Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice American Style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
    Nope, the answer is always more guns. More guns makes everything safer. If there are too many handguns get body armor and assault rifles with armor piercing rounds. Too many assault rifles then law abiding citizens should be allowed claymores and frags. Besides if the purpose of the second amendment is to be ready for political violence, there is no reason standard infantry weapons should be excluded. Same too handheld anti-tank weapons.
    I'm still waiting for the 2nd amendment folk to back up my constitutional right to weaponized anthrax and nuclear weapons. Instead, I just get hypocrites.

    Though I've still got my 1911 and over-under to keep me "safe".

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
      Nope, the answer is always more guns. More guns makes everything safer. If there are too many handguns get body armor and assault rifles with armor piercing rounds. Too many assault rifles then law abiding citizens should be allowed claymores and frags. Besides if the purpose of the second amendment is to be ready for political violence, there is no reason standard infantry weapons should be excluded. Same too handheld anti-tank weapons.
      You can actually own most of those things. Honestly if you wanted to you could by a tank to drive around in. With fully functioning gun and coax too as long as you have the right paperwork. We were just talking about it in another thread yesterday.
      "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
        You can actually own most of those things. Honestly if you wanted to you could by a tank to drive around in. With fully functioning gun and coax too as long as you have the right paperwork. We were just talking about it in another thread yesterday.
        That is a bit of an exaggeration, there are tank collectors around the world, on of the best private collections is in Britain by the way.
        The issue is the damage treads do to the roadways. The weapons have to by inactive.
        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
          You can actually own most of those things. Honestly if you wanted to you could by a tank to drive around in. With fully functioning gun and coax too as long as you have the right paperwork. We were just talking about it in another thread yesterday.
          But that's the point is isn't.

          Where in the constitution is it specified what sort of weapon requires "paperwork" ?

          I know from previous discussions it mentions a "well regulated militia" somewhere - and in the 18th century that meant battalions, rifles and a couple of cannon,

          these days a well regulated militia is what you see in East Ukraine or Syria.

          At any rate the right to be armed is already restricted - so the question becomes where to restrict it, and why.
          Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
            That is a bit of an exaggeration, there are tank collectors around the world, on of the best private collections is in Britain by the way.
            The issue is the damage treads do to the roadways. The weapons have to by inactive.
            Not here. As long as the gun only fires solid shot its legal.

            Come to think of it as long aa you have rubber road tracks you can drive them on the road as well. Not like they can't handle the weight considering there's 80 ton trucks on the road.

            Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
            But that's the point is isn't.

            Where in the constitution is it specified what sort of weapon requires "paperwork" ?

            I know from previous discussions it mentions a "well regulated militia" somewhere - and in the 18th century that meant battalions, rifles and a couple of cannon,

            these days a well regulated militia is what you see in East Ukraine or Syria.

            At any rate the right to be armed is already restricted - so the question becomes where to restrict it, and why.
            Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean its constitutional. The government has a long history of ignoring the constitution when it sees fit. But yes even in the 18th century private ownership of weapons up to and including military grade cannon was perfectly legal and within the bounds of what the Constitution intended. Privately owned cannon were even bought into service in 1812, and if I remember correctly 1848, to make up for shortages in the government's arsenal.

            One extremely common misconception that you seem to also hold relates to the term "well regulated." In the 18th century that phrase meant something more akin to "well trained" or "well prepared" more than the modern meaning of "well controlled." The actual full text:

            "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

            When translated into plain modern English to retain its original meaning.

            "Since a well trained citizen militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state, the right to own and use arms shall not be infringed."

            A bit of paraphrasing on my part but I tired or make it as plain as possible in contemporary English to cut through the flowery 18th century language the misleads people who try to read it without historical context.
            "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
              Not here. As long as the gun only fires solid shot its legal.

              Come to think of it as long aa you have rubber road tracks you can drive them on the road as well. Not like they can't handle the weight considering there's 80 ton trucks on the road.



              Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean its constitutional. The government has a long history of ignoring the constitution when it sees fit. But yes even in the 18th century private ownership of weapons up to and including military grade cannon was perfectly legal and within the bounds of what the Constitution intended. Privately owned cannon were even bought into service in 1812, and if I remember correctly 1848, to make up for shortages in the government's arsenal.

              One extremely common misconception that you seem to also hold relates to the term "well regulated." In the 18th century that phrase meant something more akin to "well trained" or "well prepared" more than the modern meaning of "well controlled." The actual full text:

              "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

              When translated into plain modern English to retain its original meaning.

              "Since a well trained citizen militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state, the right to own and use arms shall not be infringed."

              A bit of paraphrasing on my part but I tired or make it as plain as possible in contemporary English to cut through the flowery 18th century language the misleads people who try to read it without historical context.
              Which is why it is unconstitutional to deny my possession of biological, chemical or nuclear arms, correct?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Which is why it is unconstitutional to deny my possession of biological, chemical or nuclear arms, correct?
                Depends on bow you define arms. The period equivilant to bio or chemical weapons is something like launching bodies over a fort wall or distributing contaminated items. Not something that would exactly be considered "arms" at the time but technically a weaponized agent. If you stick to the original meaning the 2nd wouldn even discuss them at all. It would view them as the equivalent of driving a truck through a crowd or something. That is to say, weaponizing something that is not an "arm".

