What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms?

[bripat9643]

the American has the RIGHT to the basic arms of the American infantryman . No nukes but the rifles , gear , handguns , ammunition and all the other personal items of the American soldier . That's the theory I go by as it fills the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment .

The Founding Fathers also believed the common man should have the right to have things like canons. The modern equivalent of that would be anti-tank weapons, artillery, tanks and guided missiles. It would definitely include RPGs.

 

[pismoe]

I know about the cannon and agree . I also see bazooka and high explosives at private owner machine gun shoots , doesn't bother me BRIPAT !!

 

[rightwinger]

the American has the RIGHT to the basic arms of the American infantryman . No nukes but the rifles , gear , handguns , ammunition and all the other personal items of the American soldier . That's the theory I go by as it fills the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment .

The Founding Fathers also believed the common man should have the right to have things like canons. The modern equivalent of that would be anti-tank weapons, artillery, tanks and guided missiles. It would definitely include RPGs.

Sounds like Somalia

 

[pismoe]

naw , USA is civilized for the most part Rightwinger. Nothing wrong or uncivilized about being Prepared by being armed .

 

[M14 Shooter]

naw , USA is civilized for the most part Rightwinger. Nothing wrong or uncivilized about being Prepared by being armed .

RW has no intention of having an honest discussion of the issue.

 

[rightwinger]

naw , USA is civilized for the most part Rightwinger. Nothing wrong or uncivilized about being Prepared by being armed .

RW has no intention of having an honest discussion of the issue.

I believe that up until a criminal has pulled the trigger in a crime that he has a second amendment right to the best available weapon to commit that crime......the NRA agrees with me

 

[pismoe]

I don't understand but you know what I think as I put it in type a few posts above RW . NRA is alright but I don't follow them in lockstep fashion , I'm more [no compromise] GOA and JPFO but I support all 3 groups .

 

[Preacher]

None.

 

[2aguy]

Suppose I am batshit crazy and the voices in my head are telling me I need to kill as many people as I can as fast as I can......I can't do that with a musket

Thankfully, I have a second amendment and hopefully a knowledgeable gun dealer to help me pick out the right weapon

And the worst mass murder in history was done with 1$ of gasoline......killed over 80 people cause the guy got thrown out of a club.....no background checks, no fees, no registraton.......

 

[2aguy]

naw , USA is civilized for the most part Rightwinger. Nothing wrong or uncivilized about being Prepared by being armed .

Except for the cities under democrat control....if not for them our gun murder rate would be as low as if not lower than Europe....

 

[rightwinger]

Suppose I am batshit crazy and the voices in my head are telling me I need to kill as many people as I can as fast as I can......I can't do that with a musket

Thankfully, I have a second amendment and hopefully a knowledgeable gun dealer to help me pick out the right weapon

And the worst mass murder in history was done with 1$ of gasoline......killed over 80 people cause the guy got thrown out of a club.....no background checks, no fees, no registraton.......

Fucking idiot

Didn't he know he could have shot the fucking place up with an AR-15 Bushmaster?

Pussy

 

[pismoe]

what about that crazy farmer , think it was Michigan , blew up a school with some dynamite in the late 1920s . --- Bath School disaster - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia --- just another example , no guns involved in the massacre of school kids and teachers .

 

[pismoe]

wait for those imported Somalis up in Minnesota to get some AR15's 'RW' . The Somalis in little Somalia that are now said to be amerikan and have 2nd amendment rights .

 

[pismoe]

and just an example , its about Yemen 'RWinger' but check out the first photo to see what happens when the rabble has been disarmed and the enemy is just around the corner !! --- Yemen crisis President Hadi flees as Houthi rebels advance - BBC News --- its really kinda funny if the picture caption is correct !!

