



Nope



ElmerMudd said:


> Mentally ill, criminals, young kids.



got a magic wand?

How else do you keep firearms out of their hands?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Common sense is try and keep fire arms out of the hands of those designated dangerous. Mentally ill, criminals, young kids. Required registration, background checks.
> Mandate training if you own a gun.


Hunter Biden comes to mind


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> nope
> 
> 
> Uniiversal?
> ...


why do those restrictions concern you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> why do those restrictions concern you.


Hunter Biden


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> why do those restrictions concern you.



violates the Second.

"*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> The government will not allow citizens to buy weaponized drones.
> Start fighting for the right to buy them.


I am.

I intend to have all gun laws repealed.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> violates the Second.
> 
> "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"*


The 2nd amendment has been destroyed. The only arms a citizen can buy are guns. 
All deserving citizens will get guns. Who will be harmed by the restrictions.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> The 2nd amendment has been destroyed. The only arms a citizen can buy are guns.
> All deserving citizens will get guns. Who will be harmed by the restrictions.





ElmerMudd said:


> The 2nd amendment has been destroyed.


not yet, no thanks to people like you.



ElmerMudd said:


> The only arms a citizen can buy are guns.



naive, aren't you?



ElmerMudd said:


> All deserving citizens will get guns.



deserving'?



ElmerMudd said:


> Who will be harmed by the restrictions.



ask the citizens of any country that had to register their firearms, only to have them confiscated


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 2, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> The 2nd amendment has been destroyed. The only arms a citizen can buy are guns.
> All deserving citizens will get guns. Who will be harmed by the restrictions.


So, I can buy a machine gun manufactured after 1986?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 2, 2022)

kaz said:


> Guns are arms


any weapon is considered an arm.....


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> not yet, no thanks to people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are 400,000 million guns in the USA. The government could never confiscate all guns. That argument is long gone. If we ever have a high government official that says let's confiscate all guns, we will have crazier people running the country than we do now. Really crazy. If the government wants to control the people they will use cyber techniques and weaponized drones. 
The countries, you talk about, populations and number of guns were miniscule.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 2, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, I can buy a machine gun manufactured after 1986?


Yes, with proper government registration. Registration and certificate of sale is MANDATED.
Try buying a tank.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Yes, with proper government registration. Registration and certificate of sale is MANDATED.
> Try buying a tank.


No you can't but I believe you were trying to say yes you can if they were manufactured before 1986. 
And you can buy a tank 








						Top 10 Military Tanks For Sale To Civilians - Military Machine
					

Military tanks for sale to civilians including M4 tank for sale, Leopard tank for sale and even WWII tanks for sale. Enjoy Army tanks for sale in America.




					militarymachine.com


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?


The weapon, not the vehicle, is protected by the 2nd.
If you have a right to (weapon) you have a right to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes.
The platform does not matter.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> I believe in gun ownership with common sense restrictions.


99.9% of the time, those who talk about "common sense" restrictions support restrictions that contain no sense whatsoever.


> Required registration, background checks.
> Mandate training if you own a gun.


My point, demonstrated.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Go try and buy one and see what happens.


It's not hard to buy a drone with a ~25lb payload - you just need s credit card.


----------



## kaz (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Your opinion is the 2nd amendment covers weaponized drones.
> Go try and buy one and see what happens.



What would that prove again?   I don't get it.   You asked what I think.   How would that change it?   You appear to just be your snotty, racist self.


----------



## kaz (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Guns are arms but many other weapons are arms.
> Almost all other arms but guns have been restricted from being owned by citizens.
> What is with that.



Again, you're just being snotty and racist without any point to the discussion.

So let's clear this up.   You asked what we think, then when I answered, you switched to what our government says.   Are you asking what we think or what your beloved government thinks because those are different questions and you're flipping between them.

Do I know what I think?   Yes
Do I know what our government does?  Yes

So which are you asking, racist?


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


I would say that technically a weapon that you can use from a remote location is not the same as bearing a weapon on your person.  It's more akin to a remote controlled bomb

And the FAA has jurisdiction over the skies


----------



## kaz (Aug 3, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> any weapon is considered an arm.....



What I said was a lot more narrow than that


----------



## kaz (Aug 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I would say that technically a weapon that you can use from a remote location is not the same as bearing a weapon on your person.  It's more akin to a remote controlled bomb
> 
> And the FAA has jurisdiction over the skies



I made the same point.  If you are careless with a gun, then you are responsible for that.   Same with a drone.  That drones are Constitutionally protected does not allow you to threaten or endanger others any more than guns being Constitutionally protected allows you to wield it unsafely.   It's a lot harder to fly a weaponized drone and not threaten anyone, but it is possible, particularly on your own property.

If the question were would there be more restrictions on weaponized drones not threatening or endangering people, the, then the answer would be yes.    But are they Constitutionally protected by the second amendment, the answer is also yes.

Democrats live in the wild west.   They think if we allow weaponized drones then they can shoot em up just like Democrats think gun owners are all Yosemite Sam.  Democrats are idiots ... and racists ...


----------



## Captain Caveman (Aug 3, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> violates the Second.
> 
> "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"*


It'll get scrapped on day, so start stocking up on anal tampons and tissues.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No you can't but I believe you were trying to say yes you can if they were manufactured before 1986.
> And you can buy a tank
> 
> 
> ...


