Questions for Conservatives

[RetiredGySgt]

Apparently it supports all kinds of weapons. It makes no distinctions – yet. Should we continue to leave it as is? If so, I want to buy several bazookas and perhaps a Sherman tank. That’s a good arm.

The Constitution does draw a line, the States and the people were barred from owning ARMED Naval Vessels, the only strategic weapon at the time. This then leads to a similar ban today on STRATEGIC assets.

Now play dumb and act like no one can know what a strategic weapon is.

 

[mattskramer]

The Constitution does draw a line, the States and the people were barred from owning ARMED Naval Vessels, the only strategic weapon at the time. This then leads to a similar ban today on STRATEGIC assets.

Now play dumb and act like no one can know what a strategic weapon is.

Where in the Constitution does it say that I can’t own a naval vessel? Please find the quote for me. An arm is an arm. The same 2nd amendment that does not allow infringement on the right to bear arms makes no distinction between a shotgun, automatic machine gun, bazooka, hand grenade, Sherman tank, or ICBM.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The Constitution does draw a line, the States and the people were barred from owning ARMED Naval Vessels, the only strategic weapon at the time. This then leads to a similar ban today on STRATEGIC assets.

Now play dumb and act like no one can know what a strategic weapon is.

An RPG launcher, or high explosive rounds aren't a "strategic" weapon either. I don't think private citizens should own RPGs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where in the Constitution does it say that I can’t own a naval vessel? Please find the quote for me. An arm is an arm. The same 2nd amendment that does not allow infringement on the right to bear arms makes no distinction between a shotgun, automatic machine gun, bazooka, hand grenade, Sherman tank, or ICBM.

Moron, armed naval vessel, is that better? I should have known better than to expect an intelligent reply from you. And are you capable of reading? Google will get you to the Constitution or must I link it for you and quote the passage?

 

[Shogun]

are you kidding me?

can you imagine how fun chopping wood would be with a frigging rpg??

 

[mattskramer]

Moron, armed naval vessel, is that better? I should have known better than to expect an intelligent reply from you. And are you capable of reading? Google will get you to the Constitution or must I link it for you and quote the passage?

I did not ask for the Constitution. I asked for the relevant part of the constitution – the part that says that private citizens are not allowed vessels. Coward. The Constitution does not say that I can’t have a Sherman tank (which could surely serve as a strategic weapon) or a vessel. Again, we are talking about the Bill of Rights (or are you claiming that other parts of the Constitution overrides the Bill of Rights). Just as the bill of rights does not require a background check, it does not specifically limit what kind of arms I may have. You say that since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, any background check would be unconstitutional. Yet, you suggest that there is an understood limit when it comes to the kinds of arms that I can have. Is a hand grenade a strategic weapon or an arm? How about a bazooka? Yes. I looked up the definition of a strategic arm. It seems to me that a tank and a bazooka can fall into such a category.

Your argument is wearing pretty thin. Just like when I compared the 2nd amendment with the 1st amendment, you were ready to recognize limits to freedom of speech not spelled out in the 1st amendment (creating a public nuisance or endangering the public, inciting a riot, etc.). Yet, you were not willing to recognize reasonable limits to the 2nd amendment. Now it looks like you recognize limits to the 2nd amendment that are not spelled out. While you don’t see background checks, you see that people should not be allowed vessels. I forgot if you see limits with respect to ICBMs, missile launchers, bazookas, hand grenades, land mines, fully automatic machine guns (machine guns could sure put out a command post and be used as a strategic weapon), and other things. Where do you draw the line since those things are not spelled out in your precious Bill of Rights, yet you see that some should be excluded?

Give it up. Though I might sound moronic, I think that it is quite clear to most people following this thread, that logically, I’m running circles around you. The bottom line is that there are understood limits (or should be limits) to the Bill of Rights even if those limits are not spelled out.

 

[maineman]

did the colonist have rockets made in china, dude?

and no, they did not fathom the dirty bombs YOU brought up. No, they did not fathom mustard gas and napalm. No, they did not anticipate phosphorus weapons. ICBMs? nope. Just like they were not thinking about human sacrifice when crafting the preservation of religios freedom. However, They understood the role of FIREARMS and BLADES in protecting the general population.


Do YOU think the first 50 years of our nation WOULDNT have used rockets when achieving our independence? They used cannons so why the hell would they not use rockets? do you think Andrew Jackson would have said NO to American citizens being scalped by the natives if they defended themselves with the range of options we have now? I doubt it.

