US 2nd Amendment - What weapons should and shouldn't be permissible?

The solutions to this really are simple, though.

Smith Mundt. Our IC runs our media, and we all sit and complain about the result. If we are not demanding that the governments Snake agencies not be allowed to slither among us, then we are simply accepting the current insanity.

Its not about gun control. Its not about arming teachers. Its about media, and the way the shooters are portrayed. Antediluvian has some interesting thoughts (im sure others do to) regarding archetypes. I think that is a very astute point.

We all admit: something changed. I think a big part of that something is propaganda.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Sorry. Your ignorance doesn't go over my head. The 2nd amendment is for defense against a tyrannical government. As government's weaponry improves so must the citizens.

You are missing my point again. 'God-given'? That's a ridiculous statement to make - it was an amendment to the US Constitution. Man-given therefore.
As for the meaning of the Second Amendment I could make a plausible case for it, well, being about arming the militia, which was the precursor to the National Guard. The 'tyrannical government' is more than a bit iffy, especially as it's never been used that way. There is a case to be made that there's only ever been one major attempt at rising up against a would-be tyrannical government, the problem being that the year was 1861 and that the uprising was utterly (and rightly) crushed by the Federal Government.
Oh and according to your logic, US citizens need anti-tank weapons, SAMS and nukes.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No. You're just ignorant. They are unalienable God given rights. Anything granted by man can be taken away. It's the entire basis for the foundation of America.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Sorry. Your ignorance doesn't go over my head. The 2nd amendment is for defense against a tyrannical government. As government's weaponry improves so must the citizens.

The 'tyrannical government' is more than a bit iffy,

No, it's fact, and the founding fathers words are well documented.

www.vox.com...

Get educated before you speak with such authority.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

To be fair the founders based their work on the social contract theory from mostly John locke, but also rosseau, Voltaire, decartes, from the englightment philosophy.

Many of the founders like Jefferson were fairly skeptical of religion. Some were leaning towards deism.

It was easier to explain to an illiterate society the social tory found in the bible than say the two treatises of government the constitution was based on.

In his SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced THOMAS JEFFERSON as he drafted the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

www.ushistory.org...

a reply to: Wayfarer

I'm all for banning the government from having any weapon prohibited to citizens. The 2nd gives the right to bear arms to the people, not federal or state governments. Therefore there should be no problems legally banning the government from possessing any type of weapon. That would also level the playing field if the American people do need to rise up against an oppressive government.

If I don't need a machine gun or an "assault" rifle, neither do law enforcement or the military.

a reply to: luthier

I never stated the Christian God of the Bible. The belief was these we're not rights granted by man, they are innate rights, granted by God (whatever God meant to them). You could argue mother nature gave the rights and my point these are not man given rights still stands.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In a sense. In my study of philosophy natural rights really meant the right to live and protect your life. The purpose of life is to continue to live. The preservation of life.

The social contract is an agreement among men. I won't stab you, you dot stab me,, I won't steal from you ,you don't steal from me.

Hobbes disagreed and said nature is different. Like if society collapsed and your kids were starving would steal or kill to survive? Is it OK to do this to preserve your life?

And then there came the categorical imparitive.

In any case the agreement between rulers, the citizens and the citizens and citizens are based on rules of the preservation of mankind or natural rights.

Similar to your last statement. Just wanted to see if that is what you were getting at. Some take god literally and think it was literally Jesus or whatnot.

Shotgun for home defense.

Bolt action or limited internal mag for hunting/sport rifle.

No hand cannons, if you're so fearful of going to the grocery store unarmed pack some mace or a taser in your Purse.

K~

originally posted by: aethertek
Shotgun for home defense.

Bolt action or limited internal mag for hunting/sport rifle.

No hand cannons, if you're so fearful of going to the grocery store unarmed pack some mace or a taser in your Purse.

K~

In Texas we can just carry a sword or machete.

Or a long rifle (like an AR)

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm in the NW coastal hills that's what I do, take the Wakizashi out with me.

But here the kitties move off (I'm too big of a meal), the bears don't bother, it's mostly packs of coyotes, they're bold up here.

K~

a reply to: Wayfarer

Off the top, i'd point out that weapons 'evolve'. Like it or not.