Well you almost got me on this one but you can buy the tank but you cannot buy any of the munitions to make the tank a functional "arms". It is liking be able to buy an AR-15 but you cannot buy any bullets.
Am I not correct?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 3, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> It's not hard to buy a drone with a ~25lb payload - you just need s credit card.


Here again you cannot buy a weaponized drone. Like you can buy the gun but not the bullets.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I would say that technically a weapon that you can use from a remote location is not the same as bearing a weapon on your person.  It's more akin to a remote controlled bomb
> 
> And the FAA has jurisdiction over the skies


The definition of "arms" from the time the bill of rights was written can safely said to be "weapons of war"
An armed drone can be called a weapon of war.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 3, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The weapon, not the vehicle, is protected by the 2nd.
> If you have a right to (weapon) you have a right to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes.
> The platform does not matter.


The weapon that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri was a Hellfire missile. Go and try and buy a Hellfire missile.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Here again you cannot buy a weaponized drone.


But I -can- buy a drone and weaponize it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Well you almost got me on this one but you can buy the tank but you cannot buy any of the munitions to make the tank a functional "arms"


Sure you can.  NFA1934 classes these weapons as  "destructive devices" and require you to pay a tax.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Just looking for your opinion


My opinion is that weaponized drone target shooting sounds like a great sport.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> The definition of "arms" from the time the bill of rights was written can safely said to be "weapons of war"
> An armed drone can be called a weapon of war.


Maybe
Maybe not

You can certainly possess them but it may be illegal to fly a drone over someone else's property and anything being flown over 400 feet needs to have a flight plan submitted.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 3, 2022)

whitehall said:


> Did y'all lefties fall asleep in Civics 101? The Bill of Rights only applies within in the geographical limits of the U.S. Maybe that's why y'all lefties keep getting arrested for drug possession in foreign countries.


Some maintain the "rights" are from "God". How can human geographical limits infringe on any such deity?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Well you almost got me on this one but you can buy the tank but you cannot buy any of the munitions to make the tank a functional "arms". It is liking be able to buy an AR-15 but you cannot buy any bullets.
> Am I not correct?


I know people who have to know how and the components to make it so there's always that.


----------



## kaz (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> The weapon that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri was a Hellfire missile. Go and try and buy a Hellfire missile.



No one has the right to demand they be provided with weapons, that isn't what rights mean.    I mean duh.   So build a Hellfire missile or persuade someone to sell you one if you have enough money, but you don't have the right to demand you be provided with one.   The obvious is just completely out of your capabilities


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 3, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> It'll get scrapped on day, so start stocking up on anal tampons and tissues.


and tell us, genius.

what is necessary to remove an Amendment, and why you think (?) the Second will suffer that fate?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I know people who have to know how and the components to make it so there's always that.


Sure, but it is not legal.
Unfortunately there can be a crazy citizen that gets their hands on a nuke. But it is not legal.
I think it could happen some day.
Will the NRA fight for his right to possess arms; a nuke?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Sure, but it is not legal.
> Unfortunately there can be a crazy citizen that gets their hands on a nuke. But it is not legal.
> I think it could happen some day.
> Will the NRA fight for his right to possess arms; a nuke?


It doesn't matter when the time comes.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 3, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?


The Second Amendment right is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, such as weaponized drones.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment right is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, such as weaponized drones.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infridged. So is the 13th unlimited and absolute?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Aug 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment right is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, such as weaponized drones.


Why do you think that the government could enforce a ban on weaponized drones any better then they have enforced their ban on felons possessing firearms, for example?

If my drone is legal, and my Derringer is legal, why should be suddenly illegal if I attach my derringer to my drone?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Why do you think that the government could enforce a ban on weaponized drones any better then they have enforced their ban on felons possessing firearms, for example?
> 
> If my drone is legal, and my Derringer is legal, why should be suddenly illegal if I attach my derringer to my drone?


Because the FAA can regulate the air traffic.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Aug 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Because the FAA can regulate the air traffic.


I asked how they can enforce it, not the legal justification for regulating it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 3, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> We should be allowed to have nukes. Anything less is an infringement.



Not at all. 
The right is the right to own a weapon. As long as you have A weapon, then your right has been fulfilled. If you have a gun, they can limit other things.


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 4, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Not at all.
> The right is the right to own a weapon. As long as you have A weapon, then your right has been fulfilled. If you have a gun, they can limit other things.


You must be a communist. Now go away, komrade.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


Armed aircraft are already illegal.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 4, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> We should be allowed to have nukes. Anything less is an infringement.


Ignorant nonsense.


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ignorant nonsense.


GREAT COMEBACK! For a 10 year old.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 4, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Not at all.
> The right is the right to own a weapon. As long as you have A weapon, then your right has been fulfilled. If you have a gun, they can limit other things.


Correct.

For example, one has the right to possess a handgun, which is within the scope of the Second Amendment; an armed drone, not.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


Just an invented fantasy.
It'll be handled like an automobile [ever hear of a car bomb?,a jeep with a machine gun? combat pick up trucks with rocket launchers on the back? very destructive] all drones could or will be required to be licensed like an automobile, equipping them with weapons will be like equipping your car with weapons...
...did you think this was a valid argument or did you get it from the media? [who never has to explain their position] either way it shows desperation in an attempt to get around the constitution.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 4, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Armed aircraft are already illegal.


