Constitution Lovers - Gun Rights

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Don't read too far into this question.

Pertaining to gun rights you believe the Constitution gives us (which is the common argument used by those opposed to gun control), which of these do you believe citizens should be allowed to have?

A) Glock 19
B) military-grade explosives (hand grenades, etc.)
C) Fighter jets equipped with their normal rockets
D) Nukes

 

[i am herdman]

Can you make another selection?

E)All of the above

 

[i am herdman]

In all seriousness, I believe a good litmus test would be that I believe the the average joe should be able to carry the same standard issue weapons as the average police officer or infantry soldier.

That would be at this time an AR style rifle(which is the modern day musket) and semi automatic sidearm. I can agree making the AR style rifle semi automatic.

The average state trooper can carry an AR style rifle, semi automatic(many cannot carry the military version that is automatic) and semi automatic pistol. The average American should be able to as well.

 

[CockyHerd]

In all seriousness, I believe a good litmus test would be that I believe the the average joe should be able to carry the same standard issue weapons as the average police officer or infantry soldier.

That would be at this time an AR style rifle(which is the modern day musket) and semi automatic sidearm. I can agree making the AR style rifle semi automatic.

The average state trooper can carry an AR style rifle, semi automatic(many cannot carry the military version that is automatic) and semi automatic pistol. The average American should be able to as well.

That's insanity.............

 

[Marine03]

In all seriousness, I believe a good litmus test would be that I believe the the average joe should be able to carry the same standard issue weapons as the average police officer or infantry soldier.

That would be at this time an AR style rifle(which is the modern day musket) and semi automatic sidearm. I can agree making the AR style rifle semi automatic.

The average state trooper can carry an AR style rifle, semi automatic(many cannot carry the military version that is automatic) and semi automatic pistol. The average American should be able to as well.

Absurd

 

[Marine03]

I don't know what the ARMY carried but I had an M203 Grenade launcher, an MP-5, a SAW fully auto 5.56, M60, 240 Goff, which doesn't include the M-16, 9mm, Mossberg 590 shotgun all at my disposal in a rifle squad. So yes, that makes sense let's arm the general public with these weapons.

 

[andy4theherd]

I don't know what the ARMY carried but I had an M203 Grenade launcher, an MP-5, a SAW fully auto 5.56, M60, 240 Goff, which doesn't include the M-16, 9mm, Mossberg 590 shotgun all at my disposal in a rifle squad. So yes, that makes sense let's arm the general public with these weapons.

all of those are currently legal to buy/own in the US.

 

[andy4theherd]

the ignorance of the law among those clamoring for or against laws is mind-numbing....


and that goes beyond the scope of this discussion as well.

 

[i am herdman]

I don't know what the ARMY carried but I had an M203 Grenade launcher, an MP-5, a SAW fully auto 5.56, M60, 240 Goff, which doesn't include the M-16, 9mm, Mossberg 590 shotgun all at my disposal in a rifle squad. So yes, that makes sense let's arm the general public with these weapons.

I said standard issue and not fully automatic. Cmon man. That.means a semi automatic AR style variant which is legal now and a pistol. Don't throw around tuff I didn't say. Of course not a m203 and so on. You knew what I meant. If a beat cop can carry a semi auotatic Glock and Bushmaster AR then so should I be able to.

FYI,We carried the same stuff. I meant the standard modern day musket which is the AR style rifle, modified to semi auot only and a pistol. That is not a big deal.

 

[andy4theherd]

going from memory (i'm at tennis practice with #2 and have soccer with #3 in 30 minutes)

to buy an "automatic" "machine gun" you need a Class 3 license from the ATF. this requires a ~$200 tax fee, an extensive background check (aprox 6 months), your fingerprints, a photo, an in-person interview, and a $500 annual fee. "automatic" "machine gun" currently range in price from ~ $5,000 to $25,000.

in 1995 there were over 240,000 "machine guns" registered by the ATF. half were owned by LEO's and the other half by private citizens.