The norm in the day was various flintlocks, etc. Today, the normal weapon rifle-wise is the AR-15. A semi-automatic.

One wouldn't restrict rights to only a sword when the norm was a flintlock, for example.

As far as the military goes, the amount of weapons in the hands of the civilian population would overwhelm any U.S. Army-sans GPS guided munitions, that is- as in that scenario, most of the military would likely desert if for no other reason than to protect their own families, never mind an aversion to killing fellow Americans.

Personally, I'm fine right where things are right now. No changes please, JMO, though.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No. You're just ignorant. They are unalienable God given rights. Anything granted by man can be taken away. It's the entire basis for the foundation of America.

Erm, the Second Amendment is, you know, the Second Amendment. Written by men for men, after the original Constitution was drafted.
As for the tyranny bit, Snopes has this to say about it, and if we're citing articles on Vox then there's this.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Every weapon possible with the only exceptions being ones like nuclear weapons, WMD, biological weapons.

For me it's not a question of what can you own, but when and where can you carry/use those weapons.

Thanks for answering the OP question. Would you mind sharing your logic for making a delineation at WMD's, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Every weapon possible with the only exceptions being ones like nuclear weapons, WMD, biological weapons.

For me it's not a question of what can you own, but when and where can you carry/use those weapons.

Thanks for answering the OP question. Would you mind sharing your logic for making a delineation at WMD's, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons?

My brother in law is a former policeman who'd probably quite like his own tank. I wouldn't trust him with a nuke though.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Long ago, when I was in high school, I read a story about the Boxer Rebellion, in China. Those poor Chinese had antique 17th Cent. Palace Flintlocks, and they tried to wipe out the Diplomatic Legations' District's "Foreign Devils", which were armed with modern repeating rifles, and a few machine guns, like the 1895 Colt "Potato Diggers". Those first Gen. machine guns used a hinged lever which blew down on one end, under the muzzle, to actuate the receiver. When dug into a foxhole, as you traversed it, that lever dug into the loose soil, something like digging potatoes. By WWI, Colt had put an elbow under their muzzles' gas taps, and their Brownings' gas actions worked straight backwards, into the receivers.

But primitive or not, machine guns wiped out Patriots carrying flintlocks. And this is where the rubber meets the road. Your firearms have to be "MILITARILY DEPLOYABLE", and WWI, and WWII, AXIS POWERS' bolt actions weren't still militarily deployable, by the end of the Wars in Europe and in the Pacific. John M. Browning was always a civilian, while John Garand was an army officer. Our personal weapons have always been collaborative developments.

Today and tomorrow, maybe militarized Bot's and small drones will start taking the places of infantry weapons, but until this shakes out, our "unorganized militia" should be able to own and carry modern guns. True assault rifles are selective fire, along with Thompson sub Machine guns. A late friend noted that his 1928 Thompson would burn through $200 worth of high grade commercial ammo, every five minutes. I also believe that we should be practicing with dummy L.A.W.'s and rifle grenades, but not mortars and artillery pieces. Past 300 yards, there's just too much which can go wrong. An example of this was when a Utah 105mm Avalanche control crew, screwed up, by using all seven powder bags, and sent a live shell over the mountain, and into someone's back yard, about three minutes before a school bus dropped off kiddies in front of that same home.

It takes practice and a couple of tries to nail a vehicle sized target with a L.A.W. out at an unknown range, of around 250 yards. Dragons were another really neat weapon, but the Army never figured them out. I was trying to push a "cheese cutter", 12 gauge shotgun cartridge, which would clip any of these wire guided rocket's controls. One of Gene Stoner's last developments was an AR looking 12 gauge, which would be just the thing to "ride shotgun" with, on American Armor. Yes, shotguns can look just like AR's. Using a Close Combat I.R. sight, you would aim for the heat trail, and cut the invisible control wire.

If the Egyptians had had these in the 73 War, I doubt that Israel would still exist today. They would have de-fanged the T.O.W.'s nearly completely. Nowadays the M.I.L.A.N.s are much harder to deal with.

