What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd is all about exercising the right to self-defense, presumably against people that are shooting back.
Why would you ban the weapons that are best suited for this?

Cuz he's a straight-up dumbass?

Thats hilarious. So you support Jared Lougher's right to kill 9 year olds and congresswoman?

Non sequitur. Nothing in anyone's post supports this.

Think about it, you don't need 31 rounds to defend yourself at once. What you need is to get out on the shooting range and practice your aim. If you can't disable a person with 10 shots, then you don't deserve the right to have that gun. You're an embarassment. And why the hell do you need an AK-47? You're not in a war. You don't need it. A rifle or shotgun would be just fine. And I don't really see people carrying around shotguns to the grocery store or even handguns.

You arent answering the question.

The 2nd is all about exercising the right to self-defense, presumably against people that are shooting back.
Why would you ban the weapons that are best suited for this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Absolutely nothing. Whem one has nothing relevant to say, one often resorts to a red herring.

 

[JBeukema]

Nuclear arms aren't arms?

 

[JWBooth]

Expanding gasses push a projectile down a tube.


Works for me.

 

[JBeukema]

Expanding gasses push a projectile down a tube.


Works for me.

Projectile is nuclear?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So Loughner should still be allowed to have an ar-15?

I knew you were retarded when you revealed you're cool with slavery

Loughner is under indictment for a felony (question 12b) and incarcerated, so as of now, he is not allowed to possess firearms.

That's regulating firearms- and denying someone the right to bear arms.

Both of which lgs and rgs have railed against in this thread.

Both have refused to accept any limitations on who may bear arms who what arms they may have.

You are a bald faced LIAR. I do not think people that have served their time should have a life time ban on firearms ownership. But it is perfectly legal to ban felons from owning firearms. Further I do not think fully automatic weapons are protected by the second Amendment. Which I have said IN THIS THREAD already.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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."

Exactly.
'the People' - collective
not 'people' - individuals
I'm reminded of the other day, when I told windbag his tank is with the National Guard and he ran away from the thread

Therefore, numerous people owning arms become a "collective" people.

This silliness is old.

Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

If the 2nd doesn't protect an individual right to arms, then there's no way to argue that the government needs a warrant to tap your cell phone.

 

[Ernie S.]

"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 2nd does not say "firearms". It says "arms" Arms are weapons and a Tomahawk is a weapon, thus an arm,
In my opinion someone who could afford a Tomahawk should be able to possess one/

Rights, however have limits. Convicted felons and the certifiably insane pose such a risk of improper use that their rights of citizenship should be limited.
You can not deny a right based on potential. I have a friend who legally owns a dozen or so fully automatic weapons including a 20 mm machine gun. He has never gone on a killing spree, though he and I have cut a chevy in half with one of his .50 cals.
I own a dozen firearms, (no Tomahawks so far, though) and I have never taken a life nor robbed a bodega.
Should my friend or I be convicted of a crime using a fire arm, our rights should cease

 

[Ernie S.]

Cell phones are commonly used now to detonate IEDs.

Ban 'em.

Cars kill more people than guns, Ban 'em.

Serial killers kill thousands of people (collective) with knives, Ban e'm

I think there is a universal ban on serial killing.

It is not the weapon that kills. It is the killer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

They never told them they broke any laws ( largely because they had NOT done so) The BATF needed a high profile bust to get camera time because the DEA had some. Once again the charges were all false. One charge was they had grenades. They did not. They had legally purchased Grenade shells.

Another charge was they had illegally modified semi automatic weapons into full auto. Another lie, NO such weapon was ever found or displayed by the FBI or the BATF.

A third lie was that they illegally purchased weapons. EVERY weapon in the compound was legally obtained either by an individual in the compound or by one of several LICENSED GUN DEALERS living in the compound. To make these seem more likely the BATF suspended all the licenses in the Compound just before the raid BUT never told the owners of said Licenses.

The FBI later fabricated the charges that Koresh was molesting children. There was never any evidence of this, EVER. The FBI got a couple disgruntled former members to make the charge after the siege began.

THE reality is that if the BATF had questions about ANY of the supposed illegal activities all they had to do is show up at the compound with a warrant and they would have been allowed to inspect the compound and its members. The local Sheriff had NEVER had any trouble inspecting the compound or asking Koresh to come into town for questioning.

