What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[BenNatuf]

I don't know whats been said in the thread and I just found it. But IMO the list in the poll is not all inclusive, the right to keep and bear arms is limitted only to arms that can be borne by an individual, preferably in combat by that individual. It is an individual right and therfore would logically exclude crew served weapons which would include most belt fed machine guns, indirect fire weapons, heavy weapons, ships, planes, helocopters, tanks or anything else of the sort, but would not exclude grenade launchers, grenades, claymores and the like. In short, if you can bear it in combat (carry and use it yourself), you can keep it.

 

[Ballentine]

Well let's take a look, shall we?

Amendment II

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.

Well according to this all of the above.

 

[BenNatuf]

Well let's take a look, shall we?

Amendment II

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.

Well according to this all of the above.

plus some

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well let's take a look, shall we?

Amendment II

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.

Well according to this all of the above.

Nope, you are simply a mindless robot parroting nonsense talking points. Move along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

brianh, the act is not expanded in power. Show exactly where the Act gives more power. You can't.

Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

Don't confuse personal protection against intruders, such as you, with taking on the National Guard.

the act is not expanded in power. Show exactly where the Act gives more power. You can't.

The title of the link I used should give it away. the patriot act was not intended for domestic to domestic use. Now it is and obama wants to reinforce it.

Nope, your interp is not supported by the Act. And, you ignored this . . .Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

 

[Ballentine]

Well let's take a look, shall we?

Amendment II

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.

Well according to this all of the above.

plus some

True.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well let's take a look, shall we?

Amendment II

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.

Well according to this all of the above.

Nope, you are simply a mindless robot parroting nonsense talking points. Move along.

So the US Constitution is "nonsense talking points"?
You're a living art masterpiece.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

brianh, the act is not expanded in power. Show exactly where the Act gives more power. You can't.

Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

Don't confuse personal protection against intruders, such as you, with taking on the National Guard.

the act is not expanded in power. Show exactly where the Act gives more power. You can't.

The title of the link I used should give it away. the patriot act was not intended for domestic to domestic use. Now it is and obama wants to reinforce it.

Nope, your interp is not supported by the Act. And, you ignored this . . .Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

To gain new powers would be expanding the powers
1. Previously detailed nuances of the plan call for the government also to gain new warrantless surveillance powers over other communications resources such as email (e.g. Gmail), text messages (including encrypted services, like RIM's), social networks (e.g. Facebook), and internet forums.

Within the United States which was ot the intent of the patriot act.
2. Thus U.S. citizens use foreign cell phones, operating on foreign web sites, or using foreign-based email services, may have their Constitutional rights violated even while communicating with other U.S. citizens.

Obama is wanting to reinforce citizen to citizen communication.

3.Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping

DailyTech - Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well let's take a look, shall we?

Amendment II

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.

Well according to this all of the above.

Nope, you are simply a mindless robot parroting nonsense talking points. Move along.

So the US Constitution is "nonsense talking points"?
You're a living art masterpiece.

What do you expect from a liberal statist?

 

[BrianH]

brianh, the act is not expanded in power. Show exactly where the Act gives more power. You can't.

Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

Don't confuse personal protection against intruders, such as you, with taking on the National Guard.

I think you're the biggest idiot I've every encountered. The expanded the act by EXTENDING the reach of power to the interent and to devices that access the interent. The previous Act only granted the right to "wiretap" phone lines. Now, the Act proposed by the Obama administration is EXPANDING the power to monitor individuals to the internet and internet capable devices<-- meaning your cell-phones and computers. You either don't read any of the links that everyone posts, or your do read them and are simply the biggest jack-ass on planet earth.

 

[BenNatuf]

brianh, the act is not expanded in power. Show exactly where the Act gives more power. You can't.

Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

Don't confuse personal protection against intruders, such as you, with taking on the National Guard.

I think you're the biggest idiot I've every encountered. The expanded the act by EXTENDING the reach of power to the interent and to devices that access the interent. The previous Act only granted the right to "wiretap" phone lines. Now, the Act proposed by the Obama administration is EXPANDING the power to monitor individuals to the internet and internet capable devices<-- meaning your cell-phones and computers. You either don't read any of the links that everyone posts, or your do read them and are simply the biggest jack-ass on planet earth.

Might be Michelle or one of the kids.

 

[BrianH]

brianh, the act is not expanded in power. Show exactly where the Act gives more power. You can't.

Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

Don't confuse personal protection against intruders, such as you, with taking on the National Guard.

