What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[The T]

The FF new that if they abolished slavery then the southern half of the colonies would secede from the Union, just as they did in 1865.

Exactly, and thus the 3/5ths Compromise. (And it wasn't counting negroes as 3/5th of a person. That is a LIE).

OK, tell us t-rex what that is a lie.

Look it up college boy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"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/

That's fine, so long as you also agree that every class of firearm is also protected.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I know. I was responding to the silliness that JB brought up thru you because JB is a waste of time, and so is on ignore.

There's -no question- that the 2nd protects and individual right, regardless of that individual's relationship to any militia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Exactly, and thus the 3/5ths Compromise. (And it wasn't counting negroes as 3/5th of a person. That is a LIE).

OK, tell us t-rex what that is a lie.

Look it up college boy.

In other words you don't have a clue. OK.

 

[M14 Shooter]

deflection, get a grip

United States Code: Title 10,311. Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

Women have the right to keep and bear arms. stop being a sextist.

Correct, as the right to keep and bear arms is not based on one's relationship to any militia.

What the founders meant to say was weapons as modern as the times. But what the hell they never thought we would have computer so should we go back to writing on parchment and with quail and do away with the cell phones and computers and TV’s. No more texting or email. no more message boards to voice our first amendment rights.

Any loon that suggests the 2nd only protects only muzzle-loading flintlocks must then alos believe that the government needs no warrant to tap into his phone line.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well...

I support gun ownership by everyone, period. I think we all should own one, in order to ensure our constitutional right, for home protection, for hunting, etc, etc.

However...

In response to this particular question, the only weapons the founding fathers had were muskets and early rifles. So, I imagine that as far as intent goes, the 2nd amendment couldn't possibly have been specifically intended to cover any of those.

You then agree that the 1st amendment doesn't cover CNN and the government needs no warrant to tap your phone line.
Correct?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well...

I support gun ownership by everyone, period. I think we all should own one, in order to ensure our constitutional right, for home protection, for hunting, etc, etc.

However...

In response to this particular question, the only weapons the founding fathers had were muskets and early rifles. So, I imagine that as far as intent goes, the 2nd amendment couldn't possibly have been specifically intended to cover any of those.

Certainly I don't think they intended individual citizens to be stocking up on artillery, which I guess would be the closest Revolutionary war equivalent to an automatic weapon.

So I guess it's all about how you look at it.

What about the ink pen or the internet? Did the founders think we would be using email and ink pens to exercise our first amendment rights. Or should we still be using parchment and with quail? Should we appeal all laws that weren't written on parchment and with quail?

First Amendment means what it says no matter the vehicle used for such speech. It's that simple.

So too then must the 2nd.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then do not defend the Founders' failures about slavery.

Who the fuck do you think you are? The founders fought and died for something your punk ass does not deserve. You're passing judgement on them why not pass judgement on the people from which they came from? Why not pass judgement on the place that it still happens today? Fuck you fuck everything about you when you died I hope you die in pain eaten alive by rats.. You filthy piece of shit.

Man that felt good.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Why is there not a 'nuclear weapon' option?

That should be obvious - the 2nd amendment is only seriously discuseed in the context of its affect of on guns and gun control.

 

[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/

That's fine, so long as you also agree that every class of firearm is also protected.

I do....

 

[Ernie S.]

Then do not defend the Founders' failures about slavery.

Who the fuck do you think you are? The founders fought and died for something your punk ass does not deserve. You're passing judgement on them why not pass judgement on the people from which they came from? Why not pass judgement on the place that it still happens today? Fuck you fuck everything about you when you died I hope you die in pain eaten alive by rats.. You filthy piece of shit.

Man that felt good.

I'm nearly that pissed. I think I'll take the scooter for a blast a bit later.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you defend yourself against a criminal (who wouldn't follow a law) that has acquired an automatic weapon? Don't get me wrong, I don't own any fully automatic weapons, but the problem is tha the criminals obtain these things and use them.

That was the second question I had when reading JFK's post. The first I had was "What if you are attacked by more than one assailant?"

It is folly to think that banning high cap mags and assault weapons will remove them from our world. That horse is not only out of the barn, he is 9 States away.

On an interesting side-note, we have been selling the crap out of high caps since the Giffords shooting, and supplies are starting to dry up. Knee-jerk reactions on either side of the issue are a gun dealer's best friend

If the 0.0000001% chance that you face multiple gunmen, I would still say you don't need a 50 caliber or AK 47. You need to not piss multiple people off to want to kill you. Besides I think if you were that person, you would have those guns illegally anyways.

But I view it as what does a law abiding citizen have that is reasonable and able to defend yourself INSIDE your house.

This ignores the other part of the intent of the 2nd - the collective exercise of the right to self-defense. This almost exclusively takes plae outside the home and involves multiple potential targets.

Never mind that your perception of what someone needs to protect his home doesnt create a sound argument for the restriction of weapons that fall outside that fold. An AR15 or M16 or AK47 is well-suited for home defense and can unquestionably be used effectively in that role.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then do not defend the Founders' failures about slavery.

Who the fuck do you think you are? The founders fought and died for something your punk ass does not deserve. You're passing judgement on them why not pass judgement on the people from which they came from? Why not pass judgement on the place that it still happens today? Fuck you fuck everything about you when you died I hope you die in pain eaten alive by rats.. You filthy piece of shit.

Man that felt good.

The Founders failed on the issue of slavery, biggie. Not even a discussion can exist on that.

You have every right to believe as you wish. Even if it is as stupid as what you wrote above.

Slavery elsewhere today does not excuse slavery in our past. In no way shape or form.