Is that not infringing on the 2nd amendment. Armed aircraft are arms. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was for state militias and citizens to be able to stand up to a rogue government with equal arms. More important than a rogue US government was for state militias and citizens to be armed with all arms to fight an attacking nation. The revolution was won with armed militias and citizens not a US Army.
If a rogue US government or an invading foreign army we would be toast without equal arms, not equal guns.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 4, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Just an invented fantasy.
> It'll be handled like an automobile [ever hear of a car bomb?,a jeep with a machine gun? combat pick up trucks with rocket launchers on the back? very destructive] all drones could or will be required to be licensed like an automobile, equipping them with weapons will be like equipping your car with weapons...
> ...did you think this was a valid argument or did you get it from the media? [who never has to explain their position] either way it shows desperation in an attempt to get around the constitution.


just for you
Is that not infringing on the 2nd amendment. Armed aircraft are arms. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was for state militias and citizens to be able to stand up to a rogue government with equal arms. More important than a rogue US government was for state militias and citizens to be armed with all arms to fight an attacking nation. The revolution was won with armed militias and citizens not a US Army.
If a rogue US government or an invading foreign army we would be toast without equal arms, not equal guns.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> just for you
> Is that not infringing on the 2nd amendment. Armed aircraft are arms. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was for state militias and citizens to be able to stand up to a rogue government with equal arms. More important than a rogue US government was for state militias and citizens to be armed with all arms to fight an attacking nation. The revolution was won with armed militias and citizens not a US Army.
> If a rogue US government or an invading foreign army we would be toast without equal arms, not equal guns.


This seems to completely avoid my response...a drone is no different than an automobile [or an airplane or a helicopter] it is no different than owning a boat or ship all of which do not require 2A protections.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 4, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> This seems to completely avoid my response...a drone is no different than an automobile [or an airplane or a helicopter] it is no different than owning a boat or ship all of which do not require 2A protections.


I agree. But if you weaponize any of the mentioned other laws apply. Buy a drone and try and put a Hell Fire missile on it. A drone is not "arms" but a hell fire missile is.
My point is that people say the rights of the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed. A Hell Fire missile is arms. The 2nd amendment should protect Hell Fire missiles. The 2nd amendment has been infringed by the government not allowing more "arms" than they allow. It is the way it should be with the arms of the 21st century.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> My point is that people say the rights of the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed. A Hell Fire missile is arms.


What weapons constitute 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd, and what weapons do not?
How do you know?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Aug 4, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Whose version of 'common sense'?


Those who are not a gun nut.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 4, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Those who are not a gun nut.





Captain Caveman said:


> Those who are not a gun nut.




Guess that leaves you out


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Is that not infringing on the 2nd amendment. Armed aircraft are arms. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was for state militias and citizens to be able to stand up to a rogue government with equal arms. More important than a rogue US government was for state militias and citizens to be armed with all arms to fight an attacking nation. The revolution was won with armed militias and citizens not a US Army.
> If a rogue US government or an invading foreign army we would be toast without equal arms, not equal guns.


It's illegal to arm police aircraft, too.  I don't see it as an infringement.  If you agree, then we found common ground.  Right?  After all, flying an airplane isn't a right.  Is it?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> I agree. But if you weaponize any of the mentioned other laws apply.


and that is what will happen with drones [if it hasn't already]



ElmerMudd said:


> Buy a drone and try and put a Hell Fire missile on it. A drone is not "arms" but a hell fire missile is.


which is the flaw in the argument, the drone not being "arms" is not covered by the second amendment


ElmerMudd said:


> My point is that people say the rights of the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed. A Hell Fire missile is arms. The 2nd amendment should protect Hell Fire missiles.
> The 2nd amendment has been infringed by the government not allowing more "arms" than they allow.


this is proof that the drones are not what is in question here, it is just a way to revisit previous constitutional violation arguments in hopes of committing more constitutional injustices


ElmerMudd said:


> It is the way it should be with the arms of the 21st century.


I knew that was the real intent if the thread and that drones were merely the excuse to get there...why didn't you just make this the title of the thread and then come out with this right away?...
...using constitutional violations to justify further constitutional violations concedes that the arguments for enacting those laws have no merit themselves.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Why do you think that the government could enforce a ban on weaponized drones any better then they have enforced their ban on felons possessing firearms, for example?
> 
> If my drone is legal, and my Derringer is legal, why should be suddenly illegal if I attach my derringer to my drone?


Non sequitur

There are arms whose possession are not within the scope of Second Amendment protections.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 4, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> You must be a communist. Now go away, komrade.



Wonderful. Anything I say that you don't like, you come out with "You must be a communist".

Why don't you actually try participating in this adult discussion instead? Or maybe you're worried you'll find out things you don't want to know.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Is that not infringing on the 2nd amendment. Armed aircraft are arms. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was for state militias and citizens to be able to stand up to a rogue government with equal arms. More important than a rogue US government was for state militias and citizens to be armed with all arms to fight an attacking nation. The revolution was won with armed militias and citizens not a US Army.
> If a rogue US government or an invading foreign army we would be toast without equal arms, not equal guns.



No, it's not interfering with the 2A. 

You need to understand the 2A.

The 2A is a limit on the power of the government. It doesn't give any right. It protects the rights by preventing the government from doing something. 