 

[i am herdman]

going from memory (i'm at tennis practice with #2 and have soccer with #3 in 30 minutes)

to buy an "automatic" "machine gun" you need a Class 3 license from the ATF. this requires a ~$200 tax fee, an extensive background check (aprox 6 months), your fingerprints, a photo, an in-person interview, and a $500 annual fee. "automatic" "machine gun" currently range in price from ~ $5,000 to $25,000.

in 1995 there were over 240,000 "machine guns" registered by the ATF. half were owned by LEO's and the other half by private citizens.

I have a family member who is in a state organization, law enforcement. They cannot carry fully automatic AR's. The military donated some from surplus but they had to be modified to semi automatic.

 

[i am herdman]

That's insanity.............

An semi automatic AR and a pistol? Ok

Just think if the minutemen would not have had muskets. You would be bowing to the Queen.

 

[i am herdman]

I don't know what the ARMY carried but I had an M203 Grenade launcher, an MP-5, a SAW fully auto 5.56, M60, 240 Goff, which doesn't include the M-16, 9mm, Mossberg 590 shotgun all at my disposal in a rifle squad. So yes, that makes sense let's arm the general public with these weapons.

We carried the new stuff and you carried our old stuff.

That's a joke so don't get bent out of shape.

 

[andy4theherd]

I have a family member who is in a state organization, law enforcement. They cannot carry fully automatic AR's. The military donated some from surplus but they had to be modified to semi automatic.

yea, it varies by state. The same goes for types of firearms an individual can purchase. In California, Nerf guns require a 2 day waiting period...

 

[i am herdman]

yea, it varies by state. The same goes for types of firearms an individual can purchase. In California, Nerf guns require a 2 day waiting period...

His state does not allow law enforcement to carry fully automatic. I also thought he said the feds modified the weapons before giving them to them(could be wrong on that). But, I do know they were modified to semi automatic.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I have a family member who is in a state organization, law enforcement. They cannot carry fully automatic AR's. The military donated some from surplus but they had to be modified to semi automatic.

There are law enforcement agencies with select fire weapons. NYPD' ESU and counter-terror units have M4A1's at their disposal, as do FBI HRT and SWAT units. Obviously these are elite units and not your average cops, and I do not believe any average cops needs a fully auto weapon.

I agree with you calling the AR-15 the modern musket. It is capable of hunting, self-defense in extreme situations, and the ultimate bug-out weapon. Massive solar flare takes out the national power grid? Yeah, you might want a AR-15 in your gun cabinet.

 

[i am herdman]

There are law enforcement agencies with select fire weapons. NYPD' ESU and counter-terror units have M4A1's at their disposal, as do FBI HRT and SWAT units. Obviously these are elite units and not your average cops, and I do not believe any average cops needs a fully auto weapon.

I agree with you calling the AR-15 the modern musket. It is capable of hunting, self-defense in extreme situations, and the ultimate bug-out weapon. Massive solar flare takes out the national power grid? Yeah, you might want a AR-15 in your gun cabinet.

Damn right, and maybe two of them with 10,000 rounds. I agree. If shit hit the fan the military is not coming to save you.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

We have a lot of anti-Constitutionalists here.

 

[i am herdman]

We have a lot of anti-Constitutionalists here.

What's your thoughts? Interesting topic.

 

[andy4theherd]

full-auto is only useful for sending a massive amount of lead down range to provide cover fire. it is extremely wasteful and not accurate. semi-auto and burst is the way to go.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

What's your thoughts? Interesting topic.

I own two handguns. I believe we should be allowed to have certain weapons. I think the access to them is far too easy. My belief that we should be allowed certain weapons isn't based on a perceived Constitutional right. That is why all of those right-wingers who yell about their "Constitutional right being taken away" by Obama and Clinton are morons. You cannot believe that you have a Constitutional right to bear arms unless 1) your sole purpose is to have the weapon to defend against a tyrannical government 2) you believe citizens should have the firepower needed to overthrow a federal army (which as we know, includes nukes, fighter jets, chemical weapons, bombs, etc.). Again, you can't argue that it is your Constitutional right unless your sole purpose to have the weapon is to overthrow/defend against a tyrannical government and that you believe citizens should have the level of arms needed to overthrow what the federal government has at its disposal.

