Bassbob
Emissary
Tannerite. Available at Walmart.
Should grenades, RPGs and Mines be legal?
- Thread starter Talyn
- Start date
Bassbob
Emissary
Plenty of court decisions say right to carry isn’t supported by the 2A. I would not hold court rulings as a barometer. We know from Madison and others correspondence that the 2A was included in the BOR as a last resort against tyranny in government. And the language is ridiculously clear. There’s no way to logically conclude anything else. The constitution is not a living document to be changed or modified with the times. The government is expressly forbidden from limiting or restricting our access to arms. Period.
Keystone19250
SAINT
I can buy fireworks down the road too. Not the same thing as hand grenades and RPGs.
C. Sumpin
Custom
"Know that I strongly support the Constitution, but I don’t believe owning hand grenades is protected by 2A,"
It is altogether interesting, sad, disappointing and startling that even in the 2ndA community there will be those that will support the Constitution only to the degree that meets their 2A desires and work against the rights of the remainder of us!?
It is altogether interesting, sad, disappointing and startling that even in the 2ndA community there will be those that will support the Constitution only to the degree that meets their 2A desires and work against the rights of the remainder of us!?
Very well said.
And respectfully, I think you’re assuming some things and your logic is simplistic. But let me ask…what limits do you think should exist?
I know this is a huge hyperbole and exaggeration, but I’m doing it on purpose. Do you think the 2A should be interpreted as allowing average citizens to own nuclear weapons?
Where is the line in your mind?
And the Hawaii case and NY case are both working their way through the SCOTUS now.
My point is it has never been assumed that 2A extends to military explosives. No court has ever made that case, and every law passed at the state and federal level has been to make those explosives illegal or highly regulated for average citizens.
Ranger715
Elite
Funny. I find myself agreeing with everyone, even when they are at odds. But I think logic and reason would indicate there is some upper limit to the arms which the people have a right to keep and bear. Reasonable people may disagree about where that limit is. I have always viewed the "arms" in the 2nd Amendment to be personal small arms "of the kind in common use at the time," as described in US v Miller. Militia laws required men to keep their own rifles, ball and powder, etc., but not to keep cannon, mortars and grenades.
I understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to help keep "the people" sovereign, and able to resist tyranny. Certainly we want to have adequate power at our disposal. However, I doubt the founders intended every man to be an army unto himself. There are other protections in the Constitution, too. Military force is subject to the civil power. States have the power of appointing militia officers and training those forces. I also think there was an assumption that, in the face of despotism, most citizens in the military would simply not follow orders. Would this be true? I don't know. I think we have to rely on the whole combination of these things and each other, rather than our own personal stockpile of explosives. Can we rely on these? There is reason to doubt, and reason to hope.
So I'm going to vote no, I don't feel the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends to weapons of mass destruction, but only to personal small arms suitable for militia service and personal self defense. Am I going to fight hard against those who disagree? No. We could try it your way and see what happens. I'm not your enemy.
I understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to help keep "the people" sovereign, and able to resist tyranny. Certainly we want to have adequate power at our disposal. However, I doubt the founders intended every man to be an army unto himself. There are other protections in the Constitution, too. Military force is subject to the civil power. States have the power of appointing militia officers and training those forces. I also think there was an assumption that, in the face of despotism, most citizens in the military would simply not follow orders. Would this be true? I don't know. I think we have to rely on the whole combination of these things and each other, rather than our own personal stockpile of explosives. Can we rely on these? There is reason to doubt, and reason to hope.
So I'm going to vote no, I don't feel the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends to weapons of mass destruction, but only to personal small arms suitable for militia service and personal self defense. Am I going to fight hard against those who disagree? No. We could try it your way and see what happens. I'm not your enemy.
TidalWave
Professional
Amen, tex !
C. Sumpin
Custom
I'm not so good at convincing folks or changing minds nor am I motivated to with folks who come up short on common and fail to understand plain Constitutional English.
"Why does any average citizen in the US need access to hand grenades or RPGs?"
They don't have to need them, but if they want them then the Constitution says the may.
"And yes…if we get into a full scale civil war, then I get the use, but as things are now, what use do I have for a hand grenade?"
You may have no practical use for hand grenades now, if you don't enjoy the pleasure of what it will do, feel the concussion and see the beauty of its destruction (of say, an old shed, old vehicle skeleton, a water spout from the pond, etc) and "if we get into a full scale civil war," you are not going to have what you need and your fellow citizen will not have any to share with you.......because you were against it and not only for yourself but for everyone else! So then you can raise your arms & a white flag in surrender. And men of courage and wisdom who knew what the Constitution said and meant may go down with you.
