What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[RadiomanATL]

Great idea!

Once they're banned, they're gone, right?

(pretty sure they're already banned, but maybe I missed something?)

Kinda my point.

Pot is banned too.

Again....my point.

 

[JBeukema]

Gun nuts don't even see the words 'well regulated militia' in the amendment. Maybe in colonial times every household was considered a 'militia'? WTF?

They are in effect saying this SINGLE SENTENCE has TWO meanings. Before the comma it's all about 'militias', and after the comma it's all about individual citizens - nothing to do with a group or 'militia'.

On these shaky grounds our wannabe Rambo's feel inclined to buy military hardware and set up the perimeter, against the robbers/home invaders that surely lurk in the darkness, and of course them evil Feds out to put them in reeducation camps. Fuckin lunatics.

Anit-guns nuts don't even see the words, "the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" in the amdendment

That's not what it says

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/textpresentbill.html

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cell phones are commonly used now to detonate IEDs.

Ban 'em.

ban alarm clocks, digital watches and egg timers because all of those can be used to detonate a bomb.

Again, why not just ban the bomb itself?

Even though the bombs are banned criminals will still have them and the only way to stop them is to deny law abiding citizens egg timers and alarm clocks.

Have you not yet learned liberal "logic"?

 

[Mini 14]

One of the many lies told by the BATF when it raided the Waco compound was that because they had LEGALLY bought grenade shells they must have live grenades at the compound. Another lie was that they had purchased the weapons they had illegally. The reality is that several of the members LEGALLY had Firearms license like you have. The BATF canceled their licenses before the raid but did not tell them. The BATF has yet to produce a single weapon modified to full auto from the compound also. Another lie they told.

I haven't truly studied Waco. I don't consider it exemplary of the FBI/ATF's role or their practice. It was an exceptional circumstance, with an exceptional reaction and an exceptional outcome. There is plenty of blame to go around Waco, and politically, it is a debate that cannot be won by either side. Neither handled it properly.

Not really.

We have women and children in here...CALL IT OFF

Running people down, keeping the media on one side of the building while you fire automatic weapons at unarmed women on the other side, driving a tank over a man's grave, exposing yourselves to children while demand their parents send them out to you...

God bless America

​

And the Davidians were just in there knitting a quilt and churning butter, right?

Both sides screwed the pooch at Waco. Problem for the Davidians was, the ATF was going to win all along, and they wouldn't accept that and deal with it appropriately.

The vehicle for the Davidians didn't have to be martyrdom. They put themselves in that position.

And Reno and the ATF fell for it.

 

[Mini 14]

Kinda my point.

Pot is banned too.

Again....my point.

Yeah, I know.

Its mine too.

 

[JBeukema]

Okay, but when has the US military been able to defeat a guerrilla force since then?

Nam, Korea, Afghanistan... we can defeat any standing army in the world, but a few jackasses with hand grenades tied to strings and holes in the ground and we don't know that the fuck to do

Not familiar with the Malaysia example, but I doubt Joseph had access to remotely-detonated IEDs and ricin


Then again, they have been preparing for it

I don't think the problem has been the "ability" of the U.S. to defeat a guerilla resistance. I think the problem is that our more recent conflicts have been more politically fought rather than militarily. The last war we actually WON(by definition) against a guerilla force was in the Pacific islands during WWII. The jungle warfare was hardly conventional.

Dude... America tried to send tanks into VietNam. That's never gonna work. Then what'd we do? Napalm and Daisy Cutters? We murdered countless innocent villagers, but that didn't stop the VC either- all it did was recruit the surviving villagers to the resistance.

 

[BrianH]

Gun nuts don't even see the words 'well regulated militia' in the amendment. Maybe in colonial times every household was considered a 'militia'? WTF?

They are in effect saying this SINGLE SENTENCE has TWO meanings. Before the comma it's all about 'militias', and after the comma it's all about individual citizens - nothing to do with a group or 'militia'.