Most people, including me, have guns to protect against other citizens, for sport/hunting, or for collecting. None of those things are valid reasons the authors of the Constitution gave for the 2nd Amendment. Now, modern courts have ruled that those reasons are valid to bear arms, but it doesn't change the fact that those weren't the reasons why the authors created the 2nd Amendment. So, the "it's my Constitutional right" argument holds no water.

During my hiatus from here, I came across a gun control thread on the wvu board. Below is a long explanation that I posted on there:

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Christ, I thought coming over here would lead to some higher-level thinking compared with the smack board. I was wrong for the first time in 2016. The lack of critical thinking skills, especially from college educated adults, is scary. Both sides in this discussion are making monumentally incorrect assumptions and comments.

What makes you believe that you have a right to own any gun? Your answer, as has been argued in this thread from both sides, is the Second Amendment. Bullshit. Those who answer with that exhibit a fundamental lack of knowledge of the Constitution and how this country was built.

The Bill of Rights is a very short document. The authors, who mainly consisted of three people, were aware of this. They realized things could be taken out of context with such broad statements, so they made it a point to publish The Federalist Papers. The Federalist provides the intent and rationale for the creation of each amendment. So, if you want to go around claiming that you have gun rights due to The Second Amendment, you need to spend a few minutes reading The Federalist Papers . . . the part pertaining to the Second Amendment is #46. It is a short and easy read, but it will be extremely enlightening to many of you whom present incorrect arguments.

#46, written by Madison (who also created The Second Amendment), clearly dictates the intent and rationale he had in making the amendment. In it, Madison states that the right to bear arms is solely for the ability to stop a tyrannical federal government. Madison discussed the need for armed militias at the state and local levels for this exact reason. None of Madison's intent for the amendment had to do with hunting, sporting, protecting oneself from another individual, etc. The only rationale Madison provides for making The Second Amendment is for the ability to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. So, all of this "the Constitution affords me the right to bear arms" is incorrect . . . it is even worse when the same people who argue with that line want to argue in support of the Patriot Act or against restrictions on gun purchases by those on a no-fly or terrorist list . . . but, we will get to those in a minute.

Now, there are some liars among you who will say "yeah, well, I only have my guns to safeguard against a tyrannical federal government, because Obama and Hillary want to take away all of our rights since Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is a control freak." So, I will give you a huge benefit of the doubt and accept that your only reason for having guns is to stop a tyrannical government. Well, besides being a liar and a fool, you are also in a tough bind with that argument. You see, in the Federalist Papers, Madison also details the type of firepower/amount needed to overthrow a federal government (which, importantly, he includes the federal military as being a part of). In fact, he gets very specific by mentioning the number of armed citizens the U.S. would need at that time, based on the population and available firepower, to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. In other words, his intent and rationale for The Second Amendment is 1) to stop a tyrannical government 2) to provide the citizens enough firepower to be able to overthrow that federal government, which he mentions includes the federal military.

As we all know, the federal military could annihilate the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. within 48 hours. They have extreme firepower at their disposal. So, if you argue that your right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, you must first argue that your only purpose for having the weapons is to safeguard against a tyrannical government. Then, you must stay consistent with the intent of the Constitution and be in support of citizens having the same firepower to be able to actually overthrow that government/military, which Madison clearly explains as the rationale. In turn, in order to stay intellectually honest, you must support citizens in having tanks, fighter jets, weapons of mass destruction, etc.

If you don't agree with all of that, you have to stop claiming that the Constitution affords you the right to bear arms. By stating that, assuming you disagree with what I just said, you are going against the clear and unambiguous intent of the Second Amendment . . .at which point, you might as well use the Constitution to start the next dumpster fire in Morganhole.