The right to keep arms is the right to own a weapon. The US govt cannot prevent people from being able to own a weapon. If they prevent you from owning nukes, but you can get a handgun, then you are able to own a weapon. Hence they have not infringed on the 2A.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Aug 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Non sequitur
> 
> There are arms whose possession are not within the scope of Second Amendment protections.


Here's the scope of the second amendment: arms.

Even taking a non-absolutist position, there is no compelling interest in banning a drone that fires a caliber of round in common use.


----------



## Peace (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?


Uzi, Tommy Gun and so on are restricted and classified as weapons needing more requirements before owning.

As for you question stop being stupid.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 4, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I just read that GUN CONTROL only means using both hands.


----------



## Peace (Aug 4, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, it's not interfering with the 2A.
> 
> You need to understand the 2A.
> 
> ...


The weapon is not unlimited and can be limited and has been for many years.

Many people argue this stupidity and all I will say again if they can regulate the ownership of a Uzi or Tommy Gun then they can regulate other firearms…


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

kaz said:


> You can't take a gun and aim it at a person or a crowd threatening people who haven't threatened you.
> 
> Sure, you should be able to own a weaponized drone, but that doesn't waive the right of people to not be threatened by any weapon, including weaponized drones.
> 
> ...


Interesting point.  If a neighbor flies a weaponized drone onto my property or even on his property but where it could attack me then I am justified in shooting him dead with my rifle.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Yes, with proper government registration. Registration and certificate of sale is MANDATED.
> Try buying a tank.


What's the purpose of registration if not confiscation?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infridged. So is the 13th unlimited and absolute?


Apparently it is not unlimited and absolute; At least this report claims that the United States has more slaves today than the UK, Portugal, The Netherlands, etc., imported into North America from Africa.









						Over 400,000 people living in 'modern slavery' in US, report finds
					

The report, by the Global Slavery Index, also estimates most victims live in Asia, with North Korea the highest globally




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Seymour Flops (Aug 4, 2022)

Now that I think about it, a weaponized drone is perfect for home defense.

Put a transom window over your bedroom door.  The transom is open at night, while the reinforced door is locked.



 

Home invasion?  No problem!

Fly the drone over the transom, shoot an intruder with a crossbow bolt, and fly back to the room for a re-load.  You and your spouse are safe and the intruders die or run away before they can harm your children.   

I suppose you could mount a single shotgun barrel, but the first shot would likely knock the drone out of the air.  Still, that could work as the opening shot, or the opening two shots if you and your spouse work together.  Honestly, I'm picturing that after the first two home invaders drop from drone shots, the rest will lose their spit and light out.

This is why weaponized drone shooting would be a great sport.  Even more fun than a defensive shooting range.  Have fun and practice a useful skill.

This is why I love the U.S. Constitution.  At least the second amendment.  It's so clear and unambiguous about how the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Aug 5, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Guess that leaves you out


A gun nut's religion is guns, which makes them say retarded things to support guns everywhere in society. That includes you.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> A gun nut's religion is guns, which makes them say retarded things to support guns everywhere in society. That includes you.





Captain Caveman said:


> A gun nut's religion is guns,



guns are more a part of your religion than mine.

You are far more obsessed with them than I am.


----------



## ralfy (Aug 5, 2022)

Rights may be abridged for various reasons. Look up the SC reference to that in light of the Tenth.


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> For example, one has the right to possess a handgun, which is within the scope of the Second Amendment; an armed drone, not.


Where does it say that in the 2nd?


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 5, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Wonderful. Anything I say that you don't like, you come out with "You must be a communist".
> 
> Why don't you actually try participating in this adult discussion instead? Or maybe you're worried you'll find out things you don't want to know.


You want to infringe my 2nd rights, you must be either a Democrat or a commie, which is it?


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones? Weaponized drones are one of the most effective "arms" in the world.
> 
> Is the NRA going to allow the government to restrict weaponized drones? A weaponized drone is not a "rifle' but if you are going to protect the 2nd amendment how can you allow one of the most effective "arms" to be restricted?





I just went out and bought one!

Yaaaay ME!


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2022)

ralfy said:


> Rights may be abridged for various reasons. Look up the SC reference to that in light of the Tenth.


If you're going to make the claim, then you provide the links.  And, even without links if it were true, you should be able to on your own explain how, in light of the Tenth, rights can be abridged.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> Where does it say that in the 2nd?


M14 Shooter oft argues that the 2nd Amendment only applies to arms in common use and also not to extra dangerous weapons.  Many other so-called, self-proclaimed-yet-fake, supporters of the 2nd Amendment on here have made the same arguments.  So, according to many here, since a drone is not in common use as a weapon it can be banned.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Non sequitur
> 
> There are arms whose possession are not within the scope of Second Amendment protections.


Assault weapons are protected


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> Where does it say that in the 2nd?


Back in the 80s the anti gun nuts wanted to ban handguns.
*Anti-gun groups’ handgun ban strategy today*—During the 1970s and early 1980s, anti-gun groups in the U.S. sought a ban on handguns or, as that goal seemed out of reach, compact handguns. In the mid-1970s, the Brady Campaign, then called the National Coalition to Control Handguns, called for “A ban on the manufacture, sale, and importation of all handguns and handgun ammunition [and] a buy-back program whereby gun owners would be reimbursed for turning their guns over to the government.”[9] Soon, the group outlined its strategy to achieve the ban: “[O]ne step at a time. . . . Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition...totally illegal.”[10] In 1981, the leader of the group, without declaring his ultimate purpose, wrote, “We should face the simple fact that licensing and registration [of gun owners and guns] are, or should be, duties of citizenship.”[11]

In 1988, the New Right Watch (now known as the Violence Policy Center, or VPC), led by a former staffer of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, argued that gun control groups should change their strategy. It said, to “strengthen the handgun restriction lobby,” gun control supporters should focus not on handguns, but on “assault weapons.” It continued, “It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an ‘old’ debate. . . . [T]he issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Assault weapons . . . are a new topic.