I think you're the biggest idiot I've every encountered. The expanded the act by EXTENDING the reach of power to the interent and to devices that access the interent. The previous Act only granted the right to "wiretap" phone lines. Now, the Act proposed by the Obama administration is EXPANDING the power to monitor individuals to the internet and internet capable devices<-- meaning your cell-phones and computers. You either don't read any of the links that everyone posts, or your do read them and are simply the biggest jack-ass on planet earth.

Might be Michelle or one of the kids.

It might be his crazy aunt Pelosi...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are guys are not telling the truth. There are no new powers in the act. You cannot demonstrate that such exists. Yelling at me does nothing more than you have nothing more than to yell at me.

I have withstood si modo, california girl, and cecelie1200 yelling all at once. You guys are bush league.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The title of the link I used should give it away. the patriot act was not intended for domestic to domestic use. Now it is and obama wants to reinforce it.

Nope, your interp is not supported by the Act. And, you ignored this . . .Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

To gain new powers would be expanding the powers
1. Previously detailed nuances of the plan call for the government also to gain new warrantless surveillance powers over other communications resources such as email (e.g. Gmail), text messages (including encrypted services, like RIM's), social networks (e.g. Facebook), and internet forums.

Within the United States which was ot the intent of the patriot act.
2. Thus U.S. citizens use foreign cell phones, operating on foreign web sites, or using foreign-based email services, may have their Constitutional rights violated even while communicating with other U.S. citizens.

Obama is wanting to reinforce citizen to citizen communication.

3.Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping

Nothing new there in expanded power by the Act. Get over it.

And you still have not answered this. And, you ignored this . . .Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, you are simply a mindless robot parroting nonsense talking points. Move along.

So the US Constitution is "nonsense talking points"?
You're a living art masterpiece.

What do you expect from a liberal statist?

biggie, you are the statist, right along with mudwhistle, who wants to deny civil liberties to folks who disagree with you.

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

What do you expect from a liberal statist?

Nonsensical Ayn Randian rubbish.

Epic Fail

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What do you expect from a liberal statist?

Nonsensical Ayn Randian rubbish.

Epic Fail

Move along junior, you do not know the history of jake starkey.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope, your interp is not supported by the Act. And, you ignored this . . .Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

To gain new powers would be expanding the powers
1. Previously detailed nuances of the plan call for the government also to gain new warrantless surveillance powers over other communications resources such as email (e.g. Gmail), text messages (including encrypted services, like RIM's), social networks (e.g. Facebook), and internet forums.

Within the United States which was ot the intent of the patriot act.
2. Thus U.S. citizens use foreign cell phones, operating on foreign web sites, or using foreign-based email services, may have their Constitutional rights violated even while communicating with other U.S. citizens.

Obama is wanting to reinforce citizen to citizen communication.

3.Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping

Nothing new there in expanded power by the Act. Get over it.

And you still have not answered this. And, you ignored this . . .Let's thank bigreb above for the perfect example of a straw man argument. I will demonstrate now just how witless the above statement. bigrebnc, I will shoot the intruder in the face with my 1911 .45. Don't need a guided missile frigate, a gunship, a tank, or a sling shot to do that.

Nothing new just jakes opinion. He has nothing to offer. But what else would you expect from a liberal statist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So the US Constitution is "nonsense talking points"?
You're a living art masterpiece.

What do you expect from a liberal statist?

biggie, you are the statist, right along with mudwhistle, who wants to deny civil liberties to folks who disagree with you.

Question for you jake do you support what obama is doing?

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't know whats been said in the thread and I just found it. But IMO the list in the poll is not all inclusive, the right to keep and bear arms is limitted only to arms that can be borne by an individual, preferably in combat by that individual. It is an individual right and therfore would logically exclude crew served weapons which would include most belt fed machine guns, indirect fire weapons, heavy weapons, ships, planes, helocopters, tanks or anything else of the sort, but would not exclude grenade launchers, grenades, claymores and the like. In short, if you can bear it in combat (carry and use it yourself), you can keep it.

Where do you see that? I see the right of the people to keep and bear arms and not the right of a person to keep and bear arms, If me and 2 friends can afford a 50 cal, where is the government's Constitutional authority to limit us?

Because the whole reason for a militia in the first place is to ensure the government can be challenged if it tries to remove our rights, it makes perfect sense for us to have comparable weaponry.. I have a fairly impressive array of firearms, but I'm no match for a tank commanded by troops sympathetic to a despot.