Now, somebody in this thread mentioned that the First Amendment has restrictions on it, so why can't we do the same with the Second Amendment. Again, this shows a fundamental flaw in your knowledge of the Constitution. The same Federalist Papers explain the reasoning behind The First Amendment (I can't remember the exact number). The freedom of speech, the press, right to peacefully assemble, etc. all centered solely around the ability to criticize the government. Its intent had nothing to do with being able to say whatever you wanted. That is why there are laws against slander; laws against screaming "fire" in a crowded theater; laws against "freedom of expression" which make it so I can't walk down the street naked (well, outside of San Francisco). The First Amendment's intentions had nothing to do with any of those. It was made solely to allow citizens the right to criticize and speak out against the government without being punished.

Now, I believe DevilDog mentioned how he was against denying the ability to purchase guns for anyone on a no-fly list. Smart man. The no-fly list is an extremely arbitrary list which has thousands upon thousands of errors on it. There is no clear-cut explanation for how people end up on it. Many are mistakes based on simply similar sounding names. By denying the right to buy a gun, regardless if that purchase is or isn't (as we just saw) guaranteed by The First Amendment, you are denying due process, another essential part of the Constitution. Those people on a no-fly or terrorist watch list should still be able to purchase those guns unless they are afforded due process. Well, that sounds like a recipe for disaster, right? No.

Gun reform does not equate to taking away your guns. Gun reform can also mean a universal background check for all purchases and a mandatory waiting period. Currently, I can drive ten minutes to a flea market and legally buy an AR-15 without any background check being done, without any ID being shown, and without any bill of sale/paperwork . . . and it is all 100% legal. That is absolutely asinine and is why gun reform needs to take place. A universal background check on all purchases, including private sales, eliminates this and other loopholes. Cars are very dangerous objects with the ability to kill lots of people. As a result, we have passed legislation to eliminate a lot of those threats; seatbelts, speed limits, multiple tests to be able to drive, road regulations, car manufacturing regulations, etc. With guns, organizations like the NRA refuse to allow even any common-sense regulations like a universal background check. Now, what about those no-fly and terrorist watch people I allow the opportunity to buy guns? Well, they, like everyone else, have a mandatory waiting period before they can obtain the weapons. During a background check, the appropriate governing authorities will be notified that somebody on one of those lists is attempting a purchase. Not much unlike the current NICS system, certain "red flags" or "pings" will prevent a purchase. During the mandatory waiting period, investigators can then determine the status of the purchase. It isn't against any sort of due process restriction to investigate and interview the attempted buyer. If cleared, everything is fine. If denied, the attempted buyer should be afforded due process.

This waiting period would have to be more than the average 15 minutes it takes for the NICS to clear somebody or the three day waiting period some states have. Now, groups like the NRA will fight that, like they do everything. But, I couldn't go take a driver's road test, a written test, an eye test, etc. and be given a driver's license immediately. I had to wait a certain amount of time. Even after passing, I still had restrictions on my "right" to drive. Likewise, having to wait 15 days (or whatever is determined as an appropriate amount of time to be investigated) for somebody on one of the lists to obtain the gun isn't infringing on their due process.

Some of you are vehement about the Constitution granting you the right to bear arms.Yet, those same people had no problem with Georgie Bush passing the Patriot Act which was the single biggest infringement on our Constitutional rights in the last 50 years. Those same people had no problem when Obama decided to extend the Patriot Act. It is, again, intellectually dishonest to argue (incorrectly, I may add) that one thing infringes on your Constitutional rights yet ignoring or accepting something else which truly does infringe on the intent of a Constitutional right.