On these shaky grounds our wannabe Rambo's feel inclined to buy military hardware and set up the perimeter, against the robbers/home invaders that surely lurk in the darkness, and of course them evil Feds out to put them in reeducation camps. Fuckin lunatics.

Anit-guns nuts don't even see the words, "the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" in the amdendment

That's not what it says

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Bill of Rights - Text Version | Freedom Documents

Are you crazy?

Both texts provided in the link (posted by you) says specifically "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[JBeukema]

I haven't truly studied Waco. I don't consider it exemplary of the FBI/ATF's role or their practice. It was an exceptional circumstance, with an exceptional reaction and an exceptional outcome. There is plenty of blame to go around Waco, and politically, it is a debate that cannot be won by either side. Neither handled it properly.

Not really.

We have women and children in here...CALL IT OFF

Running people down, keeping the media on one side of the building while you fire automatic weapons at unarmed women on the other side, driving a tank over a man's grave, exposing yourselves to children while demand their parents send them out to you...

God bless America

​

And the Davidians were just in there knitting a quilt and churning butter, right?

Both sides screwed the pooch at Waco. Problem for the Davidians was, the ATF was going to win all along, and they wouldn't accept that and deal with it appropriately.

The vehicle for the Davidians didn't have to be martyrdom. They put themselves in that position.

And Reno and the ATF fell for it.

All the BATF had to do was not murder children.


All they had to do... was nothing. Allow no supplies in, monitor the place electronically, move the bulk of their forces out of site, send in the best negotiators to talk to the crazy people and starve them into submission, moving in to try to prevent loss of life if anyone inside went homicidal.

 

[Mini 14]

Okay, but when has the US military been able to defeat a guerrilla force since then?

Nam, Korea, Afghanistan... we can defeat any standing army in the world, but a few jackasses with hand grenades tied to strings and holes in the ground and we don't know that the fuck to do

Not familiar with the Malaysia example, but I doubt Joseph had access to remotely-detonated IEDs and ricin


Then again, they have been preparing for it

I don't think the problem has been the "ability" of the U.S. to defeat a guerilla resistance. I think the problem is that our more recent conflicts have been more politically fought rather than militarily. The last war we actually WON(by definition) against a guerilla force was in the Pacific islands during WWII. The jungle warfare was hardly conventional.

Dude... America tried to send tanks into VietNam. That's never gonna work. Then what'd we do? Napalm and Daisy Cutters? We murdered countless innocent villagers, but that didn't stop the VC either- all it did was recruit the surviving villagers to the resistance.

Do you understand the concept of "war?"

 

[BrianH]

Anit-guns nuts don't even see the words, "the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" in the amdendment

That's not what it says

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bill of Rights - Text Version | Freedom Documents

Are you crazy?

Both texts provided in the link (posted by you) says specifically "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Ratified by the States
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Passed by Congress
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Mini 14]

Not really.

We have women and children in here...CALL IT OFF

Running people down, keeping the media on one side of the building while you fire automatic weapons at unarmed women on the other side, driving a tank over a man's grave, exposing yourselves to children while demand their parents send them out to you...

God bless America

​

And the Davidians were just in there knitting a quilt and churning butter, right?

Both sides screwed the pooch at Waco. Problem for the Davidians was, the ATF was going to win all along, and they wouldn't accept that and deal with it appropriately.

The vehicle for the Davidians didn't have to be martyrdom. They put themselves in that position.

And Reno and the ATF fell for it.

All the BATF had to do was not murder children.


All they had to do... was nothing. Allow no supplies in, monitor the place electronically, move the bulk of their forces out of site, send in the best negotiators to talk to the crazy people and starve them into submission, moving in to try to prevent loss of life if anyone inside went homicidal.

Wouldn't compliance from the Davidians have accomplished the same thing? Had they complied, the ATF would have never showed up at the compound.

You CHOSE to lay all the blame at the feet of the ATF, but the fact remains that it was a dynamic situation, with two "sides" involved. Speculation is an Art, not a Science.

