Opinion How far should the 2nd Amendment go?

[aerius]

The 2nd Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The arms in question are generally accepted as being handheld firearms such as rifles, pistols, and shotguns, the fun stuff like rocket launchers or 40mm autocannons don't qualify and aren't available to public without a ton of different permits.

So here's the question, what exactly should be considered as "arms" since it's not defined in the constitution? How far should we go?

I think the 2nd Amendment should cover anything and everything other than nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, if you have the money you should be able to legally buy, own, and operate any non-NBC weapons system in existence. It should be totally legal for me to buy a fully equipped A-10 Warthog from my local military surplus store and use it for hunting feral pigs with cluster bombs and 30mm depleted uranium rounds. If I want to drive an M2 Bradley to work and gun down a few deer on the way home I should be allowed to do that too. And if I can convince the Russians to sell me an Oreshnik hypersonic missile system and target it on DC to keep the politicians honest, well, isn't that the intent of the 2nd Amendment? Afterall, it's often argued that the purpose of 2A is to ensure the government doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force, and Oreshnik in the hands of the people would qualify under that standard.

 

[Witchhunt]

Privateer’s, FTW

 

[Witchhunt]

…..

 

[Witchhunt]

….

 

[Witchhunt]

GODAMN!

 

[Witchhunt]

I’ve been hacked!

 

[650lb Sumo]

Unrestricted.

Only a good guy with a nuke stops a bad guy with a nuke.

 

[Witchhunt]

I’m blaming this shit on @irish_thug …..

 

[oldshadow]

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, began by looking at the meaning of "arms" in the 1700s. He noted that a 1773 dictionary defined them as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." A 1771 legal dictionary defined them as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."

Justice Scalia wrote that "arms" refers to "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

In the Court's opinion, the Second Amendment extends to "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

 

[heloder]

I think the 2nd Amendment should cover anything and everything other than nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons

And why would you ban those? So that only criminals can have them??

Sick of these pussy liberals.

 

[irish_thug]

I’m blaming this shit on @irish_thug …..

Usually a good idea. But what am I being blamed for? Just so I can mount a defense.

 

[Xanzito]

After Abrahams tanks and before nukes.

 

[aerius]

And why would you ban those? So that only criminals can have them??

Sick of these pussy liberals.

I gotta draw the line somewhere, otherwise we'll run out of things to blow up for fun.

 

[Natural Order]

It should imply that when an individual is born into the great free nation of America, they are presented with a brand new, name engraved Glock handgun for use when they turn 12.

Brandishing the government issued Glock will be a symbol of true citizenship.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

Is there an argument for why the second amendment doesn't protect cannons? Why can't I have a porch cannon to deter invaders?

 

[650lb Sumo]

 

[Losfer Words]

While not the most popular opinion....I think the 2nd amendment had a lot to do with not letting the federal government have a standing army. At the time the people in the colonies had fought off a standing army with militias. The constitution had a rough time getting ratified, which forced the framers to draft the bill of rights. I think the 2nd amendment was a direct response to the American revolution's success and people's fear of a federal government with access to a standing army.

 

[heloder]

After Abrahams tanks and before nukes.

Tis foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died, English.