Again, gun reform doesn't equate to taking away your guns. There are many common-sense gun control measures that can and should be taken which don't inhibit your ability to have weapons. I have owned multiple guns for more than a dozen years, and I don't want my guns taken away. At the same time, I am level-headed enough to not allow my bias of wanting guns to incorrectly jade the true intent of the Constitution. Those of you who argue against the Patriot Act (DevilDog) but claim you have a Constitutional right to guns (DevilDog) lack Constitutional knowledge. At the same time, those of you who claim that the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) should be regulated, because we have had no problem restricting the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, etc.) fit in that same category.

 

[wisemaniac]

Holy shit, not only has this board convinced me to buy an MK19, now I want a bunch of AR-15's. Do the NAVY surplus stores have any of those sweet SEAL assault boats?

 

[raleighherdfan]

a "no fly list" is just one example of a "tyrannical" govt. It always starts with baby steps.

 

[i am herdman]

One would have to determine during what situation would the military take out its own people?

 

[CockyHerd]

I own two handguns. I believe we should be allowed to have certain weapons. I think the access to them is far too easy. My belief that we should be allowed certain weapons isn't based on a perceived Constitutional right. That is why all of those right-wingers who yell about their "Constitutional right being taken away" by Obama and Clinton are morons. You cannot believe that you have a Constitutional right to bear arms unless 1) your sole purpose is to have the weapon to defend against a tyrannical government 2) you believe citizens should have the firepower needed to overthrow a federal army (which as we know, includes nukes, fighter jets, chemical weapons, bombs, etc.). Again, you can't argue that it is your Constitutional right unless your sole purpose to have the weapon is to overthrow/defend against a tyrannical government and that you believe citizens should have the level of arms needed to overthrow what the federal government has at its disposal.

Most people, including me, have guns to protect against other citizens, for sport/hunting, or for collecting. None of those things are valid reasons the authors of the Constitution gave for the 2nd Amendment. Now, modern courts have ruled that those reasons are valid to bear arms, but it doesn't change the fact that those weren't the reasons why the authors created the 2nd Amendment. So, the "it's my Constitutional right" argument holds no water.

During my hiatus from here, I came across a gun control thread on the wvu board. Below is a long explanation that I posted on there:

Neither agree or disagree. Just continuing the discussion......

Why doesn't the Supreme Court reference The Federalist Papers in their most recent decisions regarding gun rights?

i.e.: Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

One would have to determine during what situation would the military take out its own people?

It is inferred that they would under orders in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist even goes in-depth to the extent that it discusses the number of federal troops vs. the number of citizens at the time to determine how many armed citizens it would take. The authors of the Constitution didn't consider that technology would make it possible for a federal government to be able to destroy the entire country within days with chemical weapons/bombs. Their argument was that the amendment was needed to allow citizens the fire-power to defend and overtake a tyrannical government. With today's technology in weapons, it means citizens should be allowed to have chemical weapons/bombs/nukes if one is to argue that the right to bear arms (other than to defend against a tyranny) is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Neither agree or disagree. Just continuing the discussion......

Why doesn't the Supreme Court reference The Federalist Papers in their most recent decisions regarding gun rights?

i.e.: Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago

I lived in DC during Heller vs. DC. The majority decision wasn't going to reference it since it would be an argument against their decision. Instead of referencing the Federalist Papers, the majority opinion argued what some state constitutions allowed at the time (bearing arms for defense). But the majority court didn't take the state constitutions in the correct historical context; they only referenced parts of the state constitutions which supported their argument while discarding the rest of the text which shows the right to bear arms for defense in the state constitutions only being for defense against a federal army. Further, the Heller decision tried finding the phrase "right to bear arms" in historical state laws, but it utterly failed. That phrase was only used for military context (defending against a tyranny by a militia) and not in the personal use/defense of the arms. The use of "right to bear arms" found in state laws by the majority in Heller is easily traced back to the military context of the phrase which is what the use is rooted in.

