What 2A restrictions (if any) do you support and why?
- Thread starter efgf
- Start date
chris in va
New member
I'm not thrilled with many gun owner's means to secure firearms to prevent theft. If the average Joe were allowed grenades, full auto etc they'd have to be locked up in some SERIOUS security device.
Many firearms on the 'street' are stolen. I'll admit, I'm not rich and can't afford those $2000 safes that would prevent that, having to rely on a StackOn gun cabinet instead. Its what I have.
So as much as I'd like to see everyday citizens owning full autos and other fun devices, I'm in support of those being restricted.
Many firearms on the 'street' are stolen. I'll admit, I'm not rich and can't afford those $2000 safes that would prevent that, having to rely on a StackOn gun cabinet instead. Its what I have.
So as much as I'd like to see everyday citizens owning full autos and other fun devices, I'm in support of those being restricted.
Gene Beasley
New member
I support no regulations. It's a slippery slope from reasonable regulation to privilege to no right.
The Lexington and Concord battles were about cannons. James Madison hired a privately owned warship with 18 of 'em.
Our first couple of wars involved rolling and ship-mounted privately owned cannons. Why does everyone seem to think the 2A only applies to something you can carry?
Our first couple of wars involved rolling and ship-mounted privately owned cannons. Why does everyone seem to think the 2A only applies to something you can carry?
Years and years of government schools for one. Not knowing the history of privately equipped warships for another.
The fact is that the Second Amendment was to be limited only by your personal wealth and nothing more.
Rights are absolutes, if they weren't then they'd be privileges and able to be limited by the state. Since the right to be armed is a subset of the right of self defense; it is not subject to arguments of utility nor to the democratic process.
Again, a right has an intrinsic facet in that it never includes the power within it to infringe on the rights of another. That is a part of the foundation of a right, not an external limitation to be applied after arguments of utility.
Arguments of utility include limits on caliber, function, style, range, and other features. None of these arguments are acceptable.
I've seen the old "fire in a theater" argument raised. The history of that phrase is within a decision by the SCOTUS involving the distribution of anti-war pamphlets during the US involvement in World War One. The SCOTUS decided the freedom of speech did NOT include encouraging men to avoid registering for the draft and opposing entry into that war, and likened such speech as "shouting fire in a crowded theater", a specious claim on its face. This decision has since been thoroughly overturned.
Pursuit of full access to a right is intolerant of any argument that contains a grant of power to the state to set limits on that right. It is a prescription for failure, amply demonstrated by the proliferation of anti-self defense laws in America.
I can easily agree this is valid. I'm still waiting for someone to make the argument that crew-served weaponry -- F18 fighters, missle systems, 155mm self-propelled guns or satellite launch platforms -- fall under the auspices of a "militia" arm (i.e. arms suitable for citizen-soliders).
Good for Jimmy. But if you want to use that as an example, I'll remind you that many colonists were restricted to holding only a pound of powder with the rest of their powder stored in community powder magazines set well away from other buildings. Most man o' war ships with heavy guns were denied docking rights due to the amount of powder aboard. Men came ashore in long boats.
Just because you are tired of it does not mean it doesn't sever a good purpose. We should not limit rights because they exist, but we can and should make laws that limit the improper use of a right. It requires some kind of action or some inaction that would lead to danger for others to form a restriction. For instance;
You have a right to freedom of speech; but you may not incite a riot.
You have freedom of religion; unless your religion requires killing non-believers.
You have the freedom of the press; but not to slander or libel.
You have the RKBA; not the right to carry into jails, courts or military reservations.
Each of these requires a specific action that can be restricted.
The issue of what to restrict is a little more difficult to pin down.
What is a "militia" arm? In the traditional sense, it is those arms that an average citizen can bring to defend his community or state. The basic requirement is for a long gun that is of sufficient power to be used in a military battle. Some may carry handguns, such as officers or cavalry, in addition to other arms.
It may be easier to eliminate those things which should not be considered militia weapons. Such as;
- WMDs - nuclear, chemical, biological & radiological weapons
- Long range delivery systems - Missles & rockets such as ICBMs, MLRS, TOW, aircraft, etc.
- Area denial munitions - mines, cluster bombs, napalm, etc.
- Explosive warheads - artillery shells, RPGs, etc.
Those who want to argue the legitimacy of owning mortars, artillery and armored vehicles must also accept the legitimacy of storing munitions in bunkers well away from other structures. It doesn't matter if they are privately or publicly owned bunkers, but storing munitions safely would be a restriction based on not only public safety but sheer prudence (even the military stores munitions away from other structures).
