RTKBA. To what end?

D

Doug.38PR

Moderator
Since most of us agree with the Founding Fathers that the RTKBA was necessary to the security of a free state and our RTKBA's as individuals must not be infringed, to what end do we carry this? A pistol, sure. A rifle, absolutely. A tank,.....:eek:! Apache Helicopter,.....:eek::eek:, F16 Tomcat fighter,....:eek::eek::eek:

Well why not? We do, or are at least supposed to, have the right to have our own private armies. Militias. To secure ourselves as militia's it would take more than just men with rifles. Those men need vehicles to stand up to invasion from without and from within the Union. How far does the RIGHT To Keep and Bear Arms go?
 
The way I understand it, a "free State" is a State where sovereignty resides in the body of Citizens. I believe that private armies, private militias, and individuals with weapons of mass destruction are a threat to free government ... I think the intent is that any military power be subordinate to the whole people, not controlled by one or a few.
 
If the item can be possessed/stored without putting others in immediate danger, then it's covered. If it cannot, then it isn't prohibited by a "limit on the RKBA", but on the general principle of not putting others in immediate danger.
 
When I think about it, there is no doubt that our founding fathers wanted to have the arms of the common soldier. As to arms greater than that let me remind you the constituion also allowed the government to issue letters of marquee. Or to put it another way, privateers. A vessel that would be armed with cannon. For those that don't know this the naval cannon of that day were the most powerful weapons of the day. Army cannon were not as big. they couldn't be,they would have had no way to move them about, they would be too big to move about in the field with only horses for power. Before you could apply for a letter of marquee you had to have the ship to use. Thus, the baddest weapon of the day would be in private hands. think about it.
 
Zak said it best.

Your liberty ends where other's begin.

BTW, the it's the F-16 Falcon. The Tomcat is/was the F-14. (sorry--I'm an airplane geek.)
 
The way I understand it, a "free State" is a State where sovereignty resides in the body of Citizens. I believe that private armies, private militias, and individuals with weapons of mass destruction are a threat to free government ... I think the intent is that any military power be subordinate to the whole people, not controlled by one or a few.
Click to expand...


While I usually agree with you Mr. Damright, here I part ways. Yes a free state is where the sovereignty resides in the citizens of that state, but militas are made up of the state or of private individuals. Home guards or minutemen were not organized by the states, they were organized by towns and counties. In fact, during the War for Southern Independence, many wealthy Cavalier planters of the South from Texas to Virginia put together their own Companies with their own wealth to give contribute to the cause.

This concept goes back at least as far as the middle ages as many knights and lords of Europe sold much of their lands or possessions in order to raise men and arms to serve in the First Crusade to Free the Holy Land. Such as Godfrey of Bouillon
 
Yup, I'm with Zak on the limits of the Second Amendment. Some weapons really are only suitable for "collective ownership." Most such weapons are of no real use for personal defense of life or liberty anyway. Basically, my position is that private citizens have the right to have any weapons the police have.

As we know, the Second Amendment's purpose is to enable citizens to overthrow a government gone bad when all other reasonable measures have failed. That wouldn't require weapons as sophisticated as a lot of people would imagine. The overthrow of a government gone bad would mainly entail sneaky guerrilla warfare primarily with small arms (especially sniping) rather than open conflict against tanks, jets, etc. Even a tyrannical government is not going to nuke or carpet-bomb its own cities and the infrastructure it depends on. It would be killing a lot of its own personnel if it did so, since government agents and their families tend to live among the general population.

I do think a lot of people who understand and support the Second Amendment should also think about equipping themselves with a good gas mask, body armor, and night vision equipment rather than buying more guns when they already have 20 in the safe. This sort of equipment is just as protected by the Second Amendment as guns are, and it's nearly as important.
 
Some weapons really are only suitable for "collective ownership." Most such weapons are of no real use for personal defense of life or liberty anywa
Click to expand...
Perhaps in the suburbs, but what if you operated a space ship? Nuclear weapons might be normal. Think outside the box.