 

[WV-FAN]

my custom built AR15.300 blackout. damn, i like it. what good is it? fun to shoot and actually used it to hunt with this past year. love the iron sites beside the scope and the 100 round clip (actually, that clip belongs to the guy that built it, who is holding it in the pics, i just wanted a pic of it with the AR). check out the outline of the state of WV engraved just above the mag in the first pic. serial number of this one is my kid's birth date.

bleauxhard, the fifth horse's ass, has some cool firearms.

as for my constitutional right to own it, can't say i made the purchase for the reasons set forth by the founding fathers, although, guess i'd have it if needed for that reason.

@GeauxHerd

 

[CockyHerd]

Interesting article that kind of goes with this discussion:

http://theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago

 

[CockyHerd]

a "no fly list" is just one example of a "tyrannical" govt. It always starts with baby steps.

Of the 80,000+ names on the No Fly List, only approximately 1000 are US residents.

 

[andy4theherd]

Of the 80,000+ names on the No Fly List, only approximately 1000 are US residents.

so you would be ok with banning 1,000 people from voting without any hearing or investigation because it is suspected that they are illegals?

 

[CockyHerd]

so you would be ok with banning 1,000 people from voting without any hearing or investigation because it is suspected that they are illegals?[/QUOTE


All around poor comparison......Voting is a right and no one dies......If we let a terrorist buy a gun, people die.

If you're on the list you can certainly request a hearing to have your name removed. And we're talking about suspected terrorists not illegals.

 

[andy4theherd]

we are talking about constitutional rights and due process...

 

[andy4theherd]

you are saying it is ok to suspend a constitutional right without due process. what happens when it's abortion? lets put together a list of people we (the Government) feel are incapable of making that decision. we (the Government) will place people on said list at our discretion. if you feel you are wrongly put on said list you can apply for a hearing and prove you don't belong.

what happens when certain "groups" start getting put on those lists? kind of like how the IRS targeted certain "groups" over the last few years. it can very easily become politically motivated, and that goes completely against the very foundation of the Constitution and the idea of due process.

 

[Marine03]

you are saying it is ok to suspend a constitutional right without due process. what happens when it's abortion? lets put together a list of people we (the Government) feel are incapable of making that decision. we (the Government) will place people on said list at our discretion. if you feel you are wrongly put on said list you can apply for a hearing and prove you don't belong.

what happens when certain "groups" start getting put on those lists? kind of like how the IRS targeted certain "groups" over the last few years. it can very easily become politically motivated, and that goes completely against the very foundation of the Constitution and the idea of due process.

It's a constitutional right to own guns and have abortions. The problem is and always will be just how far the constitution will allow either to go. Both the left and the right have the opinion that they're entitled to one the other not.

 

[i am herdman]

Not sure how you are interpreting that by saying it would allow citizens to have nukes, a nuclear submarine, intercontinental ballistic missile

Also, you think the founders were so dumb they were not thinking of technology? There were technological advancements back then.You are talking some of the smartest men in the history of the world and creators of the greatest democracy ever and you don't think they thought technology would change?

Did the average Joe in the colonies have a cannon? A warship? Did he build a major fort? There were howitzers back during those times that could fire 2000 yards.Mortar rounds that went 1300 yards. The average joe had no real ability to obtain these.

Your logic there is flawed.The average Joe having an ICBM is a direct threat to nations, governments, world peace, etc.If I have an ICBM then Russia is going to have one pointed back at me. The average joe having an semi automatic AR or a Glock 19 with a 15 round magazine is not a threat to nations, states, world peace, the flow of trade, democracy, and so on. It is not a threat to overthrow a nation or cause extreme levels of mass casualties. Having an ICBM or a nuclear class sub is and frankly the average Joe could not possess the resources to obtain those items nor have the ability to use them or maintain them.

The citizenry would not need those weapons to keep the government in check or take it out.
The private citizenry in this country has enough at its disposal to take care of that

 

[raleighherdfan]

Interesting article that kind of goes with this discussion:

http://theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago

Most of the people I know who take the time to buy, own, and use weaponry...are in fact, trained.

