Opinion How far should the 2nd Amendment go?

[Cartiac]

"A 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"

Militia - what's that definition?

To the Security of a free State - does this mean to protect the government?

Militia refers to the government military force.

To the Security of a free State - does this mean to protect the government?

Absolutely not! It means exactly what it says, the "State". The state is the entire nation as a whole. The government is the group of people currently in power of the state.

The whole point of the amendment is that all of the people of the state should be allowed to keep and use weapons as a check and balance against the government in the event the government tries to use its militia power to no longer allow the state to be free.

This was very important to the founding father's because they were under the control of a King 3500 miles away that thought he could deny their freedom with just a small militia because the people had no right to Arms. Of course until the day all those people beared their Arms going full Warren G, well regulating that king's militia.

 

[Cartiac]

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.

It kinda actually does technically cover what you are saying. Theoretically it is not illegal to own an A10 as a civilian, if you can find one for sale. Arming it with cluster bombs and attempting to deploy them would probably get you regulated by an AIM-120 from an F-35 though in accordance with the 2nd Amendment as well.

 

[Sara]

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

Don’t let him trick you into letting him mount anything.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Shall not be infringed

 

[jefferz]

Of course, you post a video from a traitor.

Tim Pool got caught taking money from the Russians to spread Russian propaganda.

 

[650lb Sumo]

Of course, you post a video from a traitor.

Tim Pool got caught taking money from the Russians to spread Russian propaganda.

Is his interpretation of the Second Amendment Russian propaganda?

 

[Cartiac]

Isn't it supposed to be to the same standard as the standing military, so assault rifles, ATGM's, grenade launchers, mines......... List is practically endless......you can't fight tyranny with a .22 hunting rifle....

Not exactly the same but yea federal law heavily restricts but doesn't prevent ownership of anything technically. You do also realize people in the military can't just walk into the BX and buy missiles, grenades, and mines either right? Access to weapons and ammo by military members are heavily controlled by strict procedures as well.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Lightest of light infantry feels appropriate. Right now that's a semi auto rifle and handgun

 

[HockeyBjj]

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

I mean, this is how we got to a point of no nukes being used after the US bombed Japan

 

[650lb Sumo]

I mean, this is how we got to a point of no nukes being used after the US bombed Japan

Correct. The Soviet Union were the good guys.

USA keeps doing colour revolutions, expanding its military sphere and starting wars since the USSR fell. That's what you meant, right?

 

[HomeCheese]

For the most part, guns are kinda for pussies and criminals. I'm okay with near total abolishment.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

After Abrahams tanks and before nukes.

- Like that James Gardner movie?

 

[Scrody]

Everything but indiscriminate weapons in my opinion.

 

[BFoe]

Is his interpretation of the Second Amendment Russian propaganda?

It’s certainly batshit crazy.

It’s more like right wing/Federalist Society propaganda. The entire premise of this thread is based on Scalia’s interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms,” which I’d argue is an incorrect interpretation and not supported by historical data.

 

[Fergelmince]

When a democrat president threatens OVER half the country with F15's, I'd say the 2nd Amendment affords something a lot bigger, more powerful and more deadly than an AR15

 

[jefferz]

Is his interpretation of the Second Amendment Russian propaganda?

Why are you listening to a traitor about anything?

 

[My Spot]

The common use precedent was set in 1939, not 2008.

 

[djacobox372]

When a democrat president threatens OVER half the country with F15's, I'd say the 2nd Amendment affords something a lot bigger, more powerful and more deadly than an AR15

Did the Taliban have f-15s?