----------



## kaz (Aug 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Interesting point.  If a neighbor flies a weaponized drone onto my property or even on his property but where it could attack me then I am justified in shooting him dead with my rifle.



"Could attack" is too subjective.    He has to be threatening you.  His drone "could attack" you flying around his yard, but that is meaningless unless he's threatening you with it.    If he flies it into your yard without permission, then he made your case he threatened you a lot easier.

Again exactly the same with a gun.   He "could attack" you with it if he has it in his yard, but you can't kill him unless he's threatening you with it.  Same thing.

I think you understand, I don't know why you phrased it so poorly


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> M14 Shooter oft argues that the 2nd Amendment only applies to arms in common use and also not to extra dangerous weapons.


The Scotsman agrees that not all weapons are protected by the 2nd.
Thus, he agree there is a line somewhere that separates protected weapons from non-protected weapons.
So, Scotsman:
Where is that line, and how do you know?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The Scotsman agrees that not all weapons are protected by the 2nd.
> Thus, he agree there is a line somewhere that separates protected weapons from non-protected weapons.
> So, Scotsman:
> Where is that line, and how do you know?


The line was drawn in 1939 US v Miller any weapon that would serve efficiently and maintain an effective militia and supplied by the citizen is protected by the second amendment. And FYI the weapon not protected according to the Miller court was a sawed off shotgun. Side note Jack Miller originally won his case but on appeal an no defendant to show up during the appeals process the ruling was against Jack Miller but Jack Miller was never heard from again


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The line was drawn in 1939 US v Miller any weapon that would serve efficiently and maintain an effective militia and supplied by the citizen is protected by the second amendment.


You clearly have not noticed -- the Scotsman does not rexognize the USSC as the authority on the issue.
The Constitution, see, is the authority.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You clearly have not noticed -- the Scotsman does not rexognize the USSC as the authority on the issue.
> The Constitution, see, is the authority.


I understand that but you asked where the line was drawn. That was the line. I also added why we were at that point. What you missed while I edited my post
 "And FYI the weapon not protected according to the Miller court was a sawed off shotgun. Side note Jack Miller originally won his case but on appeal an no defendant to show up during the appeals process the ruling was against Jack Miller but Jack Miller was never heard from again" if Miller had shown up the NFA would have been gutted.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 5, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> You want to infringe my 2nd rights, you must be either a Democrat or a commie, which is it?


Jaxson, I hate to give you bad news but your 2nd amendment rights have been stomped on for centuries.
It is the right to "bear arms" not guns. They are not talking body parts. They intended it to have the right to bear weapons of war.
Fight for all weapons of war if you want to fight for the 2nd amendment.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 5, 2022)

westwall said:


> I just went out and bought one!
> 
> Yaaaay ME!


What weapon is on your drone?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I understand that but you asked where the line was drawn. That was the line.


Understood, and agree.
I was asking the Scotsman.
He continually refuses to answer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Understood, and agree.
> I was asking the Scotsman.
> He continually refuses to answer.


😆 Scotsman? Sounds like elizabethian third person conversation. 😆 Don't tell me he's doing that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Jaxson, I hate to give you bad news but your 2nd amendment rights have been stomped on for centuries.
> It is the right to "bear arms" not guns. They are not talking body parts. They intended it to have the right to bear weapons of war.
> Fight for all weapons of war if you want to fight for the 2nd amendment.


Not centuries just within 1934. But we're taking our rights back. Firearms is what they are called a gun is for fucking.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 😆 Scotsman? Sounds like elizabethian third person conversation. 😆 Don't tell me he's doing that?


He's the True Scotsman.
If you don't agree with him, you're not a Scotsman.





						No true Scotsman - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



I'm sure he understands the reference.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> He's the True Scotsman.
> If you don't agree with him, you're not a Scotsman.
> 
> 
> ...


I understand it 😆 I actually am of Scottish heritage.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 5, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> You want to infringe my 2nd rights, you must be either a Democrat or a commie, which is it?



You seem to be a waste of time. Bye.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For example, one has the right to possess a handgun, which is within the scope of the Second Amendment; an armed drone, not.


lol...and if you get to indulge that fantasy aloud your right to free speech has been fulfilled, no need for journalism.


----------



## ralfy (Aug 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> If you're going to make the claim, then you provide the links.  And, even without links if it were true, you should be able to on your own explain how, in light of the Tenth, rights can be abridged.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)









						District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
					

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.




					supreme.justia.com
				






> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

ralfy said:


> Rights may be abridged for various reasons. Look up the SC reference to that in light of the Tenth.


So the 13 amendment can be abridged for various reasons? How about the 19th amendment? How about the 15th amendment? You don't get a fair trial  you don't get a right to representation.


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 6, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Jaxson, I hate to give you bad news but your 2nd amendment rights have been stomped on for centuries.
> It is the right to "bear arms" not guns. They are not talking body parts. They intended it to have the right to bear weapons of war.
> Fight for all weapons of war if you want to fight for the 2nd amendment.


