The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[Noomi]

Woooo...I think the 2nd amendment is very clear. Any weapon the government has, the people should have.

So now you want a nuclear weapon to use against your neighbour if they piss you off?

Are you insane?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Woooo...I think the 2nd amendment is very clear. Any weapon the government has, the people should have.

So now you want a nuclear weapon to use against your neighbour if they piss you off?

Are you insane?

Straw man

 

[JoeB131]

"Those were Court decisions, but thanks for admitting the crazy notion that the 2nd Amendment is about gun ownership is a recent invention."

There is nothing new about the 2nd Amendment and it's meaning hasn't changed.

The interpretation that it is about personal gun ownership as a right goes back no further than 1970 or so.

Anybody that can read English and is at least half smart has always interpreted it correctly.

Except no one really interpreted that way until Heller, and even then, Scalia had do to some slight of hand so that people could claim the right to own private mortars or missiles...

 

[JoeB131]

Naw, the legislatures will do that.

The courts will just sit by and watch them do it.

I am very sure they will not ban all guns.

JoeB, you will lose your silly argument here, then in the courts. Go to bed, old man, you are tired.

You think the courts are going to keep voting for more massacres?

 

[JoeB131]

Woooo...I think the 2nd amendment is very clear. Any weapon the government has, the people should have.

So now you want a nuclear weapon to use against your neighbour if they piss you off?

Are you insane?

Straw man

Why?

Frankly, why can't I legally have a nuke to fight off the "tyranny" of the Federal Government? If your McVeigh argument is we need weapons to take on the government when it makes us do things we don't want to do like act decently towards poor people, man, privately owned nukes would get their attention.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So now you want a nuclear weapon to use against your neighbour if they piss you off?

Are you insane?

Straw man

Why?

Frankly, why can't I legally have a nuke to fight off the "tyranny" of the Federal Government? If your McVeigh argument is we need weapons to take on the government when it makes us do things we don't want to do like act decently towards poor people, man, privately owned nukes would get their attention.

There is not constitution right to nuclear weapons. They aren't firearms.

 

[JoeB131]

Straw man

Why?

Frankly, why can't I legally have a nuke to fight off the "tyranny" of the Federal Government? If your McVeigh argument is we need weapons to take on the government when it makes us do things we don't want to do like act decently towards poor people, man, privately owned nukes would get their attention.

There is not constitution right to nuclear weapons. They aren't firearms.

The constitution doesn't specify "Firearms". It just says "arms".

And since treaties like SALT and START referred to nukes as "Arms", it would imply that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Just taking your crazy to it's logical conclusion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why?

Frankly, why can't I legally have a nuke to fight off the "tyranny" of the Federal Government? If your McVeigh argument is we need weapons to take on the government when it makes us do things we don't want to do like act decently towards poor people, man, privately owned nukes would get their attention.

There is not constitution right to nuclear weapons. They aren't firearms.

The constitution doesn't specify "Firearms". It just says "arms".

And since treaties like SALT and START referred to nukes as "Arms", it would imply that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Just taking your crazy to it's logical conclusion.

Arms using 18th century would be talking about firearms such as muskets.
Example Sack arms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keep dreaming.

Naw, the legislatures will do that.

The courts will just sit by and watch them do it.

I am very sure they will not ban all guns.

You think the courts are going to keep voting for more massacres?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Straw man

Why?

Frankly, why can't I legally have a nuke to fight off the "tyranny" of the Federal Government? If your McVeigh argument is we need weapons to take on the government when it makes us do things we don't want to do like act decently towards poor people, man, privately owned nukes would get their attention.

There is not constitution right to nuclear weapons. They aren't firearms.

You're a loon. The Constitution says "arms", not firearms. Nukes are armaments, i.e. arms. What the Constitution doesn't say is that the Federal Government can't restrict ownership of certain types of arms.

 

[JoeB131]

There is not constitution right to nuclear weapons. They aren't firearms.

The constitution doesn't specify "Firearms". It just says "arms".

And since treaties like SALT and START referred to nukes as "Arms", it would imply that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Just taking your crazy to it's logical conclusion.

Arms using 18th century would be talking about firearms such as muskets.
Example Sack arms.

Doesn't that kind of show the fallacy of using something written in the 18th century as a guidepost for self governance, then?

if you take the silly notion that "arms" only meant small arms, that they weren't thinking of bigger weapons, but they really, really wanted us to keep "arms" in case we had to throw out any wanna-be Kings, then the notion is outdated... Mostly because today, the government has...

and

and this...

So, yeah, your chances of overthrowing the government is probably unlikely, but you are keeping us safe from those vicious preschoolers...

 

[Noomi]

Straw man

Why?

Frankly, why can't I legally have a nuke to fight off the "tyranny" of the Federal Government? If your McVeigh argument is we need weapons to take on the government when it makes us do things we don't want to do like act decently towards poor people, man, privately owned nukes would get their attention.

There is not constitution right to nuclear weapons. They aren't firearms.

The OP says that whatever weapons the government have, the people should also have.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The interpretation that it is about personal gun ownership as a right goes back no further than 1970 or so.

Anybody that can read English and is at least half smart has always interpreted it correctly.

Except no one really interpreted that way until Heller, and even then, Scalia had do to some slight of hand so that people could claim the right to own private mortars or missiles...

Wrong. I never knew anyone had weird interpretations until fairly recently and at that I thought most were lieing to fit a political agenda. Come to think of it I still do. Bed time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.

Miller ruling says you can't ban the weapons obama is wanting banned.
Sinp.....
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why?

Frankly, why can't I legally have a nuke to fight off the "tyranny" of the Federal Government? If your McVeigh argument is we need weapons to take on the government when it makes us do things we don't want to do like act decently towards poor people, man, privately owned nukes would get their attention.

There is not constitution right to nuclear weapons. They aren't firearms.

The OP says that whatever weapons the government have, the people should also have.

The second amendment only protects the right to keep any type of military firearm that a soldier can carry on the battlefield.

 

[racewright]

The constitution doesn't specify "Firearms". It just says "arms".

And since treaties like SALT and START referred to nukes as "Arms", it would imply that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Just taking your crazy to it's logical conclusion.

Arms using 18th century would be talking about firearms such as muskets.
Example Sack arms.

Doesn't that kind of show the fallacy of using something written in the 18th century as a guidepost for self governance, then?

if you take the silly notion that "arms" only meant small arms, that they weren't thinking of bigger weapons, but they really, really wanted us to keep "arms" in case we had to throw out any wanna-be Kings, then the notion is outdated... Mostly because today, the government has...

and

and this...

So, yeah, your chances of overthrowing the government is probably unlikely, but you are keeping us safe from those vicious preschoolers...

OOOOOOOh I want some of these Hey assholes common sense is not taught in schools OK

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heller 1(f) invalidates your comment.

No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.

Miller ruling says you can't ban the weapons obama is wanting banned.
Sinp.....
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

 

[JakeStarkey]

False and crazy assumption.

There is not constitution right to nuclear weapons. They aren't firearms.

The OP says that whatever weapons the government have, the people should also have.

The second amendment only protects the right to keep any type of military firearm that a soldier can carry on the battlefield.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Heller 1(f) invalidates your comment.

No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.

Miller ruling says you can't ban the weapons obama is wanting banned.
Sinp.....
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

Has miller been over turned?