 

[whitehall]

2nd Amendment rights are subject to several volumes of restrictions. The left never says what they mean and we should understand that. When the left talks about restrictions they mean confiscation.

 

[BrianH]

Wrong.

Have you ever sung the National Anthem? Ever thought that the words in it mean anything other than just place-holders for the melody?

".....the bombs bursting in air."

Weapons of the American Revolution - Artillery

Quite a bit more than merely "muskets" and "firearms," wouldn't you say?

Wasn't the the National Anthem written in 1814--after the Consitution was ratified?

Also, a bomb (at that time) was a projectile fired from a cannon. It fits the definition of a firearm arm--as does today's modern artillary.

That is my point also.....they're arguing that "firearms" are muskets and black powder. Canons, bombs, mortar.....all were commonplace at the time and had been for centuries. The current definition of "firearm" is no different from the one intended in the 2nd. Only the technology has changed, not the purpose or utility.

I agree with that.

 

[BrianH]

Exactly.
'the People' - collective
not 'people' - individuals
I'm reminded of the other day, when I told windbag his tank is with the National Guard and he ran away from the thread

Therefore, numerous people owning arms become a "collective" people.

This silliness is old.

Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

If the 2nd doesn't protect an individual right to arms, then there's no way to argue that the government needs a warrant to tap your cell phone.

Are you responding to me or to JBEK because I agree with you. Without collectiveness at an individual level, you would not have a national community. I agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to own arms.

 

[BrianH]

Cell phones are commonly used now to detonate IEDs.

Ban 'em.

Cars kill more people than guns, Ban 'em.

Serial killers kill thousands of people (collective) with knives, Ban e'm

I think there is a universal ban on serial killing.

It is not the weapon that kills. It is the killer.

That's my point. People want to ban guns cause the "kill people." Murder is banned, but it still happens. My point is that if we are going to ban guns from killing people, why not knives, why not cars? ANd it doesn't matter what they're designed to do, any of those things in the hands of someone irresponsible or insane is deadly.

 

[BrianH]

Most arms owned today were massed produced by private companies and chosen to sell to the consumer. The producer of these arms have specific rights to produce, or not to produce, the arm. Then, the producer have specific rights to sell, or not to sell the firearm. The A bomb along with nuclear technology was developed by the government, NOT private companies. The decision to allow or not allow individuals to own them is completley the right of the inventor and producer of said technology....

 

[Mini 14]

To clarify, I don't release ATF from guilt in Waco, nor do I release the Davidians.

Both sides fucked it up royally.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Given the purpose of the 2nd Amendment – to ensure that the people would always have access to an effective means of exercising their right to self defense, individually and/or collectively - what kinds of firearms does the 2nd Amendment protect?

Handguns: Revolvers, single shot
Handguns: Magazine-fed semi-autos
Shotguns: Pump/lever/bolt action, single shot, double barreled
Shotguns: Semi-auto
Rifles..: Bolt/lever/slide action, single shot
Rifles..: Magazine-fed semi-auto, ‘assault weapons’
Rifles..: Automatic rifles, assault rifles, battle rifles
Rifles..: Magazine/belt fed machineguns
All of the above
None of the above

Please be sure to explain your response.

Anything approved for military use. Because the people of this country are the Militia

 

[RadiomanATL]

I can haz howitzer!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To clarify, I don't release ATF from guilt in Waco, nor do I release the Davidians.

Both sides fucked it up royally.

There is reasonable doubt the Davidians even fired on the BATF.The two killed crawling in the window were most likely gunned down when the 3rd agent opened fire with an automatic into the very window they just crawled through. That video got pulled right quick and has never been seen again. BUT I saw it.

Further no vehicle in the compound had a single bullet hole on the compound side. And the Main door which survived the fire had no bullet holes except from the parking lot. Funny how the FBI happened to LOSE that door.

Then the assault.... by the FBI.... They KNEW flammables were stored for ready use around the wooden structures. THEY KNEW IT. Yet they fired tear gas into a wooden building full of KNOWN flammable liquids and CHILDREN. They used a tank to batter down a wall while firing more tear gas.

All in an assault that was totally uncalled for. No one had tried to leave the compound. No one had fired on the FBI from the compound. All they had to do was wait them out. And there is no evidence that as the assualt unfolded anyone in the compound fired a single round at the FBI. The evidence suggests they committed suicide as the building burned around them. And the fire is what killed the children.

 

[rdean]

What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

Shoes