I'd favor regulations that require you only detonate your nuclear weapons at a specified distance and wind direction from population centers. Perhaps designate Bikini Atoll as the national nuclear weapons firing range, and charge a reasonable fee to set up the tin cans and light one off there.
And you thought collecting machine guns was an expensive hobby...
And you thought collecting machine guns was an expensive hobby...
anygunanywhere
New member
I meant what you said.
First amendment - free speech. Libel and slander can be prosecuted and proven.
No restrrictions on my second amendment, but if I shoot someone in anger, prosecute me.
Anygunanywhere
A pound is a pretty fair amount of powder! Keeping large amounts out of residential areas (or commercial docks) is only prudent. So yes, I continue to want to use that example.
Want another? Before they were evil Taliban, the folks in Afghanistan were mujahudeen "freedom fighters" and we gave them shoulder launched missiles to take out USSR choppers. Seems like a militia kind of activity to me.
Wait a second. How did aircraft get on that list? At the time of this nation's founding, Paul Revere rode a "long range delivery system" of the day: a horse. And there's still the example of the privateer Prince of Neufchatel, another private weapons system designed to project force at a distance. When did that get to be a nanny no no? And if we can't have aircraft, how about boats, anyway? Are cars OK? How about if they have armor and mounted weapons (you know, like the old Wells Fargo wagons?)
I'm happy to say you'll wait no longer. Access to all such weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. There is no limiting language to be found in the amendment.
A right does not include the ability to infringe on the rights of another. Safe storage of black powder in a town is a good idea. Those that lived on farms had no such restriction.
Again, all for black powder safety requirements. The advent of smokeless powder, much safer, precluded some of this. Black powder is a low order explosive, smokeless powder is a propellant.
The right includes access to any weapon one can afford.
All involving the basic part of rights which is that no right grants you a power to infringe on the rights of another.
That's not a grant of power to the state.
No, none of those weapons may be legitimately restricted. It's a right, not a privilege.
These are not restrictions on ownership, which we have now, none of which are lawful.
copenhagen
New member
Anything. ANYTHING!..that somebody in today's Infantry or "Well Regulated Militia" has access to. It is a crying shame that many citizens today in states such as California are prohibited, unconstitutionally prohibited, from maintaining an ability to protect themselves from tyranny in the government. SWAT teams can swarm a citizen's house at any time for suspicion of terrorism with M4's, Fully Automatic HK's, and .203's loaded with HEDP grenades, and the only thing that they can protect themselves with is a 10 round magazine semi-automatic weapon and a baseball bat. I don't even want to think about the implications under the Patriot Act of their rightful self-defense.
It is a CRYING SHAME. A CRYING SHAME.
It is a CRYING SHAME. A CRYING SHAME.
BoringAccountant
New member
I am always amazed at the responses this topic gets...
hahaha just very humorous.
I have nothing productive to add to this thread.
hahaha just very humorous.
I have nothing productive to add to this thread.
When our country was founded, examples of every weapon or "weapon system" of the time were privately owned. "Militia arms" were bring-what-you-have, and if you happened to have a cannon, so much the merrier. There was a good reason for including Letters of Marque in the Constitution - because the country needed the use of privately owned warships. In other words, if "weapons systems" were not suitable for citizen-soldiers, nobody complained about their presence during the colonial period.
These examples actually prove the broad right to own weapons or "weapon systems" during the colonial period. However, they do reflect pragmatic safety regulations, which continue to this day in local fire codes that prescribe safe storage requirements for explosives. Nevertheless, the examples do underscore a distinct difference between the right to keep and bear arms and the obligation to keep and bear arms safely.
BillCA does raise an excellent issue about indiscriminate weapons (WMDs and area denial munitions) that have no clear parallel during the colonial period. Nevertheless, chemical and biological weapons date back millenia to the first poisoned water supply or first diseased corpse thrown over a city/fortress wall.
My problem with drawing the line at "weapons an individual can carry" for Second Amendment purposes is that such a definition is both arbitrary and contrary to the circumstances that existed when the Second Amendment was adopted. Nevertheless, that is probably where we need to arrive from a political perspective, even though it is not supported by the Second Amendment.
Wildalaska
Moderator
How do you CCW a diseased corpse?
Whats has more stopping power...a typhus corpse or a bubonic corpse.?
What about ADs from too ripe a corpse?
If you are carrying a diseased corpse and get pulled over by the JBTs, do you need to show your corpse permit?
WildimportantquestionsAlaska ™
Wildalaska
Moderator
Thats why they make Radar detectors....
"Eat afterburner you dirty cop eyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh" (Howard dean style)
WildpedaltothemetalAlaska ™