I do fight for all weapons, according to the 2nd, I think we should be allowed to have nukes...


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 6, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> You seem to be a waste of time. Bye.


Your concession is duly noted. What a baby you are, lol.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

ralfy said:


> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Roe v. Wade.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So the 13 amendment can be abridged for various reasons? How about the 19th amendment? How about the 15th amendment? You don't get a fair trial  you don't get a right to representation.


M14 Shooter and others have made that argument: that the government can take away any right you have as long as they have a court hearing first for due process.  In fact, with due process, they can take away the right to due process so from that point on, the government doesn't even need due process to strip the rest of your rights.

According to him, and others on this board, a right stripped is as if it never existed.  It's not a violation of a right, not an infringement of the 2nd, not a violation of right to trial, not a violation of right to representation, if the right was stripped by the government.  It seems that a stripped right is as if it never were and you can't infringe on a right that never was.

Seriously, M14 Shooter has made that claim multiple times and vociferously defends it.  There are no rights that are protected by the Constitution.  None.  Not even one.  

I can post it all again, if you doubt me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> M14 Shooter and others have made that argument: that the government can take away any right you have as long as they have a court hearing first for due process.  In fact, with due process, they can take away the right to due process so from that point on, the government doesn't even need due process to strip the rest of your rights.
> 
> According to him, and others on this board, a right stripped is as if it never existed.  It's not a violation of a right, not an infringement of the 2nd, not a violation of right to trial, not a violation of right to representation, if the right was stripped by the government.  It seems that a stripped right is as if it never were and you can't infringe on a right that never was.
> 
> ...


You got it as backwards or, you don't know what the 13 amendment is. You cannot be made a slave not even by the courts. You can only be made a slave when you do not have the means to fight.


----------



## flan327 (Aug 6, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> We should be allowed to have nukes. Anything less is an infringement.


Do you actually think you are FUNNY?


----------



## flan327 (Aug 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> M14 Shooter and others have made that argument: that the government can take away any right you have as long as they have a court hearing first for due process.  In fact, with due process, they can take away the right to due process so from that point on, the government doesn't even need due process to strip the rest of your rights.
> 
> According to him, and others on this board, a right stripped is as if it never existed.  It's not a violation of a right, not an infringement of the 2nd, not a violation of right to trial, not a violation of right to representation, if the right was stripped by the government.  It seems that a stripped right is as if it never were and you can't infringe on a right that never was.
> 
> ...


Don’t bother

Posting a lie 1000 times doesn’t make it TRUE


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You got it as backwards or, you don't know what the 13 amendment is. You cannot be made a slave not even by the courts. You can only be made a slave when you do not have the means to fight.



Don't tell me; I think the Constitution is absolute and there are zero exceptions.  Some people, though, think that if there's a court hearing for due process any right could be stripped - so that must include the 13th Amendment.  

You mentioned the 13th and that's why I point this out.  

According to some on this site who claim to be supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, any new technology weapon, because it's not yet in common use, can be banned.  Any protected right, including the 2nd Amendment protections, and surely then also the 13th Amendment protections, can be stripped with due process.  

But, according to those same people, even due process is not required in order to strip your 2nd or 13th Amendments because they can strip your protected right to due process.  Once that's been stripped then it's like you never had it; taking any other right without due process is not a violation of the 5th or 14th Amendment due process rights because the due process right was stripped.  A stripped right cannot be infringed.  He said it; not me.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Don’t bother
> 
> Posting a lie 1000 times doesn’t make it TRUE


Do you mean by that that I'm lying and that M14 didn't say it?  This is the Internet and what's said on the Internet stays on the Internet - unless or until some mod deletes it but what he said, to my best knowledge, hasn't be deleted.  Give me a couple of minutes and I'll post what was said and if you still say I'm lying, well that would be a  lie on your part.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Don't tell me; I think the Constitution is absolute and there are zero exceptions.  Some people, though, think that if there's a court hearing for due process any right could be stripped - so that must include the 13th Amendment.
> 
> You mentioned the 13th and that's why I point this out.
> 
> ...


So slavery can be sanctioned by the government even though the 13th amendment says it can't? The second amendment is absolute like all other rights.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Don’t bother
> 
> Posting a lie 1000 times doesn’t make it TRUE



Here's page 1 of 8 from the search results on M14 claiming that any right can be removed through a court hearing for due process.



M14 Shooter said:


> There's a reason current law requires the adjudication of mentally infirm -- the constitution requires due process
> Due process = the state goes before a court and proves cause before taking away your rights.
> Your idea, above, does not do that.





M14 Shooter said:


> All rights can be removed through due process., and all rights have limitations.
> If that, to you, means a right is not actually a right, but a privilege, then you must believe you have -no- rights.





M14 Shooter said:


> The state, though its power to legislate criminal acts and enforce the laws so made, has the power to strip those who break those laws of their rights - life , liberty and property .
> The 5th Amendment states that this may only be done when the state strips those rights through due process.
> As the 5th Amendment creates this condition, stripping someone of those rights does not violate the constitution.
> As such, they -can- be taken through due process.





M14 Shooter said:


> The 2nd protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> Unless someone has had their right to keep and bear arms removed thru due process, they are of 'the people"; AR15s are 'arms"
> So, denying someone the right to own an AR15 by simply labeling them a paranoid schizophrenic, you violate the 2nd.





