What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that a firearm is protected by the 2nd Amendment if it is of use or in use by the military.

So if Warren Buffet, the Koch Bros or one of the Waltons wanted to buy a B1 Bomber fully loaded with 2K lb munitions, it's all good? And they can buy a fully operational Abrams, combat loaded and park it in the yard?

WTF?

You obviously did not catch the "firearm" part of the answer. Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Has it ever dawned on you that the similarity in the laws and the Constitution (not just as it pertains to the 2nd) is not mere coincidence?

Constitutionality is one of the big hurdles all Bills have to pass before they become Law.

So the law reflects the Constitution.

And you two gun-phobes are the ones who brought up "intent of the Constitution."

I just used it to show everyone else how scared and ignorant you both are.

I was 11B airborne before you were born. I have a tremendous respect and have a tremendous familiarity with all infantry and weapons support platoon ordinance.

There is no way I would trust most of the far righties and the far lefties on this site with much more than a .22 rifle. or 20-gauge shotgun.

Well then it sucks that we don't call you with our 4473's, huh?

You don't want to see my gun safe, I assure you. You'd be lying in the floor crying like a little school girl before the door was even fully opened.

Thanks for your service!

Wanna D/R M4's against the clock? Bet you $100.....and spot you 10 seconds.

You should know.....I've only lost once....but he was a Marine

You don't understand that no such thing as a fair fight exists. You would never see it coming.

OK, after this beating of our manly chests, what was your point above?

 

[uscitizen]

ComradeMini14 reserves the right to interpret it for his own convenience. It is amazing how the lefties like littlecomrade try to hid amongst the conservatives.

Self centered finiancial gain he makes his money selling guns.
Interesting that the title refers to the second ammendment then he resorts to law...

Has it ever dawned on you that the similarity in the laws and the Constitution (not just as it pertains to the 2nd) is not mere coincidence?

Constitutionality is one of the big hurdles all Bills have to pass before they become Law.

So the law reflects the Constitution.

And you two gun-phobes are the ones who brought up "intent of the Constitution."

I just used it to show everyone else how scared and ignorant you both are.

Me a gun phobe? au contrare.
I own many guns perhaps 30 long guns and 6 short guns.
I have a few thousand rounds of ammo. Well more I suppose since I have over 2000 rounds of .22 rimfire.
I have a concealed carry permit. And keep a very nice Remington Rand 1911 M1 A1 .45 in a holster on my power chair with extra clips.

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that a firearm is protected by the 2nd Amendment if it is of use or in use by the military.

So if Warren Buffet, the Koch Bros or one of the Waltons wanted to buy a B1 Bomber fully loaded with 2K lb munitions, it's all good? And they can buy a fully operational Abrams, combat loaded and park it in the yard?

WTF?

You obviously did not catch the "firearm" part of the answer. Reading comprehension is your friend.

So if the drunk down the street had a few FGM-148 Javelins laying around it wouldn't bother you? Or would you be that drunk?

 

[JFK_USA]

I will go with what the founding fathers had. Non-automatic weapons were not around so I doubt if they were around they would make legal assault and automatic weapons. I mean seriously, you don't need an automatic weapon to shoot a deer or to defend yourself.

So the high capacity magazines, assault rifles should be outlawed.

 

[Mini 14]

You don't understand that no such thing as a fair fight exists. You would never see it coming.

OK, after this beating of our manly chests, what was your point above?

My point was that we disagree, and that your interpretation of the Constitution is not the only one. You were in the middle of changing my opinion when you threw your service and age into the discussion.

 

[Mini 14]

So if Warren Buffet, the Koch Bros or one of the Waltons wanted to buy a B1 Bomber fully loaded with 2K lb munitions, it's all good? And they can buy a fully operational Abrams, combat loaded and park it in the yard?

WTF?

You obviously did not catch the "firearm" part of the answer. Reading comprehension is your friend.

So if the drunk down the street had a few FGM-148 Javelins laying around it wouldn't bother you? Or would you be that drunk?

You really have no understanding of the law, do you?

Most US citizens can buy a hand grenade, with the proper license.
Not one of them can legally buy a functioning M1 Abrams, or the ordinance it fires.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't understand that no such thing as a fair fight exists. You would never see it coming.

OK, after this beating of our manly chests, what was your point above?

My point was that we disagree, and that your interpretation of the Constitution is not the only one. You were in the middle of changing my opinion when you threw your service and age into the discussion.

minicomrade, you questioned my unfounded phobia of guns, so I corrected you by pointing out my service and MOS qualifications. OK, we disagree, and I still don't see how your points meet constitutional requirements. So make it more clear. Just what firearms are permissible to the 2nd Amendment, in your opinion?

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

You obviously did not catch the "firearm" part of the answer. Reading comprehension is your friend.

So if the drunk down the street had a few FGM-148 Javelins laying around it wouldn't bother you? Or would you be that drunk?

