How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?

[woodwork201]

Rights may be abridged for various reasons. Look up the SC reference to that in light of the Tenth.

If you're going to make the claim, then you provide the links. And, even without links if it were true, you should be able to on your own explain how, in light of the Tenth, rights can be abridged.

 

[woodwork201]

Where does it say that in the 2nd?

M14 Shooter oft argues that the 2nd Amendment only applies to arms in common use and also not to extra dangerous weapons. Many other so-called, self-proclaimed-yet-fake, supporters of the 2nd Amendment on here have made the same arguments. So, according to many here, since a drone is not in common use as a weapon it can be banned.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Non sequitur

There are arms whose possession are not within the scope of Second Amendment protections.

Assault weapons are protected

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where does it say that in the 2nd?

Back in the 80s the anti gun nuts wanted to ban handguns.
Anti-gun groups’ handgun ban strategy today—During the 1970s and early 1980s, anti-gun groups in the U.S. sought a ban on handguns or, as that goal seemed out of reach, compact handguns. In the mid-1970s, the Brady Campaign, then called the National Coalition to Control Handguns, called for “A ban on the manufacture, sale, and importation of all handguns and handgun ammunition [and] a buy-back program whereby gun owners would be reimbursed for turning their guns over to the government.”[9] Soon, the group outlined its strategy to achieve the ban: “[O]ne step at a time. . . . Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition...totally illegal.”[10] In 1981, the leader of the group, without declaring his ultimate purpose, wrote, “We should face the simple fact that licensing and registration [of gun owners and guns] are, or should be, duties of citizenship.”[11]

In 1988, the New Right Watch (now known as the Violence Policy Center, or VPC), led by a former staffer of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, argued that gun control groups should change their strategy. It said, to “strengthen the handgun restriction lobby,” gun control supporters should focus not on handguns, but on “assault weapons.” It continued, “It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an ‘old’ debate. . . . [T]he issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Assault weapons . . . are a new topic.

 

[kaz]

Interesting point. If a neighbor flies a weaponized drone onto my property or even on his property but where it could attack me then I am justified in shooting him dead with my rifle.

"Could attack" is too subjective. He has to be threatening you. His drone "could attack" you flying around his yard, but that is meaningless unless he's threatening you with it. If he flies it into your yard without permission, then he made your case he threatened you a lot easier.

Again exactly the same with a gun. He "could attack" you with it if he has it in his yard, but you can't kill him unless he's threatening you with it. Same thing.

I think you understand, I don't know why you phrased it so poorly

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter oft argues that the 2nd Amendment only applies to arms in common use and also not to extra dangerous weapons.

The Scotsman agrees that not all weapons are protected by the 2nd.
Thus, he agree there is a line somewhere that separates protected weapons from non-protected weapons.
So, Scotsman:
Where is that line, and how do you know?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Scotsman agrees that not all weapons are protected by the 2nd.
Thus, he agree there is a line somewhere that separates protected weapons from non-protected weapons.
So, Scotsman:
Where is that line, and how do you know?

The line was drawn in 1939 US v Miller any weapon that would serve efficiently and maintain an effective militia and supplied by the citizen is protected by the second amendment. And FYI the weapon not protected according to the Miller court was a sawed off shotgun. Side note Jack Miller originally won his case but on appeal an no defendant to show up during the appeals process the ruling was against Jack Miller but Jack Miller was never heard from again

 

[M14 Shooter]

The line was drawn in 1939 US v Miller any weapon that would serve efficiently and maintain an effective militia and supplied by the citizen is protected by the second amendment.

You clearly have not noticed -- the Scotsman does not rexognize the USSC as the authority on the issue.
The Constitution, see, is the authority.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You clearly have not noticed -- the Scotsman does not rexognize the USSC as the authority on the issue.
The Constitution, see, is the authority.

I understand that but you asked where the line was drawn. That was the line. I also added why we were at that point. What you missed while I edited my post
"And FYI the weapon not protected according to the Miller court was a sawed off shotgun. Side note Jack Miller originally won his case but on appeal an no defendant to show up during the appeals process the ruling was against Jack Miller but Jack Miller was never heard from again" if Miller had shown up the NFA would have been gutted.

 

[ElmerMudd]

You want to infringe my 2nd rights, you must be either a Democrat or a commie, which is it?

Jaxson, I hate to give you bad news but your 2nd amendment rights have been stomped on for centuries.
It is the right to "bear arms" not guns. They are not talking body parts. They intended it to have the right to bear weapons of war.
Fight for all weapons of war if you want to fight for the 2nd amendment.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I just went out and bought one!

Yaaaay ME!

What weapon is on your drone?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I understand that but you asked where the line was drawn. That was the line.

Understood, and agree.
I was asking the Scotsman.
He continually refuses to answer.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Understood, and agree.
I was asking the Scotsman.
He continually refuses to answer.

Scotsman? Sounds like elizabethian third person conversation. Don't tell me he's doing that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Jaxson, I hate to give you bad news but your 2nd amendment rights have been stomped on for centuries.
It is the right to "bear arms" not guns. They are not talking body parts. They intended it to have the right to bear weapons of war.
Fight for all weapons of war if you want to fight for the 2nd amendment.

Not centuries just within 1934. But we're taking our rights back. Firearms is what they are called a gun is for fucking.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Scotsman? Sounds like elizabethian third person conversation. Don't tell me he's doing that?

He's the True Scotsman.
If you don't agree with him, you're not a Scotsman.

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm sure he understands the reference.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He's the True Scotsman.
If you don't agree with him, you're not a Scotsman.

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm sure he understand the reference.

I understand it I actually am of Scottish heritage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You want to infringe my 2nd rights, you must be either a Democrat or a commie, which is it?

You seem to be a waste of time. Bye.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

For example, one has the right to possess a handgun, which is within the scope of the Second Amendment; an armed drone, not.

lol...and if you get to indulge that fantasy aloud your right to free speech has been fulfilled, no need for journalism.

 

[ralfy]

If you're going to make the claim, then you provide the links. And, even without links if it were true, you should be able to on your own explain how, in light of the Tenth, rights can be abridged.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rights may be abridged for various reasons. Look up the SC reference to that in light of the Tenth.

So the 13 amendment can be abridged for various reasons? How about the 19th amendment? How about the 15th amendment? You don't get a fair trial you don't get a right to representation.