Jedi Oomodo
New member
Wasn't sure if this belonged in Legal, as it involves interpreting the 2nd Amendment, or here, as Legal seems to pertain more to current legislation...Anyways...
After reading ACLU's position on the 2nd, HCI, several pro-gun essays on the Net (2 of which are in TFLs library), Supreme Court cases, legal opinions, etc. I am left with this question- What arms are referred to in the 2nd? Just personal small arms? Just weapons suited for military use (A well regulated militia, et al.)? Or, does it mean that, if we have the means, we can own such weapons as Bradley fighting vehicles, F-16s, and the like?
Consider for a moment the fact that during the Revolutionary War and The War of 1812, America commissioned citizens who owned ships to outfit them for war and conduct military operations against the English. These ships were called Privateers. It would seem to me that the Founders had no problem with privately owned military acoutrements, given their idea that the citizens are also soldiers. I also understand that States are Constitutionally prohibited from owning and maintaining "ships of war...without permission of Congress". BUT, if the 2nd is an individual right, as I believe it is, then that would lead me to conclude that I could buy a Bradley if I wanted one, whereas Texas would have to get permission from Congress.
ACLU thinks that the 2nd does NOT allow us to own such things, but then again, they think it only allows STATES to own guns anyway. I read an essay yesterday that pretty much tore up their assertion that it's a States right. ACLU and other anti-gun literature I read stated something to the effect that "gun owners agree that the 2nd does not give them the right to own missiles...". At this time, I'm not so sure, myself, that it doesn't.
My reasoning is that the 2nd merely says "keep and bear arms". It doesn't refer to a class of protected arms (i.e. our popular assertion that the 2nd isn't about hunting or sporting), it just says "arms". Therefore, do we as citizens also need to assert that "it ain't about man-portable arms, either"?
So, this is my question to y'all- Do you think that the 2nd protects our right to possess any weapon we have the means to acquire, or only limited types of firearms? Be careful if you assert that it only protects a limited type... that opens the door for liberals to say "See, you agree with us, you only need guns for hunting!!" Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
------------------
--------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
[This message has been edited by Jedi Oomodo (edited August 11, 1999).]
After reading ACLU's position on the 2nd, HCI, several pro-gun essays on the Net (2 of which are in TFLs library), Supreme Court cases, legal opinions, etc. I am left with this question- What arms are referred to in the 2nd? Just personal small arms? Just weapons suited for military use (A well regulated militia, et al.)? Or, does it mean that, if we have the means, we can own such weapons as Bradley fighting vehicles, F-16s, and the like?
Consider for a moment the fact that during the Revolutionary War and The War of 1812, America commissioned citizens who owned ships to outfit them for war and conduct military operations against the English. These ships were called Privateers. It would seem to me that the Founders had no problem with privately owned military acoutrements, given their idea that the citizens are also soldiers. I also understand that States are Constitutionally prohibited from owning and maintaining "ships of war...without permission of Congress". BUT, if the 2nd is an individual right, as I believe it is, then that would lead me to conclude that I could buy a Bradley if I wanted one, whereas Texas would have to get permission from Congress.
ACLU thinks that the 2nd does NOT allow us to own such things, but then again, they think it only allows STATES to own guns anyway. I read an essay yesterday that pretty much tore up their assertion that it's a States right. ACLU and other anti-gun literature I read stated something to the effect that "gun owners agree that the 2nd does not give them the right to own missiles...". At this time, I'm not so sure, myself, that it doesn't.
My reasoning is that the 2nd merely says "keep and bear arms". It doesn't refer to a class of protected arms (i.e. our popular assertion that the 2nd isn't about hunting or sporting), it just says "arms". Therefore, do we as citizens also need to assert that "it ain't about man-portable arms, either"?
So, this is my question to y'all- Do you think that the 2nd protects our right to possess any weapon we have the means to acquire, or only limited types of firearms? Be careful if you assert that it only protects a limited type... that opens the door for liberals to say "See, you agree with us, you only need guns for hunting!!" Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
------------------
--------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
[This message has been edited by Jedi Oomodo (edited August 11, 1999).]