Even the lowly 60's, Gyrojets, which were improperly primed, could be modernized by private inventors, and would then make neato "Planet of the Apes". carbines. Even a Gorilla could successfully wield one which uses a piezo quartz crystal, barbecue igniter, to touch it off. The use of a swinging hammer to drive it's primer back onto a stationery firing pin, proved to be a recipe for disaster, when the little rockets got cockeyed in the pistol like launcher

Looking even farther ahead, drones, bots, and microwave weapons, requiring Star Wars Storm Troopers' protective armor, will have to be considered, by the 2nd Amendment. And can anyone say that the Founding Fathers, could have gotten their collective heads around our modern Internet?? So all of the Articles of the Bill of Rights, will have to be guarded, by us, like the Gold in Fort Knox.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I've always subscribed to the hold my beer entertainment motif, I got to hold the beer often, so I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of anything to do something spectacularly with. Yeah, it more dangerous with guns but most drunks can't shoot straight and spend the next day patching holes.

I imagine the fly-overs have a very different opinion on outlawing / taking away any gun types. The left coasts may be densely populated and have the MSM in their pocket but they don't speak for everyone.

I also live near a training corridor, probably National Guard. Can't really tell how high they are. When I was younger and spent time with engineers, I got the idea once of some kind of shoulder held gadget to try and paint the jets. It would have a slider to speed up the pulse rate to make it seem it was getting closer like a missile. If it could make them twitch or engage afterburners, success.

Didn't get too far because GIga Hertz radar / seeker head electronics is a bit beyond me and the only way to test was live. I guess depending on self defense engagement options for the jet or a visit from FBI, it might be bad thing to try.

Basically, what's a S-300 system doing down there and firing missiles?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
"shall not be infringed"

Sounds like you want some level of infringement then?
No. There is already too much infringement on our God-given rights.

????????????????????
'God-given rights'???
The Second Amendment was, if I recall correctly, drafted by James Madison in 1791, not any kind of deity.
So, logically speaking, the best weapon should be a muzzle-loading musket or rifle.

Weapons Salesmen had already demonstrated early "machine guns" to Congress, over a decade before the 2A. In fact, the term "machine gun" was in documented use for these high rate of fire weapons as early as 1722. Kalthoff Repeaters were achieving rates of fire of 30-60 rounds per minute, 100 years before the American Revolution even began.

It was the cost advantage and ease of manufacture that kept muzzle loaders as a primary firearm for so long.

These people weren't stupid. They had already seen the advances in firearms technology to that date, why do you think they would have assumed no further development would occur?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Well, we all are entitled to an opinion; so, here is mine:

The right to bear arms is an important necessity to resist government tyranny.

To this end, an average person should be allowed to have light firearms comparable to that of a foot soldier, just in case they need to fight against soldiers.

Banning comparable weapons to what a government soldier may wield compromises this important purpose of the 2nd amendment - the ability of common people to rise up if / when the central government becomes tyrannical, to overthrow it, and restore a republic.

We should in essence be able to have M-16's, though right now we are not allowed fully automatic weapons, and have been forced to revert to the little cousin of the M-16, the AR-15 in most instances.

Heavy weapons? No ... probably the right to bear arms should not include those ... like MANPADS, bazookas, RPG's, etc., but individual states should be able to allow these weapons in their own state if they choose (State's rights > Federal).

a reply to: Fowlerstoad


Check out my previous posting. Someone's got to buy all of that full auto ammo, and the private citizen ain't that guy. But having a three shot burst selector, in an AR, really only duplicates the Colonial Buck and Ball load, used as the last ditch volley, before they bayoneted you. But IIRC, the Irish Brigade used them, offensively, at the "Bloody Lane", at Antietam Creek. When Johnny Rebs didn't time their own final volley correctly, the Irish made it up to the edge of the sunken road, and then it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Think of the carnage from sweeping a hundred AR's on three shot bursts, with multiple detachable, 20 or 30 round, magazines. The Battle of Antietam Creek, was fought with muzzle loading muskets and rifled muskets, on both sides. I think they killed something like 15,000 Americans, on both sides, before lunchtime.

The smaller buckshot pellets are "spread", something like multiple lead balls from a "Duck Bill" horse pistol. They don't go through the same jagged hole, beyond ten yards or so. Any full or quasi full auto machine gun needs to work like a singer sewing machine. It really needs to "stitch" it's way along it's traverse. Otherwise, all you have is a shotgun full of pointy buckshot. So any real machine gun needs to have a delaying mechanism, to let it only "stitch" it's way along.