 

[jasonnfree]

Where have these 2nd Amendment right gun nuts been the last six years? The right to keep and bear arms is to ensure the power to remove tyrants, and we've had one in the white house and where are the armed patriots? Bragging about their weapons while Obama destroys the country. Makes me want to join the NRA so I can cancel my membership.

 

[Abatis]

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

I wouldn't say that restrictions exist because of the nature of the right; some restrictions are legitimate because of the structure of the Constitution being a charter of conferred powers.

It is a foundational principle that all power emanates from the people. We the People established the federal government by surrendering powers via a contract and that structuring and specific enumeration limits the extent of the federal government. The most fundamental principle of that is, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED.

The weapons of warfare like rockets and missiles and fighter jets and NBC WMD's are legitimately under the control of the federal government because We the People have surrendered the acquisition, maintenance and control of those types of arms to government through the war powers.

In Article I, § 8: the Constitution states:

Congress shall have the power:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,. . .
12. To raise and support armies, . . .
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:​

The powers granted to the federal government preempt other entities acting in similar fashion, i.e., states or the people printing their own currency or raising and supporting their own army or entering into treaties with foreign nations . . . Laws restricting people from doing those things are not violations of the freedom of press or assembly or the right to keep and bear arms because we have surrendered any claim of those things as "rights" (exceptions of powers not granted).

Interestingly, this principle is actually applied to private citizens and weapons of war in the Constitution in clause 11 above and remains true and is applicable today.

The most devastating weapon of the time (Man o' War's) were owned by private citizens (Privateer's) and after the War, through the Constitution, power / control over those weapons was granted to Congress. Private citizens could not maintain or sail these ships without the permission of Congress (receiving a letter of marque and reprisal).

I believe the principle allowing government to place restrictions on citizens owning / using those weapons of war can be applied to restrictions over citizens owning weapons of modern open / indiscriminate warfare.

When considering this (and other questions of rights) it is important to remain tethered to the fundamentals:

The interests we have conferred to government we can not claim as a right.
Those interests that we have not surrendered but fully retained, the government cannot claim as a power.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where have these 2nd Amendment right gun nuts been the last six years? The right to keep and bear arms is to ensure the power to remove tyrants, and we've had one in the white house and where are the armed patriots? Bragging about their weapons while Obama destroys the country. Makes me want to join the NRA so I can cancel my membership.

Look... an anti-gun nut completely avoiding the topic set forth in the OP because he doesn't understand the question well enough to make a lame attempt at an actual answer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

I wouldn't say that restrictions exist because of the nature of the right; some restrictions are legitimate because of the structure of the Constitution being a charter of conferred powers.

Disagree.
The right to arms inherently does not include a right to commit a crime with a gun.
That sort of thing.

 

[jasonnfree]

Where have these 2nd Amendment right gun nuts been the last six years? The right to keep and bear arms is to ensure the power to remove tyrants, and we've had one in the white house and where are the armed patriots? Bragging about their weapons while Obama destroys the country. Makes me want to join the NRA so I can cancel my membership.

Look... an anti-gun nut completely avoiding the topic set forth in the OP because he doesn't understand the question well enough to make a lame attempt at an actual answer.

In the meant time, you probably never had need for a gun in your life. I took a couple gun whackos to collect from machines in bad neighborhhoods when I was in the laundromat business among other enterprises. These guys were pooping their pants like most gun nut phonies do when the rubber meets the road and we were actually in the barrio. Maybe you're one of these clowns, maybe not, I think you are. I get on all threads where I can sharpshoot you whackos. Don't like it, too bad. M-14? OOOOhhh what a bad dude.

 

[Abatis]

Disagree.
The right to arms inherently does not include a right to commit a crime with a gun.
That sort of thing.

My reply was focused on type of arms not on actions with arms.

I would say that as a matter of principle that the "right to keep and bear arms" does not include offensive actions like threatening harm or shooting or killing someone without justification. Under those circumstances, laws restricting such illegitimate actions can not be defined as a "restriction on the right" because the right is not implicated.