I don't think the ATF/FBI were innocent, nor were the Davidians.

Hindsight is 20/10

 

[JBeukema]

good point Brian

i'd like an icbm in the yard too then, and all you nasty muslim extreemists better start bowing to the west!

Your previous post and this one have been answered more then once. The second Amendment covers FIREARMS.

Actually, it just says 'arms'. Buy your my Ka-bar is not covered.

And more specifically PERSONAL firearms. Tanks, jets , cannon and missiles are NOT firearms.

According to? You? Some judge who might be overruled by a later judge?

Do you have anything but appeal to authority on this one?

And while fully automatic weapons are firearms they are exempted because they are CREW served or squad weapons.

Not necessarily. Things do have a tendency to get made smaller- or get mounted on rc vehicles.

 

[JBeukema]

Either all the Amendments keep pace with progressing technology or none do. Your argument is an emotionally based strawman.

So McVeigh can haz Tomahawks?

So someone might do something illegal therefore no one should have weapons?

The idiotic liberal "logic" of zero tolerance.

1) Where did I say noone should have weapons?

2) Are you retarded, a compulsive liar, or both?

3)http://www.google.com/search?q=jbeukema+"not+a+liberal"+site%3Ausmessageboard.com

 

[JBeukema]

Because a person may abuse a right is NEVER a reason to deny that right to everyone.

So we don't want Iran to have nukes, but we want Jihad Jane to be able to buy one and give it to bin Laden?

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

you idiots are saying there should be no limits


are you changing your tune and saying I shouldn't be allowed to buy weapons we don't trust Castro with?

 

[JBeukema]

"A firearm is a device which projects either single or multiple projectiles at high velocity through a controlled explosion. The firing is achieved by the gases produced through rapid, confined burning of a propellant. This process of rapid burning is technically known as deflagration. ..."

A Tomohawk missle would not count as a firearm. It propels itself and has a long burning propellant.

The constitution doesn't say 'firearms'

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, regular annaul hunting does this very thing. Without hunting deer and pigs, they would over-graze and over-populate.

How did their populations remain remotely stable before Men came around?

They didn't remain stable. Throughout the history of he earth you have the constant extinction and emerging of new animals.

So guns mean the end of extinction now?

 

[JBeukema]

Cell phones are commonly used now to detonate IEDs.

Ban 'em.

ban alarm clocks, digital watches and egg timers because all of those can be used to detonate a bomb.

Again, why not just ban the bomb itself?

Because that would make sense, undermining their Beckian hyperbole and sheer idiocy

 

[BrianH]

"A firearm is a device which projects either single or multiple projectiles at high velocity through a controlled explosion. The firing is achieved by the gases produced through rapid, confined burning of a propellant. This process of rapid burning is technically known as deflagration. ..."

A Tomohawk missle would not count as a firearm. It propels itself and has a long burning propellant.

The constitution doesn't say 'firearms'

At the time the FF wrote it, there were only firearms. Since then ,it has been defined what an "arm" is in relation to civilian ownership.

 

[JBeukema]

Anit-guns nuts don't even see the words, "the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" in the amdendment

That's not what it says

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Bill of Rights - Text Version | Freedom Documents

Are you crazy?

Both texts provided in the link (posted by you) says specifically "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

ah, self-refutation: it's a beautiful thing

 

[JBeukema]

I don't think the problem has been the "ability" of the U.S. to defeat a guerilla resistance. I think the problem is that our more recent conflicts have been more politically fought rather than militarily. The last war we actually WON(by definition) against a guerilla force was in the Pacific islands during WWII. The jungle warfare was hardly conventional.

Dude... America tried to send tanks into VietNam. That's never gonna work. Then what'd we do? Napalm and Daisy Cutters? We murdered countless innocent villagers, but that didn't stop the VC either- all it did was recruit the surviving villagers to the resistance.

Do you understand the concept of "war?"

Yeah, you're supposed to win it, not recruit people to the other side

America seems to have difficulty grasping that