 

[ThunderCat98]

It is inferred that they would under orders in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist even goes in-depth to the extent that it discusses the number of federal troops vs. the number of citizens at the time to determine how many armed citizens it would take. The authors of the Constitution didn't consider that technology would make it possible for a federal government to be able to destroy the entire country within days with chemical weapons/bombs. Their argument was that the amendment was needed to allow citizens the fire-power to defend and overtake a tyrannical government. With today's technology in weapons, it means citizens should be allowed to have chemical weapons/bombs/nukes if one is to argue that the right to bear arms (other than to defend against a tyranny) is protected by the 2nd Amendment.



I lived in DC during Heller vs. DC. The majority decision wasn't going to reference it since it would be an argument against their decision. Instead of referencing the Federalist Papers, the majority opinion argued what some state constitutions allowed at the time (bearing arms for defense). But the majority court didn't take the state constitutions in the correct historical context; they only referenced parts of the state constitutions which supported their argument while discarding the rest of the text which shows the right to bear arms for defense in the state constitutions only being for defense against a federal army. Further, the Heller decision tried finding the phrase "right to bear arms" in historical state laws, but it utterly failed. That phrase was only used for military context (defending against a tyranny by a militia) and not in the personal use/defense of the arms. The use of "right to bear arms" found in state laws by the majority in Heller is easily traced back to the military context of the phrase which is what the use is rooted in.

When you're named to the Court, you can write that in a dissenting opinion.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Not sure how you are interpreting that by saying it would allow citizens to have nukes, a nuclear submarine, intercontinental ballistic missile

I'll slow it down for you.

Madison's intent for "right to bear arms" was only to give citizens the ability to beat a tyrannical government. In doing so, his rationale was that a federal army would follow orders and turn against its fellow citizens. This assumption was so strong that he even documented how big the federal army was and how many citizens with equal firepower it would take to succeed. So, any question about "well, there is nothing to say for sure if military members will listen to those orders." The answer to that question is irrelevent; Madison based his rationale on "right to bear arms" under a strong assumption that the federal army would execute the orders they were given.

So, now we have a federal military against the citizens. Would 235 million adult citizens each with legal weapons (it's key to this discussion that they are only allowed to use legal weapons for a citizen to have) be able to beat a federal army and the weapons they have at their disposal? Not a chance. If the executive office and generals ordered the military to go destroy Huntington right now, they could do it within hours; utterly destroy the entire city and most of its citizens. Then, they could roll in with tanks and take care of most of the rest. And the citizens would only have their Glocks and Armalites to try stop them. Not happenin'.

If the military were ordered to take out St. Louis, they could make it happen within hours. Again, no legal weapons the citizens have are going to stop the carpet bombing and air attacks.

This isn't even beginning to talk about the more lethal weapons (chemical warfare, nukes) the government could drop in NYC and wipe that place out within hours.

The citizens with legal weapons would stand no chance against this tyrannical government. So, to stay true to Madison's intent of the 2nd Amendment, we must allow citizens to have enough firepower to be able to beat a federal army (who, again, are under an assumption by Madison that they will fight against its citizens).

Clearly, simply allowing citizens the weapons they are legally able to have now isn't going to stop the entire federal military. In order to successfully claim that we have a Constitutional right to bear arms, you must allow citizens to have lethal enough weapons to be able to beat the federal military. I'll let you make a claim about just how lethal of weapons we would have to allow to be successful in that endeavor; it's a hell of a lot more than we allow citizens now.

Also, you think the founders were so dumb they were not thinking of technology? There were technological advancements back then.You are talking some of the smartest men in the history of the world and creators of the greatest democracy ever and you don't think they thought technology would change?

Stop. They weren't some of the smartest men in the history of the world. Though very bright for their era, their level of intelligence wouldn't rank them anywhere near the smartest men in the history of the world.

Yes, they thought about technology. But I assure you that none of them could foresee what our planes, unmanned drones, lethal level of chemical warfare, etc. can do now. If they could - at least Madison - he wouldn't have penned The Federalist as he did.