If you simply allow the Constitution to do what it was intended to do then others could save ur arze even if you don't want to save yourself.
Exactly. And that’s all I’m asking. What is the upper limit for the people in this thread who seem to imply they have no upper limit?
Last edited:
Bassbob
Emissary
I’m going to address both posts.
My point was courts often decide cases incorrectly. And the 2A has been willfully misinterpreted for about a century or so now.
As for this post let me ask you a question. If the shite hits the fan, civil war, whatever, do you really think you’re going to be able to go out and get ANY sort of weapon, much less military hardware at that point? Are you waiting for a home invasion before you buy some shotgun shells?
And again, people who are bent on causing mass casualties will do it with or without hand grenades and RPGs. And the people that are criminals and could afford those things already have them.
I agree a large portion of the citizenry is entirely too stupid to have those things. Those same people though are also too stupid to drive, own a pocket knife, vote or hold political office.
I personally would not be running out to buy that stuff if it were legal. I don’t own any bump stocks, rapid fire trigger doomahickeys, silencers and I don’t have a class 3 license even though I could afford one and could pass the BGC. I’ve shot full auto stuff many times and I just don’t see a use for it for me personally. I don’t even have a braced AR pistol. Nevertheless I vehemently oppose regulating those things. The wording and intent of the 2A is perfectly clear regardless of it being routinely violated. Just because the government has successfully infringed on our rights for longer than any of us have been alive that doesn’t make it acceptable to me. The question was do you believe that stuff should be legal. And I do.
People who think too much individual freedom is dangerous and prefer the government curtail it “ For the common good” would do well in Australia. They do that in spades. I actually have a far right friend who lives in Sydney. He was born and raised there and a couple nights ago I called him to ask about the riots going on over the lockdowns. He informed me that our constitution granted us too much individual freedom and that the government should mandate vaccines, outlaw most guns and all that other crap for the safety of the public at large. This is a very right wing, borderline racist dude who lives in a place that’s radically left compared to here.
Bassbob
Emissary
You’re dead wrong about the framers. And the case law is irrelevant for this discussion. And I don’t know what makes you think legal nuclear weapons would be obtainable. Ever price an atomic reactor? Trump couldn’t afford one.
Bassbob
Emissary
The 1934 gun act was upheld by a court. We've addressed this a couple times now, no? And it's unconstitutional.
And you need a history lesson brother. It absolutely was assumed the 2A allows for the citizenry to be armed with whatever is available. You keep bringing up court cases. Most of which , most of us believe were unconstitutional decisions. And to which I have already said like 6 times now have zero to do with my answer to the question at hand. No one here actually believes hand grenades and RPGs will becoming to a range near you. It has nothing at all to do with the topic. Which is a hypothetical question with regard to the fundamental tenets of the 2A as written and as intended. Which the language of the amendment clears up beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can throw the 1968 gun control act and the Clinton Assault Weapon ban in there too, it doesn't mean they are constitutional.
If you're going to just keep ignoring half of what I write I don't see a point in having this conversation with you. You are being purposely obtuse and I see no reason to continue having an intellectually corrupt conversation with you.
Frankly you sound a lot like a fed and you will have the honor of being the one and only person on my ignore list.
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
Talyn
SAINT
Again, as per page one posts the NFA, and Fed sets limits on what licenses and/or permits apply to the three non-nuclear items in the title.
The sections in bold explain how this decision came about. If these defendants could have had the support of some of the organizations we rely on today perhaps the decision on the NFA would have gone in another direction!
Background
The case involved a criminal prosecution under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms, such as fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit, which was later folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), then part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service.[1] The $200 tax was to be paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.The defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted on charges of unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas an unregistered double barrel 12-gauge shot gun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. § 1132c et seq. ("Act"). At trial in federal district court, the defendants filed a demurrer to the indictment alleging that the Act was not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the states and so was unconstitutional. Defendants further argued that the Act violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court held that the section of the Act that made it unlawful to transport an unregistered firearm in interstate commerce was unconstitutional as violative of the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. The government took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
In reality, the district court judge was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would surely be a victory because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.[2] [3]
On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
- The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
- The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
- The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
- The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.
Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision had been rendered.[5] Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court for "further proceedings", which never took place. By the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and since Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.[5]