You really have no understanding of the law, do you?

Most US citizens can buy a hand grenade, with the proper license.

Hold on, tiger.

What the hell are you talking about.

How about you link to a city/county/state URL enumerating this hand grenade policy for 'most US citizens with the proper license'.

 

[JBeukema]

At the time of ratification, were private citizens allowed to keep and bear cannons full of grapeshot?

 

[JBeukema]

Thew point of the Second (which was never really ratified anyway, since the States and Congress didn't vote on the same version) is made clear in its first words: 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.

In order to defeat an occupying force or an Army that might seek to oppress the people at the command of tyrannical government, the People need arms sufficient to mount an effectual resistance and insurgency.

This means ak-47s, molitovs cocktails, and maybe RPGs and a Toyota Hilux- just look at VietNam and Afghanistan...

 

[JBeukema]

-Take the National Guard and the state militia (eg: the Ohio Army National Guard becomes the Ohio State Militia and Guard)

-These militias may be called upon by the president or Governor, but:
1) Either the Governor or the President of the United States may only call upon the Militia for a period of 14 days at one time, with not less than 365 days between such summons

2)The President or governor may order the militias for relief efforts, but not to combat, without the authorization of the legislators of their respective States. The President may not summon the Militias for service outside of their respective States without the consent of the State legislator

3)The militia may only be ordered to serve any extended period, e ordered to combat, be otherwise summoned, or be ordered to service outside of the borders of their respective States by a two-thirds majority in both congressional houses of their respective States

4)The militia will be entitled to the use of army materials, bases and other locations, and training in accordance and on par with Army standards per conditions to be agreed to by the state legislators and the United States Congress through the approval of acceptable terms by both of the the aforementioned


sound good?

 

[JBeukema]

The second amendment does not specify a type of arms.

I can haz Davey Crocket?

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

Gun nuts don't even see the words 'well regulated militia' in the amendment. Maybe in colonial times every household was considered a 'militia'? WTF?

They are in effect saying this SINGLE SENTENCE has TWO meanings. Before the comma it's all about 'militias', and after the comma it's all about individual citizens - nothing to do with a group or 'militia'.

On these shaky grounds our wannabe Rambo's feel inclined to buy military hardware and set up the perimeter, against the robbers/home invaders that surely lurk in the darkness, and of course them evil Feds out to put them in reeducation camps. Fuckin lunatics.

 

[JBeukema]

Seems to me the right to bear arms are already being infringed on as bearing arms means to carry around with you. The way the laws are now it is a privaledge not a right to bear arms such as pistols and try to carry a shotgun down a street in New York!

Here we get into the living constitution thing. Some think that it ought to be the same as 1700's, in that case the only arms they had was muzzle loaders and single shots. Therefore that is it, no automatics or revolvers and such.

My viewpoint is that a person should be able to posess and carry handguns, rifles and shotguns. Automatic weapons, grenades, missiles and other war items are not neccassary and the 2nd does not state the reason for an individual's right as it does for the militia.

define:war items


glass bottles and gasoline?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I get so tired of these stupidass liberal gun banning threads. It's our Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.. if you don't like it, TOUGH SHIT. Get over it and shut the hell up already~

 

[JBeukema]

Seems to me the right to bear arms are already being infringed on as bearing arms means to carry around with you. The way the laws are now it is a privaledge not a right to bear arms such as pistols and try to carry a shotgun down a street in New York!

Here we get into the living constitution thing. Some think that it ought to be the same as 1700's, in that case the only arms they had was muzzle loaders and single shots. Therefore that is it, no automatics or revolvers and such.

My viewpoint is that a person should be able to posess and carry handguns, rifles and shotguns. Automatic weapons, grenades, missiles and other war items are not neccassary and the 2nd does not state the reason for an individual's right as it does for the militia.

Are the items you mentioned considered arms? If so..... then they are covered.

I can haz ATACMS?

 

[JBeukema]

I get so tired of these stupidass liberal gun banning threads. It's our Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.. if you don't like it, TOUGH SHIT. Get over it and shut the hell up already~

It was once our constitutional right to keep Slaves Edited by Intense

just sayin'

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So if Warren Buffet, the Koch Bros or one of the Waltons wanted to buy a B1 Bomber fully loaded with 2K lb munitions, it's all good? And they can buy a fully operational Abrams, combat loaded and park it in the yard?

WTF?

You obviously did not catch the "firearm" part of the answer. Reading comprehension is your friend.

So if the drunk down the street had a few FGM-148 Javelins laying around it wouldn't bother you? Or would you be that drunk?

The court said firearms, as in rifle, shotgun and pistol. Were you born stupid or did you practice for years to get so ignorant? By the way? They let stand the restrictions on fully automatic weapons at the same time.

 

[JBeukema]

*imagines Loughner with an M2 Browning*