2nd Amendment - does it need updating

[JonC]

The government does not have the right, under our constitution, to violate our right to keep and bare arms unless they have probable cause to do so.

Just saying, “oh gee whizz golly gee that rifle looks awfully dangerous for a private citizen to own…, they might do something mean, let’s take it away and let them buy a revolver” just doesn’t pass muster.

Ah, no. If you don’t like rifles, keep them out of your home.

peace to you

I agree that rifles shouldn't be banned because they look dangerous. Most of the dangerous looking rifles are less damaging than the ones that don't look like "assault rifles".

I am not talking about how a weapon looks. I specifically said "military grade weapons".

You advocate making weapons designed to pierce armored vehicles, weapon systems designed specifically to be crew served weapons, offensive weapons designed deliver explosive rounds over a wide area ...i.e., the MK19 we were discussing...available to the general public as protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I disagree.

What do I believe should be protected under the 2nd Amendment? Handguns, shotguns, and rifles to include semi-automatic rifles regardless of type.


What do I believe should not be protected? Military grade weapons systems like the MK19, automatic weapons, high explosive grenades, fragmentation grenades, claymore mines, armor piercing rounds, and RPGs.

This does NOT mean I believe people cannot own those weapons (or some of them). It just means I do not believe they should be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[canadyjd]

I agree that rifles shouldn't be banned because they look dangerous. Most of the dangerous looking rifles are less damaging than the ones that don't look like "assault rifles".

I am not talking about how a weapon looks. I specifically said "military grade weapons".

You advocate making weapons designed to pierce armored vehicles, weapon systems designed specifically to be crew served weapons, offensive weapons designed deliver explosive rounds over a wide area ...i.e., the MK19 we were discussing...available to the general public as protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I disagree.

What do I believe should be protected under the 2nd Amendment? Handguns, shotguns, and rifles to include semi-automatic rifles regardless of type.


What do I believe should not be protected? Military grade weapons systems like the MK19, automatic weapons, high explosive grenades, fragmentation grenades, claymore mines, armor piercing rounds, and RPGs.

This does NOT mean I believe people cannot own those weapons (or some of them). It just means I do not believe they should be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I haven’t “advocated” for military grade weapon systems to be handed out on every street corner.

I stated the truth they are already legal to own, and that makes me a little nervous.

You, on the other hand, have advocated taking our rifles and giving us revolvers.

No thank you

Good day to you sir…, I say Good Day!

peace to you

 

[atpollard]

Do you believe I should be allowed to possess a low yield nuclear weapon at my home?

What about a MK-19 grenade launcher?

Yes, constitutionally speaking.

 

[JonC]

I haven’t “advocated” for military grade weapon systems to be handed out on every street corner.

I stated the truth they are already legal to own, and that makes me a little nervous.

You, on the other hand, have advocated taking our rifles and giving us revolvers.

No thank you

Good day to you sir…, I say Good Day!

peace to you

I understand. You didn't read any of my posts.

Here is a summary:

I'm not advocating taking anything away.

I specifically posted that revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, rifles (to include semi-automatic "assault rifles") should be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Then I argued that requiring extra taxes, regulations, and permits for a protected right is wrong as this is the government infringing on 2nd Amendment rights.

Then I argued that military grade weapons shouldn't be protected under the 2nd Amendment. People can buy and own them (some types) but these need to be regulated and not available to the general public.


You argued that military grade weapon systems are protected under the 2nd Amendment. At the same time you supported regulating (infringing upon) 2nd Amendment rights to own military grade weapon systems.

The difference between us is I do not believe the government has the right to infringe upon what is a right of the citizen. If it is a right then it is a right....not something to be earned or bought.

I don't have a carry permit. But I can carry my gun. I can carry it concealed or as an open carry. Why? Because it is a right. (I can't, however, in every state because most states infringe upon this right).

 

[JonC]

Yes, constitutionally speaking.

Why? What part of the US Constitution grants citizens the right to own nuclear weapons and grenade launchers?

 

[atpollard]

Why? What part of the US Constitution grants citizens the right to own nuclear weapons and grenade launchers?

State right to self defense from Federal Tyranny through an armed populace, the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment requires unrestricted access to available types of weapons by the “well regulated militia”.

A Semi-automatic rifle (or even a SMG) against an Abrams Tank still results in FEDERAL TYRANNY (contraindicated by the Second Amendment).

 

[canadyjd]

I understand. You didn't read any of my posts.

Here is a summary:

I'm not advocating taking anything away…..

I specifically posted that revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, rifles (to include semi-automatic "assault rifles") should be protected under the 2nd Amendment….).

Here is what you said in post #7….

……
That said, I suppose it does not actually need to be changed to ban semi auto weapons (the 2nd Amendment secures the right to bear arms....not the right to any type of arms).

The government could ban all semi auto handguns without actually violating the 2nd Amendment. Or all "assault" rifles. It just couldn't ban all guns.

So, either you believe the government can ban semi-auto handguns/rifles without violating the constitution or you do not.

Apparently, you are confused about what your position is.

That said, I’m finished for the night.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

Is ammo covered in the 2nd amendment?
Beginning in Sep - in order to buy ammo - in NY State - you will be required to have a background check! And apparently - that will be required EVERY time you buy ammo. Then to add insult to injury - You will be required to pay for that background check - every time!
Background checks on guns and ammo will now have to go through NYSP

 

[canadyjd]

Is ammo covered in the 2nd amendment?
Beginning in Sep - in order to buy ammo - in NY State - you will be required to have a background check! And apparently - that will be required EVERY time you buy ammo. Then to add insult to injury - You will be required to pay for that background check - every time!
Background checks on guns and ammo will now have to go through NYSP

Yes, ammo is part of 2A. It is an attempt to infringe, without question.

I suspect, at a minimum, forcing someone to pay for a background check every time they buy ammo will be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

peace to you

 

[OnlyaSinner]

The phrase "military grade weapons" ought to be clarified. Though I never served (flunked my pre-induction phys due to previously undetected high BP), I don't think most of the handguns issued to military personnel are much different from what can be purchased at nearly every gun shop.
From the above posts it would seem folks are aware of the slippery slope possibilities. To counter the tactical nuke hyperbole, I'll propose my own hyperbole. Could our right to keep and bear arms be legally limited to single-shot rifles chambered for .22 short without violating 2A?

 

[Alcott]

I'm glad we have the right to bear arms these summer days. I would hate to have to wear long sleeves in 105 degree days.

 

[Revmitchell]

No limits on weapons the 2A is just fine