How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?

[Auld Phart]

Those who are not a gun nut.

Those who are not a gun nut.

Guess that leaves you out

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

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]

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

 

[Devils_Advocate]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

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]

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

 

[Jaxson]

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]

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]

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!