-z
 
Here's what I don't get...

Why are third world countries allowed to posess automatic firearms and rocket launchers? But in America our second amendment is heavily restricted? I believe that it is perfectly okay to allow the people to carry fully automatic firearms as for explosives, I'm a little iffy about that only because I have no experience with them, and the fact that they can do a lot more widespread damage. If you want real homeland security, arm the people with automatics and monitor the government.


Epyon
 
Here in Arizona, there are several people who own armored vehicles,some with live, registered main guns. There are also, as reported by Readers' Digest many years ago, 27 fully armed AH-1 Cobra helos in private hands. I have NEVER heard of any robbery, assault, road rage mayhem, etc, with any privately owned armored vehicle or attack helo. The one I remember, involved a government owned tank run amok. Using the Brady "logic", this means we should farm out the Abrams to private homes...
I believe the militia should be "organized" along the lines of a light infantry outfit. Therefore, to follow the guidelines set forth by the Founding Fathers, the militiaman, (or woman, in these enlightend times), should arrive with equipment appropriate to a light infantry unit, which could include squad automatic weapons, light armor, and rotary wing aircraft.
Like I could afford it...I'll be there with an SKS.:D
 
armoredman...

Get me a 12 guage pump, an MP5-K or P-90, and an FNP-40 pistols and I'll give you a .30-06, a Sig 226, and night vision. :D:D:D


Epyon
 
If you have the cash to support an F22 fighter, you should be able to have it in my opinion. All is fair game.
Click to expand...
No thanks. I don't want Donald Trump and Bill Gates to fund private armies. Companies like Blackwater are bad enough, having even more mercenaries around is just bad news all around.
 
Redworm...

Blackwater is crazy! The guy is a fundamentalist Christian, (American Taliban perhaps? Jihad for Jesus?) Bush loves using Blackwater. Private armies are a danger, especially if they have the money to pacify the government to letting them do what they want. Who's to say Blackwater may one day be in charge of keeping Americans on a short leash along with a military/police force.


Epyon
 
It would be no different than government oppression, except their funding is more at-risk since people are used to government theft as a matter of course but seem to still be averse to private theft.
 
Oh , so you trust the government with arms more than citizens. Com'on that's not in the spirit of America.

BTW, it used to be that citizens WERE better armed and militias were better armed than the government militiary. The U.S. Military in it's early years prior to 1860 or even 1890 was less equipt than citizens. A single shot carbine vs. a winchester or henry rifle in 1870s. The military was next to nothing in the early 1800s
 
Oh , so you trust the government with arms more than citizens. Com'on that's not in the spirit of America.
Click to expand...
No, I trust the government that is controlled by millions of voters more than I trust a private company that is controlled by a single individual or a group of stockholders.
 
No, I trust the government that is controlled by millions of voters more than I trust a private company that is controlled by a single individual or a group of stockholders.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Because few "citizens" (in the individual sense) are going to have either the money or inclination to buy things like tanks for fighters...or even armored HMMWV's. Especially the money. Privately owned "heavy" weaponry (tanks, fighters, etc.) is more likely to be held by companies or mercenary organizations, not freedom-loving citizens.

Personally I think we should clearly have the right to own whatever individual weapons the average soldier in a light infantry squad can expect to carry. Which would obviously include the M16/AR-15, and probably include even things like the M249. Definitely pistols such as the M1911 or M9. Throw in any domestic or foreign equivalents that utilize ammunition commonly stocked by the US military; these would also be appropriate weapons for private citizens to show up with if needed for the common defense (easy to supply for), and obviously be perfectly decent weapons for personal defense (including from the government) as well.

And that's just what I think we should clearly have the right to own. Personally I'd say just about any rifle or pistol should be fine, including automatic weapons. Explosives are iffy, since they're more difficult to utilize without causing harm to bystanders.

Of course, I'm only speaking to what we should be able to own, not what sort of licensing/registration requirements or background checks should go with it. That's another thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top