M14 Shooter said:


> "The people".
> Not everyone in the US is part of "the people".
> Further, rights can be removed thought due process; it is impossible to infringe on a right someone does not have.
> 
> ...





M14 Shooter said:


> The constitution allows the state to remove rights and liberties through due process.
> The state, through due process, removed the rights of criminals, etc, to own a gun.
> To vote, as well.





M14 Shooter said:


> None of your examples prove your point - the fact someone did not choose to remove a right thru due process doe snot mean a right cannot be removed though due process.





M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
> Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.





M14 Shooter said:


> Rights may be removed thru due process.
> The state cannot infringe on a right someone does not have.



Still claiming that I'm lying?  Page 2 of 8 coming in a few minutes.

It's 100% clear that he says and argues that any right can be taken through due process.

For others, really leftists or conservatives, you either agree that ALL rights can be taken, meaning that constitutional protections mean nothing, through due process which he defines as a court hearing in the first quoted post above, or you don't believe that due process gives total power to the government to take any right, even protected rights and that the government is not at all bound by any constitutional protection of rights or other limitation of power.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So slavery can be sanctioned by the government even though the 13th amendment says it can't? The second amendment is absolute like all other rights.


You're not reading before you respond.  I am saying that there are some posters here who believe that you can be made a slave as long as you had a court hearing before being sold into slavery.  There are some here that believe that you can be stripped of any constitutionally protected right, including the right to keep and bear arms, by simply a court hearing.

I'm on your side.  I believe that the Constitutional is absolute and that they can no more strip your right to keep and bear arms by a court hearing than they can make you a slave by a court hearing.  

They can no more strip your right to keep and bear arms if you're a felon who has been released from prison than they can put you into forced labor if you're a felon who has been released from prison. 

The Constitution is absolute, I think we're in agreement on this.  Are we?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're not reading before you respond.  I am saying that there are some posters here who believe that you can be made a slave as long as you had a court hearing before being sold into slavery.  There are some here that believe that you can be stripped of any constitutionally protected right, including the right to keep and bear arms, by simply a court hearing.
> 
> I'm on your side.  I believe that the Constitutional is absolute and that they can no more strip your right to keep and bear arms by a court hearing than they can make you a slave by a court hearing.
> 
> ...


I'm not reading your garbage because you lack the experience and knowledge. You found this really Kool book that makes you believe what you're talking about.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Don’t bother
> 
> Posting a lie 1000 times doesn’t make it TRUE


Here's page 1 of 7 from search results for M14 Shooter claiming that the 2nd Amendment only protects guns in common use and that an arm is not an arm if it's not in common use AND, that if the Congress or Court restricts a weapon until it is out of common use then, suddenly, it is no longer in common use so it can now be infringed at will.



M14 Shooter said:


> We get them becaue they are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus, "bearable arms"





M14 Shooter said:


> "Arms" unquestionably includes any and all firerams in common use for traditionally lawful purposes; it is impossible for you to soundly argue otherwise.





M14 Shooter said:


> Your subjective and arbitrary opinion does not change the fact that 2nd protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms" - those in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.





M14 Shooter said:


> "Bearable arms" = those firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.





M14 Shooter said:


> You said:
> You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?
> I said
> Yes - "bearable arms ". Firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
> ...





M14 Shooter said:


> They are firearms in common use for the traditional lawful purposes of same?





M14 Shooter said:


> M16s are not in common use for the raditionally legal purposes of a firearm-- and thus, are not bearable arms.
> That a non-bearable arm can be so regulated in no way means a bearable arm can.





M14 Shooter said:


> Fully-automatic"Uzis" are not in common use for the traditionally legal purposes of a firearm-- and thus, are not bearable arms.
> That a non-bearable arm can be so regulated in no way means a bearable arm can.





M14 Shooter said:


> Ah. You;re ignorant of the jurisprudence.
> "Bearable arms" are those weapons "in common use" for "traditionally legal purposes".
> So...
> The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
> The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of banning them.





M14 Shooter said:


> The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
> This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.


How what can be carried becomes what's in common use, is a linguistic distortion of ultra-leftist proportions but what would you expect from a gun controller.


----------



## Leo123 (Aug 6, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> What in the hell are you talking about.
> I believe in gun ownership with common sense restrictions.
> I say we have been putting restrictions on arms as the arms, available, have become more deadly.
> I say if you feel arms should not be restricted then you are a coward if you don't fight for weaponized drones


I believe that it makes 'common sense' to allow citizens to own and carry guns.   Criminals will be the first to have weaponized drones and they won't have to 'fight' for the right to have them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Here's page 1 of 7 from search results for M14 Shooter claiming that the 2nd Amendment only protects guns in common use and that an arm is not an arm if it's not in common use AND, that if the Congress or Court restricts a weapon until it is out of common use then, suddenly, it is no longer in common use so it can now be infringed at will.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't concern yourself patriots will be taking the second amendment back.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> I believe that it makes 'common sense' to allow citizens to own and carry guns.   Criminals will be the first to have weaponized drones and they won't have to 'fight' for the right to have them.


Allow where do you find that word in the bill of rights?


----------



## Leo123 (Aug 6, 2022)

Check this out!!


----------



## Leo123 (Aug 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Allow where do you find that word in the bill of rights?