I served honorably many years on active duty, am on VA disability, to make sure all Americans, including you, biggie, have the right to say what you want. Even as stupid as what you wrote above.

You, biggie, are a disgrace to the flag, to our country's honor, to the glory of what America is when we act the way God expects us to act. You disgrace us all with your tantrums.

 

[Charles_Main]

Do you happen to know the diff between banning guns and regulating guns?

Any idea?

LOL Regulating guns.. Is that like what the definition of is, is? Regulate this:

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

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

Anyone with out a felony record or a history of mental illness should be allowed to have an ar-15.

Punish the assholes who misuse them, not everyone.

 

[Charles_Main]

Then do not defend the Founders' failures about slavery.

Who the fuck do you think you are? The founders fought and died for something your punk ass does not deserve. You're passing judgement on them why not pass judgement on the people from which they came from? Why not pass judgement on the place that it still happens today? Fuck you fuck everything about you when you died I hope you die in pain eaten alive by rats.. You filthy piece of shit.

Man that felt good.

The Founders failed on the issue of slavery, biggie. Not even a discussion can exist on that.

If you read many of the founders writings, you will learn that many of them did not like slavery, but they recognized that if they had tried to end it then, the United States would have never been a Nation. Period.

IN order to unite the colonies, and to have the strength and will to defy England. They had no choice but to put off the issue of slavery for another time. However in their wisdom they did make a constitution able to be changed in the future to put an end to it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Charles, I respect what you are saying, but the Constitution, as far as slavery was concerned, was, as Garrison wrote, a compact with hell. The Constitution did not end slavery. A mighty civil war that killed 3 and wounded 5 of every hundred Americans ended it. The 13th Amendment was the result of the Civil War.

The Founders failed. However, Charles, I don't know if they could have done anything else.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then do not defend the Founders' failures about slavery.

Who the fuck do you think you are? The founders fought and died for something your punk ass does not deserve. You're passing judgement on them why not pass judgement on the people from which they came from? Why not pass judgement on the place that it still happens today? Fuck you fuck everything about you when you died I hope you die in pain eaten alive by rats.. You filthy piece of shit.

Man that felt good.

The Founders failed on the issue of slavery, biggie. Not even a discussion can exist on that.

You have every right to believe as you wish. Even if it is as stupid as what you wrote above.

Slavery elsewhere today does not excuse slavery in our past. In no way shape or form.

I served honorably many years on active duty, am on VA disability, to make sure all Americans, including you, biggie, have the right to say what you want. Even as stupid as what you wrote above.

You, biggie, are a disgrace to the flag, to our country's honor, to the glory of what America is when we act the way God expects us to act. You disgrace us all with your tantrums.

Slavery elsewhere today does not excuse slavery in our past. In no way shape or form.

And you support Islim? way to go jake you just showed yourself to be a hypocrit.

You, biggie, are a disgrace to the flag, to our country's honor, to the glory of what America is when we act the way God expects us to act. You disgrace us all with your tantrums

Listen up little man you cannot talk shit about the founders then praise the flag, country and the constitution you hypocrit piece of shit. It was the founders who gave it to you. You are a disgrace you and your buddy bill ayers, who were taught by Alinsky.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Charles, I respect what you are saying, but the Constitution, as far as slavery was concerned, was, as Garrison wrote, a compact with hell. The Constitution did not end slavery. A mighty civil war that killed 3 and wounded 5 of every hundred Americans ended it. The 13th Amendment was the result of the Civil War.

The Founders failed. However, Charles, I don't know if they could have done anything else.

Blow it out your ass enemy of the state it was the 14th also.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake: The Founders failed on the issue of slavery, biggie. Not even a discussion can exist on that. You have every right to believe as you wish. Even if it is as stupid as what you wrote above. Slavery elsewhere today does not excuse slavery in our past. In no way shape or form.

I served honorably many years on active duty, am on VA disability, to make sure all Americans, including you, biggie, have the right to say what you want. Even as stupid as what you wrote above.

You, biggie, are a disgrace to the flag, to our country's honor, to the glory of what America is when we act the way God expects us to act. You disgrace us all with your tantrums.

Slavery elsewhere today does not excuse slavery in our past. In no way shape or form.

I have no idea why bigrebnc supports Islam. He must, because he just tried the Big Lie.

You, biggie, are a disgrace to the flag, to our country's honor, to the glory of what America is when we act the way God expects us to act. You disgrace us all with your tantrums.

Listen up little man you cannot talk shit about the founders then praise the flag, country and the constitution you hypocrit piece of shit. It was the founders who gave it to you.

We see bigrebnc attempt the Saul Alinksy/ Howard Zenn/ Rush Limbaugh hand book with the big lie. For shame, biggie, for shame.

 

[Charles_Main]

Charles, I respect what you are saying, but the Constitution, as far as slavery was concerned, was, as Garrison wrote, a compact with hell. The Constitution did not end slavery. A mighty civil war that killed 3 and wounded 5 of every hundred Americans ended it. The 13th Amendment was the result of the Civil War.
.

You just proved what I said.

The founders, some of them opposed to Slavery, understood there would be no ratification, and no nation, if they attempt to end slavery.

However in their wisdom they made a constitution that was able to be changed later.

Which the 13th Amendment is proof of.

You are right, it took a civil war to end slavery. Which is exactly why the founders did not even attempt to end it. Because it would have split the colonies and ended any chance at Ratification. Did they fail? I suppose you could say that, However I think every Historian you asked would agree, had they attempted to put an end to slavery at the start. There would have been no Nation to begin with.