What limitations to the Second Amendment are acceptable to you?

[Light]

I'd be okay with politicians that say they want to ban guns, not be allowed a gun, or bodyguard

They don't want to ban all guns, they just don't want you to have them.

California Senate Votes 28-8 to Exempt Itself from California Gun Laws

 

[actaeon277]

California Senate Votes 28-8 to Exempt Itself from California Gun Laws

That and Bloomberg are major reasons for me making my statement.

 

[singlemalt]

California Senate Votes 28-8 to Exempt Itself from California Gun Laws

But the laws are for the little people not our esteemed leaders.

 

[edporch]

The only limitation I'll accept is the originalist one that any control over arms can only occur on the state level, and the federal government has no constitutional power to regulate arms in the states.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No chemical weapons (in the classic WW1 sense)
No biological weapons
No nuclear weapons
No incarcerated persons
No foreign nationals that aren't permanent residents

 

[bobzilla]

that's probably my only limit.

 

[Sylvain]

No chemical weapons (in the classic WW1 sense)
No biological weapons
No nuclear weapons
No incarcerated persons
No foreign nationals that aren't permanent residents

Even no foreign LEOs who can currently carry under federal law?

 

[T.Lex]

I think it would be reasonable to limit the number of times this question can be asked on INGO.

And I think we've now hit peak history-ignoring-no-infringement-rhetoric.

 

[2A_Tom]

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
Tench Coxe

This^^^

I believe the chemical, biological, nuclear &c are straw men, none of them are the weapon of a soldier.

If an enemy, foreign or domestic, attacks our citizens we will soon be armed as well as they.

 

[KG1]

No chemical weapons (in the classic WW1 sense)
No biological weapons
No nuclear weapons
No incarcerated persons
No foreign nationals that aren't permanent residents

Why do you hate liberty?

 

[2A_Tom]

Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to use NucBioChem on your home field?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to use NucBioChem on your home field?

With the wet summer we've had this year, mosquitos and sweat bees are terrible this year...just sayin'.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well, maybe a little bio.

 

[BogWalker]

I can agree no NBC warfare equipment, but I can also agree with blue falcon that when people say "none" that such devices aren't really included. I wouldn't consider weapons of mass destruction to be "arms" as written in the Second Amendment.

And even if one did believe you should own them, we have a lot of steps in between here and there before it's a relevant issue. Let's start working on the Hughes Amendment first.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I think the citizenry should have available all arms available to any government entity that can operate domestically.

If a military unit is allowed to operate domestically, the citizenry can have anything they have. Same for domestic law enforcement.

This goes for everything. Same tools, same rules of procurement.

If a government entity operates domestically with weaponry not available to the citizenry, then it is a coup.


The prison bit is hard if you stick to pure ideology. I guess if it comes down to it, prisoners can be armed if kept in prison or hanged, depending on the crime. If someone insists on being a violent dick, stretch their neck.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think the citizenry should have available all arms available to any government entity that can operate domestically.

If a military unit is allowed to operate domestically, the citizenry can have anything they have. Same for domestic law enforcement.

This goes for everything. Same tools, same rules of procurement.

If a government entity operates domestically with weaponry not available to the citizenry, then it is a coup.


The prison bit is hard if you stick to pure ideology. I guess if it comes down to it, prisoners can be armed if kept in prison or hanged, depending on the crime. If someone insists on being a violent dick, stretch their neck.

Ok, let's go with your idea of essentially "anything goes." Should the govt have a say in how such armaments are stored/cataloged? And if not to an acceptable degree, prevent firearm businesses from operating until they meet their standards?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Ok, let's go with your idea of essentially "anything goes." Should the govt have a say in how such armaments are stored/cataloged? And if not to an acceptable degree, prevent firearm businesses from operating until they meet their standards?

I did not attempt to describe a situation where essentially "anything goes". I attempted to describe a situation in which the citizenry had access to any arms that their government might use against them.

With that said, no, the government has no say in how such armaments are stored/cataloged.

I'm not trying to be a dick but I don't understand the following sentence: And if not to an acceptable degree, prevent firearm businesses from operating until they meet their standards?

If you are asking whether I think the government should have oversight of arms dealers beyond prohibiting them from dealing in prohibited arms (those arms that nobody, neither citizen nor government is allowed to use domestically) my answer is "no".

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Now that I read my post again, I would like to amend it to be clear that I would not disarm the citizenry any from where it stands today, even if the police and applicable military units disarmed down to clubs and nets.

 

[foszoe]

I always took arms to mean anything firing a projectile by means of explosive force....

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I always took arms to mean anything firing a projectile by means of explosive force....

I never saw that limitation. Swords, laser guns, pepper spray, I figure these are all arms. Firearms are a type of arms. Think of an armory in the middle ages or a "man at arms". It is more of a general reference to weapons.