What limitations to the Second Amendment are acceptable to you?

[Kutnupe14]

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".

Yes, that's what I was asking. You're saying that the people should have any armament that the govt has, and could potentially use against them. In that case, there's nothing that not on the table then. Everything is fair game when a govt become tyrannical (see Syria, Iraq). If prior to the development of that tyranny, we were able to have such weapons, I for one would want some sort of oversight. I don't relish the idea of my local dealer with shoddy containment practices, mustard gassing my entire neighborhood.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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'm not sure how these questions are generated by BE's comments but...

People should have the requisite responsibility, equivalent to the freedom, to store their arms and ammunition in a safe manner. If they're found to be negligent, there are remedies already in place to correct behavior accordingly.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, that's what I was asking. You're saying that the people should have any armament that the govt has, and could potentially use against them. In that case, there's nothing that not on the table then. Everything is fair game when a govt become tyrannical (see Syria, Iraq). If prior to the development of that tyranny, we were able to have such weapons, I for one would want some sort of oversight. I don't relish the idea of my local dealer with shoddy containment practices, mustard gassing my entire neighborhood.

A slippery slope. This rationale is used to make it impossibly expensive and burdensome for current gun owners, in certain states, to simply have more than a meager supply of ammunition or certain firearms that some people find worrisome.

 

[BogWalker]

I'm going to ask directly:

Bubba Effect, do your comments extend to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?

That is the point of contention.

He says "operates domestically". NBC weapons aren't slated to be used in domestic situations. National Guard or law enforcement aren't mustard gassing rioters.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Yes, that's what I was asking. You're saying that the people should have any armament that the govt has, and could potentially use against them. In that case, there's nothing that not on the table then. Everything is fair game when a govt become tyrannical (see Syria, Iraq). If prior to the development of that tyranny, we were able to have such weapons, I for one would want some sort of oversight. I don't relish the idea of my local dealer with shoddy containment practices, mustard gassing my entire neighborhood.

I am attempting to draw a distinction that I am failing to communicate.

I am proposing that there are Law enforcement and military units allowed to operate domestically (FBI, National Guard, etc) and there are other government entities not allowed to operate domestically (CIA for one, other military units).

The citizenry can have any arms held by the government entities that are allowed to operate domestically, even during insurrection.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm going to ask directly:

Bubba Effect, do your comments extend to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?

That is the point of contention.

He says "operates domestically". NBC weapons aren't slated to be used in domestic situations. National Guard or law enforcement aren't mustard gassing rioters.

Not currently. The idea is, now, incredibly remote.... but there's no telling when a legitimate tyrant will appear; and at the point you recognize him, it will already be too late.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am attempting to draw a distinction that I am failing to communicate.

I am proposing that there are Law enforcement and military units allowed to operate domestically (FBI, National Guard, etc) and there are other government entities not allowed to operate domestically (CIA for one, other military units).

The citizenry can have any arms held by the government entities that are allowed to operate domestically, even during insurrection.

Ok, I get you now. "Government," being domestic LE agencies.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I'm going to ask directly:

Bubba Effect, do your comments extend to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?

That is the point of contention.

He says "operates domestically". NBC weapons aren't slated to be used in domestic situations. National Guard or law enforcement aren't mustard gassing rioters.

Thank you for helping me. I do not know why I am struggling so much tonight.

The citizenry must be armed equal to anything their own government might bring against them. If NBC weapons are off the menu for domestic use by the government, then they can be off the menu for the general citizenry. I would insist on a baseline armory for the citizenry though (even if the police and domestically operating military disarmed down to nets and clubs, the citizenry is not disarming below it's current level).

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Ok, I get you now. "Government," being domestic LE agencies.

And any other entities allowed to operate domestically (national guard comes to mind). This discussion was easier before the patriot act muddied the issue of who could operate where.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Not currently. The idea is, now, incredibly remote.... but there's no telling when a legitimate tyrant will appear; and at the point you recognize him, it will already be too late.

If the structure of the law was clear that any such use constituted a coup, at least the entirety of the LEO and military along with the rest of us would be faced with supporting an overthrow of the government or standing by the law. The current support for the constitution gives me no great hope for our future either way, but it is something I can support.

 

[seedubs1]

So do you propose that the common man can have a robot / drone with a remote detonated explosive device on it? Let's say there's a guy that asked for a cell phone in a stand off with the cops.....

 

[2A_Tom]

We don'the need parity. Soldiers will spray ineffective automatic fire with their eyes closed, while we will use effectively aimed semi auto or single shots with bolt actions. We will pick up what we need we need on the battle field.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

I would have to question even this. After all, by ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these states acknowledge that we are dealing with natural rights, not granted privileges.

 

[gglass]

NONE!

 

[edporch]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would have to question even this. After all, by ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these states acknowledge that we are dealing with natural rights, not granted privileges.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment does recognize the pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms.

When the US Constitution was ratified, each state had it's own army (militia).
In order to preserve their powers to have and equip their own state armies, the federal government was prohibited by the 2nd Amendment from having any power to control arms in the individual states.
This clearly prohibits the Federal government from controlling arms in the individual states.

The question is, did this leave any power to each individual state to control arms within their own state?
History shows that even in the early years, states had laws that controlled arms within their state.
For example, I remember reading of some states having laws with regard to individual people owning cannons.

When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well regulated militia", they're using the meaning of "well regulated" in the late 1700's, which means in proper working order, NOT what those same words mean today.
NOTE: "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

 

[indiucky]

Another vote for none.

Well I guess pigs can, in fact, fly...I (gulp) agree with mrjarrell....

 

[IndyDave1776]

Originally Posted by 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.




Yes, the 2nd Amendment does recognize the pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms.

When the US Constitution was ratified, each state had it's own army (militia).
In order to preserve their powers to have and equip their own state armies, the federal government was prohibited by the 2nd Amendment from having any power to control arms in the individual states.
This clearly prohibits the Federal government from controlling arms in the individual states.

The question is, did this leave any power to each individual state to control arms within their own state?
History shows that even in the early years, states had laws that controlled arms within their state.
For example, I remember reading of some states having laws with regard to individual people owning cannons.

When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well regulated militia", they're using the meaning of "well regulated" in the late 1700's, which means in proper working order, NOT what those same words mean today.
NOTE: "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

Always comforting to see another person who understands that 'well regulated' does NOT mean federally micromanaged!

 

["Username"]

I would have to question even this. After all, by ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these states acknowledge that we are dealing with natural rights, not granted privileges.

Thumbs up!

 

[KG1]

I would have to question even this. After all, by ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these states acknowledge that we are dealing with natural rights, not granted privileges.

The way I look at it is the 2nd Amend is an affirmation that a natural right shall not be infringed. The right of the people shall not be infringed. Natural rights exist even without a Constitution.

 

[Sticky]

..."shall not be infringed" clearly equals my "none" vote.