Bring your guns to DC

[Perfection]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Why not?

Nuclear arms ain't cheap, that's for one thing. The other and more important thing is there is no reason to supsect that both addemndments must have the same scope.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Actually, I'm pretty sure you're the idiot.

Well, if I'm an idiot, what does that make you? A brick?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by snoopy369
One reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment (reprinted here )

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.

might be that it is permissible to restrict certain arms, while not restricting arms as a general category. There's no question that, IF the founding fathers had been aware of WMDs or similar, they'd have not included them - and it's clearly against state interest to permit owning a WMD. Thus it is clear that the intent of the founding fathers was to have a rule that was not strictly worded but instead indeed was left open to interpretation by the modern and/or local polities.

Now, honestly, if you interpret the 2nd amendment to mean "right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their own self defense and for the hunting of game in permitted areas", which is probably a reasonable interpretation given the militia part and the obvious assumption of hunting from the time period, then the followup question of course is, wouldn't handguns still fall under such protection - and it's possible even assault rifles, given that if anyone is to suggest forming a militia, it's going to be using assault rifles...

Well, I think that the US is quite capable to provide the nessecary force to protect it's existence hence making the need for local militias obsolete. It might have been out of their imagination that such a state should be reahed, but as you say, it's a quetion of interpretation - since it's obvious that the security of the state isn't any longer dependant on single person armament, then it's also obvious that it makes sense to forbid personal arms.

[LordShiva]

Teh right to bare arms

[BlackCat]

LS, I just love your capability to put something sensible into inane threads

[Whoha]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Lonestar, do you agree that the 2nd amendment also makes any other restrictions on ownership of weaponry illegal? Does it prevent the government from outlawing the ownership of nuclear weapons?

It does prevent the government from outlawing nuclear weapons. If there is that much sand in that many peoples' vaginas then we'll have to just amend the constitution. But given the fact that nuclear/biological/chemical weapons require additional extremely hazardous materials which can be proscribed I don't see it as a problem.

[Jon Miller]

I am sure I once knew... but what is the history of 'private armies' in the early US?

JM

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Whoha


It does prevent the government from outlawing nuclear weapons. If there is that much sand in that many peoples' vaginas then we'll have to just amend the constitution. But given the fact that nuclear/biological/chemical weapons require additional extremely hazardous materials which can be proscribed I don't see it as a problem.

Just out of curiosity - which part of the constitution prevents civilians to own and handle extremely hazardous materials ?

[Whoha]

Article 1 of the constitution grants all legislative power to the Congress. The Second amendment proscribes that legislature from banning weapons. Nowhere does it proscribe banning hazardous materials. The constitution is a framework and does not specifically mention the minutiae of daily life.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually the founders agreed to let the states keep their militias so they would sign the friggin' Constitution.

First sensible post in this thread

(the second sensible post being LordShiva's )

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually the founders agreed to let the states keep their militias so they would sign the friggin' Constitution.

I thought that was ther reason for the 1st ten amendments not just the 2nd one.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Whoha
Article 1 of the constitution grants all legislative power to the Congress. The Second amendment proscribes that legislature from banning weapons. Nowhere does it proscribe banning hazardous materials. The constitution is a framework and does not specifically mention the minutiae of daily life.

Well, If they have had any idea about WMD's I think that they would have mentioned it - likewise, I don't think that the y had any idea of improvement in arms. One thing is few people armed by costly single shot arms - another thing is mass produced cheap automatic weapons. If they had known that such would be the future, they would never have allowed it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Perfection
Nuclear arms ain't cheap, that's for one thing.

They are relative to the alternative (thousands of people with guns)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Whoha


It does prevent the government from outlawing nuclear weapons. If there is that much sand in that many peoples' vaginas then we'll have to just amend the constitution. But given the fact that nuclear/biological/chemical weapons require additional extremely hazardous materials which can be proscribed I don't see it as a problem.

So I can make it illegal to possess gunpowder and the 2nd amendment wouldn't have anything to say?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Well, If they have had any idea about WMD's I think that they would have mentioned it - likewise, I don't think that the y had any idea of improvement in arms. One thing is few people armed by costly single shot arms - another thing is mass produced cheap automatic weapons. If they had known that such would be the future, they would never have allowed it.

I think they'd count on us to solve our own problems, and they did give us the tools to do so.