I thought we were talking about the 2nd?   You know, where the government 'allows' (cannot infringe on the right) of citizens to keep and bear arms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> I thought we were talking about the 2nd?   You know, where the government 'allows' (cannot infringe on the right) of citizens to keep and bear arms.


Well the second amendment is part of the bill of rights. I was expanding and went with all of the bill of rights in search of that word allow.


----------



## flan327 (Aug 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Do you mean by that that I'm lying and that M14 didn't say it?  This is the Internet and what's said on the Internet stays on the Internet - unless or until some mod deletes it but what he said, to my best knowledge, hasn't be deleted.  Give me a couple of minutes and I'll post what was said and if you still say I'm lying, well that would be a  lie on your part.


Gosh you are boring


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I'm not reading your garbage because you lack the experience and knowledge. You found this really Kool book that makes you believe what you're talking about.



It's real simple.  Either you do believe the government can strip a felon's  right to keep and bear arms as long as they get a trial or you believe that people can be sold to slavery as long as they get a court hearing.  Which is it?

I thought you were arguing against people being sold into slavery and limits on the 13th Amendment but now it appears that you actually do believe what M14 Shooter says and that ANY right, even the right to not be a slave, can be taken by court order.  

Again, which is it?  Any rights can be stripped or no rights can be stripped?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 6, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Well the second amendment is part of the bill of rights. I was expanding and went with all of the bill of rights in search of that word allow.


You understand that the 13th Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights, right?

This is what happens when people, right or left, talk about and pretend to quote the Constitution when they've never actually studied it.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 6, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Check this out!!


Where can I buy one?


----------



## Leo123 (Aug 7, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Where can I buy one?


If I told ya, I'd hafta kill ya.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 7, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You understand that the 13th Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights, right?
> 
> This is what happens when people, right or left, talk about and pretend to quote the Constitution when they've never actually studied it.


Bless your heart it's an amendment that says no one can. Be forced into slavery. As a Leo education in Constitutional law is a requirement before you can be a certified Leo.


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 7, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Do you actually think you are FUNNY?


What part of "shall not be infringed" do you need me to explain to you?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 7, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> If I told ya, I'd hafta kill ya.


good answer but you got my point.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 7, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> What part of "shall not be infringed" do you need me to explain to you?


Do I need to explain the definition of "arms". It is all weapons of war. Not just guns. You 2nd amendment rights have been infringed on because there are very few weapons of war you can buy. The USA has modified the arms you can buy as technology has brought out more deadly weaponry.


----------



## flan327 (Aug 7, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Where can I buy one?


CVS


----------



## Leo123 (Aug 7, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Do I need to explain the definition of "arms". It is all weapons of war. Not just guns. You 2nd amendment rights have been infringed on because there are very few weapons of war you can buy. The USA has modified the arms you can buy as technology has brought out more deadly weaponry.


I know you can buy a tank.  Good luck with the ammo though.  With the price of fuel, fogetaboutit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 7, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Do I need to explain the definition of "arms". It is all weapons of war. Not just guns. You 2nd amendment rights have been infringed on because there are very few weapons of war you can buy. The USA has modified the arms you can buy as technology has brought out more deadly weaponry.


Firearms are weapons gun are for fucking 
Which means my right to keep and carry a firearm can never be stopped


----------



## ralfy (Aug 8, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So the 13 amendment can be abridged for various reasons? How about the 19th amendment? How about the 15th amendment? You don't get a fair trial  you don't get a right to representation.


According to the SC, 2A given the Tenth, e.g., in reference to the mentally ill and felons.


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 8, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> Do I need to explain the definition of "arms". It is all weapons of war. Not just guns. You 2nd amendment rights have been infringed on because there are very few weapons of war you can buy. The USA has modified the arms you can buy as technology has brought out more deadly weaponry.


The government restricts what we can buy, but that's also against the 2nd.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 8, 2022)

ralfy said:


> According to the SC, 2A given the Tenth, e.g., in reference to the mentally ill and felons.


And what does that have to do with what I said?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 8, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> The government restricts what we can buy, but that's also against the 2nd.


That is my point. You say the government cannot infringe on the rights spelled out in the 2nd amendment, but they already have. The precedence has been set.
Laws can be set on previous legal precedence.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 8, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> That is my point. You say the government cannot infringe on the rights spelled out in the 2nd amendment, but they already have. The precedence has been set.
> Laws can be set on previous legal precedence.


As weapons advance it was expected that the citizens would have access to them


----------



## Missourian (Aug 8, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> We can. Good look getting the material for it though.



That time a Boy Scout built a nuclear reactor in his mother's back yard...link


----------



## Jaxson (Aug 9, 2022)

ElmerMudd said:


> That is my point. You say the government cannot infringe on the rights spelled out in the 2nd amendment, but they already have. The precedence has been set.
> Laws can be set on previous legal precedence.


You can't violate the Constitution then use that as a precedent. That's dumber than dirt. Anyways, after Roe being turned over, precedents don't matter.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> M14 Shooter and others...


Still waiting for you, Scotsman, to tell us where the constitution draws the line between weapons protected by the 2nd, and those that are not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Don't tell me; I think the Constitution is absolute and there are zero exceptions.


And yet, you, Scotsman, do not believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a use nuclear weapons.
As such you believe that not all 'arms" are protected by the 2nd,
Thus, your statement, above, is a lie.


----------