Timeless? yes. if you don't like the broad application of THEIR ideal regarding an armed population then, by all means, get your grass roots effort going. YOU can stir up the support necessary to treat the second like the 21st treated the eighteenth. it's totally retarded to see you argue against the second while making every effort to broadly define the first and fourth. Hell, the NINTH should tell you how they felt about the broadness of constitutional application.

I merely point out that to suggest that the constitution only allows citizens to bear "firearms and blades is ridiculous. If the framers had wanted to restrict the allowable arms to only those invented at that time, they would certainly have said so. And rockets certainly were contemporary weaponry at that time. Francis Scott Key certainly was well aware of them, and their red glare.

And to suggest that the supreme court is not capable of interpreting the constitution to cover issues unfathomable by the framers is silly.

 

[jillian]

You come out with this stereotypical crap every couple of weeks or so...
Is that when the stupid pills kick in or what ?
If you want to get educated on them one by one, just start the thread and I'm sure you'll get schooled....probably not educated, but definitely schooled...

You really shouldn't be complaining about anyone else stereotyping or being "[un]schooled".

 

[Paulie]

You can buy both.

But you can't file off the cereal numbers.

That sucks. How about the Serial numbers?

 

[maineman]

Moron, armed naval vessel, is that better? I should have known better than to expect an intelligent reply from you. And are you capable of reading? Google will get you to the Constitution or must I link it for you and quote the passage?

where in the constitution does it forbid citizens from owning ARMED naval vessels?

 

[mattskramer]

where in the constitution does it forbid citizens from owning ARMED naval vessels?

I’m waiting for that answer too. He basically said for me to go find it for myself. I tried. I even used a magnifying glass and looked through my copy of the Constitution carefully. I just don’t see it.

 

[midcan5]

I still wonder why they carted away the 155 mm holitzer we used to use for target practice out on the front lawn. I ask you now is this not an encroachment of my rights under the second amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You people are amazing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section10

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Now granted if we are in a DECLARED war a State may have an armed warship, and also private citizens can be granted license as privateers as well.

You will note that have rifles, pistols or shotguns aboard a vessel does not make it a war ship. Those items are protected by the 2nd amendment.

 

[Paulie]

Now granted if we are in a DECLARED war a State may have an armed warship, and also private citizens can be granted license as privateers as well.

But we aren't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I’m waiting for that answer too. He basically said for me to go find it for myself. I tried. I even used a magnifying glass and looked through my copy of the Constitution carefully. I just don’t see it.

Perhaps learning to comprehend what you read would help.

 

[mattskramer]

Perhaps learning to comprehend what you read would help.

Okay. I was looking for terms such as “people”, “citizens”, and “civilians” as is stated in the 2nd amendment - not "State". Okay. Ships are excluded. Are Sherman tanks excluded? Are rocket launchers excluded? Are ICMB’s excluded? If so, please point this out to me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay. I was looking for terms such as “people”, “citizens”, and “civilians” as is stated in the 2nd amendment - not "State". Okay. Ships are excluded. Are Sherman tanks excluded? Are rocket launchers excluded? Are ICMB’s excluded? If so, please point this out to me.

They are by common sense. Personal weapons are protected. States and local Governments can have heavy weapons if they want depending on the laws and Constitution of said state. Keep and bear arms is clear. the PEOPLE have that right. When you can heft a tank on your shoulder you can have it. As for rocket launchers and such they are excluded because they are not considered individual arms, In use the term personal but it has other meanings as well. Blades, rifles, shotguns, pistols, these are protected for the PEOPLE. Heavier weapons and equipment can be kept by the States and possibly by towns or counties. Since Navies ( armed warships) are clearly proscribed except in time of war or with the authority of Congress, that would eliminate any strategic type asset, such as ICBM's and long range bombers, this would include Nuclear warheads as they too are considered strategic.

Automatic weapons are considered as non protected also, that one may be a little harder to construe from the amendment, but the vast majority of Americans accept it and the courts accept it as such. You can though own fully automatic weapons in all but 17 States. And if you get the proper permits and licenses and meet the proper criteria you can own older tanks and artillery. Even having some ammunition for them.

 

[mattskramer]

They are by common sense. Personal weapons are protected. States and local Governments can have heavy weapons if they want depending on the laws and Constitution of said state. Keep and bear arms is clear. the PEOPLE have that right. When you can heft a tank on your shoulder you can have it. As for rocket launchers and such they are excluded because they are not considered individual arms, In use the term personal but it has other meanings as well. Blades, rifles, shotguns, pistols, these are protected for the PEOPLE. Heavier weapons and equipment can be kept by the States and possibly by towns or counties. Since Navies ( armed warships) are clearly proscribed except in time of war or with the authority of Congress, that would eliminate any strategic type asset, such as ICBM's and long range bombers, this would include Nuclear warheads as they too are considered strategic.