Did the average Joe in the colonies have a cannon? A warship? Did he build a major fort? There were howitzers back during those times that could fire 2000 yards.Mortar rounds that went 1300 yards. The average joe had no real ability to obtain these.

This is where it gets good. The Federalist (#46) goes into detail about how big of a federal army the U.S. would have at that time. Madison writes "The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one-twenty fifth part of the number able to bear arms."

In saying this, Madison is taking into account the maximum number of military members the U.S. army could have at that time. He was claiming that a nation couldn't survive with more than 1/25th of its healthy, adult men (or those citizens able to bear arms). He went on to compute that the proportion he stated would yield a maximum army no greater than 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers. He then said "to these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen among themselves . . . it may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by by such a proportion of troops." He then goes on to further his (and my) point.

In other words, Madison was confident that 500,000 armed citizens could beat a federal army of 25,000 soldiers. That was based on his knowledge that citizens wouldn't have a "major fort," "canons," "nor a warship." But based on the sheer volume of numbers in the militia (500,000), they could still beat a 25,000 soldier federal army equipped with "canons" and a "major fort." Hell, look at The Alamo. The soldiers in the Alamo had far better weaponry (canons and guns) than the attackers, yet they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Madison's rationale for the 2nd Amendment is the same thing.

However, the disparity in weapons between what the federal military has now compared to what citizens are allowed to have is a much, much bigger disparity than what existed between the two groups in Madison's time. A 25,000 solder military with the U.S. military's firepower would destroy 500,000 citizens with the weapons which are legal to have now.

That is why citizens must be given far more allowances of what weapons they are legally allowed to have in order to be able to beat the U.S. military . . . which was Madison's sole reason and rationale for the 2nd Amendment. Now, we can debate what amount of weapons it would take for citizens to beat the federal military, but it is far, far more than what they are allowed now.

Your logic there is flawed.The average Joe having an ICBM is a direct threat to nations, governments, world peace, etc.If I have an ICBM then Russia is going to have one pointed back at me. The average joe having an semi automatic AR or a Glock 19 with a 15 round magazine is not a threat to nations, states, world peace, the flow of trade, democracy, and so on. It is not a threat to overthrow a nation or cause extreme levels of mass casualties. Having an ICBM or a nuclear class sub is and frankly the average Joe could not possess the resources to obtain those items nor have the ability to use them or maintain them.

Do you realize that this point is actually agreeing with my argument? Citizens having an AR or Glock is not a national security threat. 200 million Americans having a Glock is also not a national security threat. Why is it not a threat? Well, you answered that yourself. It isn't a threat to overthrow a nation. In other words, allowing citizens to have Glocks and ARs isn't going to do what Madison's rationale for the 2nd Amendment was- BEATING A FEDERAL MILITARY! So, in order to stay consistent with what the 2nd Amendment's intent was, we must allow citizens to have much more than Glocks and ARs. We must find whatever the level is that would allow our citizens to form together and be able to beat the arms our federal government has: chemical weapons, unmanned drones, fighter jets, ballistic missiles, nukes, etc.

You have already admitted that Glocks and ARs won't do it. So, the question is, what would do it? Whatever those allowances are is what we need to allow our citizens to have in order to stay consistent with the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Again, I'm not arguing against having guns. I have more than one. What I am doing is correcting those who claim that their right to have Glocks, ARs, and whatever else they want is due to the 2nd Amendment. It absolutely isn't unless they have those weapons ONLY to be able to stop a tyrannical federal government. And since you've already admitted that Glocks and ARs won't cut it, then they (citizens) need to be allowed more lethal weapons.

I suggest reading The Federalist #46. Some of it may be a little dry, but it is extremely enlightening into Madison's reason for creating the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

 

[extragreen]

I've stated on this board several times that if someone owns a gun to protect themselves from the government, it's a joke due to the ability and technology the armed forces have. Prying your gun from your cold dead hands is a rather easy thing to do.