Second Amendment "arms" include:

"Arms" in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution includes:

  • .50 caliber and below semi-auto handguns

    Votes: 81 92.0%

  • .50 caliber and below semi-auto rifles

    Votes: 82 93.2%

  • .50 caliber and below semi-auto shotguns (or those larger than .50 cal but exempt from being a Title

    Votes: 80 90.9%

  • "short-barrelled" rifles and shotguns, currently regulated under the NFA

    Votes: 77 87.5%

  • full-auto/burst versions of the above handguns, rifles, shotguns (anything affected by the NFA + FOP

    Votes: 71 80.7%

  • large-bore (>.50 cal), semi-portable firearms (20mm cannons, mortars, etc.)

    Votes: 48 54.5%

  • large-bore mounted weapons (non-portable machineguns, artillery, large cannons)

    Votes: 40 45.5%

  • bladed weapons (up to and including swords of all kinds)

    Votes: 80 90.9%

  • unguided missiles/rockets

    Votes: 27 30.7%

  • guided missiles/rockets

    Votes: 24 27.3%

  • chemical weapons (sarin, mustard gas, ricin, chlorine gas, etc.)

    Votes: 6 6.8%

  • biological weapons (smallpox, anthrax, etc.)

    Votes: 6 6.8%

  • conventional high explosives (C-4, RDX, etc.)

    Votes: 32 36.4%

  • radiological weapons (low-grade radioactive material)

    Votes: 7 8.0%

  • nuclear weapons (weapons-grade radioactive material)

    Votes: 5 5.7%

  • Incendiary ammunition (explosive ammo, not tracers)

    Votes: 42 47.7%
  • Total voters
    88
I don't want to turn to dust because my neighbor had a ND. So no NUKEs or BIO weapons. Small explosives are iffy at best as far as safety goes.
 
Cannon that made castles obsolete gave us strong kings instead of uppity landlords. Then flintlocks got rid of the kings. That's why democracy replaced monarchy and that's why the Founders added the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.


Democracy can only exist if citizens can fight the king's soldiers and beat them.


But we're past all that now. We've become unwilling to fight and have been co-opted by socialism and general prosperity. It almost doesn't matter what weapons we have. We'd resist a foreign invader, but our own government will do pretty much whatever it wants while we whine.


For that to change would require several transformational disasters in a row.
 
I don't want to turn to dust because my neighbor had a ND. So no NUKEs or BIO weapons. Small explosives are iffy at best as far as safety goes.
Click to expand...

I've already laid out the legal argument against these elsewhere. Munitions that can not be stored safely are out, or that are so exceedingly unusual, such as NBC, that they have rarely been used even in nation versus nation conflicts, and do not exist in most nation's arsenals, are also out. The ordnance in the middle be subject to regulation, as it is now, but least restrictive means to serve the compelling state interest.
 
If an average person can safely utilize (which implicitly requires storage of and training with) a weapon without endangering others, it's a "bearable" arm.

The average person has no ability to plink or train with, store or maintain WMDs.
 
Arms are weapons that can be readily carried. Ordnance is weapons such as artillery and explosives.
Click to expand...

So a suitcase nuke would be "arms" but an ICBM would be "ordnance", yet they yield exactly the same result.
 
I should be able to own anything except for chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons, ordinance. Those types will affect areas/people out of my control.

Other than that, if I want a guided missile and have the proper place to detonate it where no one else could be endangered or come to harm, then I see no problem with it.
 
Other than that, if I want a guided missile and have the proper place to detonate it where no one else could be endangered or come to harm, then I see no problem with it.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes that's no problem. OTOH, we do have to consider the damage coming from abusing the right as well. Supposing that guy in Granby, Colorado a few years ago had had himself an MLRS system instead of his armored bulldozer? :eek:

Suppose that not just Stinger, but Patriot missile systems were readily available if the buyer had the cash? Think anyone would want to fly the friendly skies? :eek:

AS such, it is a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment right to make it awfully hard, even (for all practical purposes) impossible, to legally get such weapons as a private individual. Fortunately even in a largely unregulated market most such items are beyond the means of most individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top