Automatic weapons are considered as non protected also, that one may be a little harder to construe from the amendment, but the vast majority of Americans accept it and the courts accept it as such. You can though own fully automatic weapons in all but 17 States. And if you get the proper permits and licenses and meet the proper criteria you can own older tanks and artillery. Even having some ammunition for them.

Okay. So certain weapons are excluded from the 2nd amendment by common sense. Some other weapons (automatic ones), though not excluded by the 2nd amendment, are excluded because the vast majority of Americans accept them as excluded. Well, gee. What if a majority of Americans sees background checks as acceptable – oh, wait, that would be unconstitutional.

Also, it is limited by how you define an arm. Who is to say that a rocket launcher is not an individual arm? Is it impossible for an individual to use? Even if a missile launcher is not “considered” and individual arm, where is it written in the 2nd amendment that an arm must be an individual arm? For someone who says that we can’t have a background check or other requirement because it is not stated in the 2nd amendment, you sure seem to be coming up with some imaginative exceptions that are also not stated in the 2nd amendment.

Again, just be a man about it and back down. I’m shredding your argument to bits. The 2nd amendment gives no mention of a background check. Therefore, having a background check would be unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment does not limit what type of arms you can have but based on what you consider to be common sense and public opinion, we should have limits on the types of arms we can have. Don’t you see your inconsistency? You can’t logically have it both ways.

 

[DeadCanDance]

They are by common sense. Personal weapons are protected. States and local Governments can have heavy weapons if they want depending on the laws and Constitution of said state. Keep and bear arms is clear. the PEOPLE have that right. When you can heft a tank on your shoulder you can have it. As for rocket launchers and such they are excluded because they are not considered individual arms, In use the term personal but it has other meanings as well. Blades, rifles, shotguns, pistols, these are protected for the PEOPLE. Heavier weapons and equipment can be kept by the States and possibly by towns or counties. Since Navies ( armed warships) are clearly proscribed except in time of war or with the authority of Congress, that would eliminate any strategic type asset, such as ICBM's and long range bombers, this would include Nuclear warheads as they too are considered strategic.

Automatic weapons are considered as non protected also, that one may be a little harder to construe from the amendment, but the vast majority of Americans accept it and the courts accept it as such. You can though own fully automatic weapons in all but 17 States. And if you get the proper permits and licenses and meet the proper criteria you can own older tanks and artillery. Even having some ammunition for them.

So you agree with significant limitations of the right to personal arms.

Automatic weapons are out; presumably 50 cal armour piercing ammunition is out, grenades are out, RGGs are out, anti-tank mines are out, presumably high explosive and cop-killer rounds are out.

Watch out: you're making an argument for limitations on the second amendment. You're really no different than others, who interpret the second amendment as being a limited right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you agree with significant limitations of the right to personal arms.

Automatic weapons are out; presumably 50 cal armour piercing ammunition is out, grenades are out, RGGs are out, anti-tank mines are out, presumably high explosive and cop-killer rounds are out.

Watch out: you're making an argument for limitations on the second amendment. You're really no different than others, who interpret the second amendment as being a limited right.

ALL rights have limits. ALL of them. The key is to understand what they are. The Second Amendment is not nor was it intended to cover every thing. One can argue though that my position is wrong. And they would be within their rights to do so, within reason. However all the things you listed are not in fact prohibited and I did not say they were. Armor piercing ammunition is not prohibited, explosive rounds would be, as well as rounds with chemical agents in them.

ICBM's are strictly out, no room for argument. Cannon are arguable but the court is clear where THEY draw the line. This line eliminates any explosive ammo type weapon. However they can in fact be owned with the proper license and paperwork. Mortors and heavy weapons are out.50 caliber ammo is NOT out, and 50 caliber weapons are NOT out. Full automatic weapons are controlled though. There are non fully automatic weapons that fire the ammo though and qualify as individual arms.

Personally I have no problem with reasonable limits in keeping with what is the obvious intent of the Amendment. Reasonable based on the INTENT of the framers on what was covered.

I am quite sure you agree that REASONABLE limits on the First Amendment are acceptable also.

Anyone that argues there are no limits on our rights would be wrong, plain and simple. Government exists to limit us, it is to control us. Only the smallest of communities can function without an organized form of Government of one kind or another.