                Nuclear weapons are a bit different. Looking at it the same way I would say yes and no. The equivilant at the time would be something like stockpiling massive stores of powder, quicklime and the like. You would be well within your rights to own a huge cart full of powder but you wouldn't be allowed to park it in a crowded square nnd start running a fuse to it. In that sense I'd say you could own nuclear material but its use is what determines its legality. Power generation, medicine, science etc are kosher but when you set it up to be used as a bomb you've changed the situation. Again though I'd probably say that the nuclear material isn't an " arm" either. The missile, bomb or gun that deploys it is.
                "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                  Depends on bow you define arms. The period equivilant to bio or chemical weapons is something like launching bodies over a fort wall or distributing contaminated items. Not something that would exactly be considered "arms" at the time but technically a weaponized agent. If you stick to the original meaning the 2nd wouldn even discuss them at all. It would view them as the equivalent of driving a truck through a crowd or something. That is to say, weaponizing something that is not an "arm".

                  Nuclear weapons are a bit different. Looking at it the same way I would say yes and no. The equivilant at the time would be something like stockpiling massive stores of powder, quicklime and the like. You would be well within your rights to own a huge cart full of powder but you wouldn't be allowed to park it in a crowded square nnd start running a fuse to it. In that sense I'd say you could own nuclear material but its use is what determines its legality. Power generation, medicine, science etc are kosher but when you set it up to be used as a bomb you've changed the situation. Again though I'd probably say that the nuclear material isn't an " arm" either. The missile, bomb or gun that deploys it is.
                  So we're using 18th century definitions to decide whether 21st century arms are actually protected or not? Damn liberals interpreting the constitution that suit their own needs...

                  Nuclear arms are nuclear arms. Just because the founding fathers didn't know about machine guns and assault rifles doesn't make those arms unprotected. If I want to have live nuclear bombs in my living room for home defense, that's my constitutional right.

                  Next you'll be telling me that it's constitutional to ban the possession of the materials to make weapons too.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    So we're using 18th century definitions to decide whether 21st century arms are actually protected or not? Damn liberals interpreting the constitution that suit their own needs...

                    Nuclear arms are nuclear arms. Just because the founding fathers didn't know about machine guns and assault rifles doesn't make those arms unprotected. If I want to have live nuclear bombs in my living room for home defense, that's my constitutional right.

                    Next you'll be telling me that it's constitutional to ban the possession of the materials to make weapons too.


                    No, we are now using the "Heller" decision as the guide to our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

                    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.


                    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
                    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      So we're using 18th century definitions to decide whether 21st century arms are actually protected or not? Damn liberals interpreting the constitution that suit their own needs...

                      Nuclear arms are nuclear arms. Just because the founding fathers didn't know about machine guns and assault rifles doesn't make those arms unprotected. If I want to have live nuclear bombs in my living room for home defense, that's my constitutional right.
                      That isn't my intention at all. I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was using that old argument that it only applies to 18th century weaponry. What I mean is that the language has to be read using 18th century syntax and definition in order to understand what is actually being said. Interpretaion is trying to glean meaning from it using logic and syntax different from that it was written with. I was trying to do the opposite.

                      I don't have an easy answer about nuclear weapons which is why I went into the thought exercise of trying to determine what the closest equivalent would have been at the time and how they would have approached it.

                      I may have thought of a better comparison though still far from a perfect one. If we look at it through the lense of the most powerful single weapon system in existence then our best bet is to compare nuclear weapons to a ship of the line. I admit I don't know what the actual US naval laws concerning such a thing would have been in the 1780s but I don't see why it wouldn't have been legal, assuming someone had the obscene amount of money needed to buy and operate one. All of its individual parts, cannon, guns, ship, sails, crew, etc were legal for a private citizen to own so it should be legal to own as a complete unit. You could cause severe devastation with a weapon like that and some enterprising "private citizens" did just that a century before. So you can own all that but as soon as you start attacking ships and ports with it you get hanged for piracy. The same logic could be applied to nuclear weapons.

                      Again this is mostly a thought exercise as the courts have taken the entire Constitution and run with it off in their own direction. There's a LOT of things they've banned or regulated into near extinction *cough* automatic weapons *cough* that we'd need to get back before anybody came close to this extreme stuff.
                      "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The 2nd Amendments has the context and purpose right in the text. It is for political violence. Individual home defence is a happy accident. There should not be an imbalance in the arms held by the state versus the citizen.

                        There is no reason your neighbour shouldn't be able to keep a .50 cal M-2 or land mines in order to keep the kids from wrecking his lawn. The local group of Free Citizen Militia nutjobs, revitalized radical Black Panthers, or Islamic Defence group should be able to match the police and government in available arms.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          We have sidetracked the Op from street gangs and police practices in dealing with them to the second amendment, nothing in the bill of rights protects street thugs.
                          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                            The 2nd Amendments has the context and purpose right in the text. It is for political violence. Individual home defence is a happy accident. There should not be an imbalance in the arms held by the state versus the citizen.
                            Home defense isn't listed because it was already a part of common law dating back to English common law centuries before. The idea that you couldn't use force to defend your person, family and home would have been considered absurd. The fact that the Constitution allows you to own firearms means that they are included in the available means to exercise your natural right to self defense.

                            Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                            There is no reason your neighbour shouldn't be able to keep a .50 cal M-2 or land mines in order to keep the kids from wrecking his lawn.
                            Again, you can own these weapons. All it takes is a $200 tax stamp. Using them for self defense is no different than using any other firearm.

                            The mines are slightly different. Owning them and burying them in your yard are two different things. At that point it is illegal not because its a mine but mine its a man trap. Its the equivilant of rigging a shotgun to your front door Tom & Jerry style and shooting the mailman. Needless to say that is not self defense.
                            "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                              Home defense isn't listed because it was already a part of common law dating back to English common law centuries before. The idea that you couldn't use force to defend your person, family and home would have been considered absurd. The fact that the Constitution allows you to own firearms means that they are included in the available means to exercise your natural right to self defense.



                              Again, you can own these weapons. All it takes is a $200 tax stamp. Using them for self defense is no different than using any other firearm.

                              The mines are slightly different. Owning them and burying them in your yard are two different things. At that point it is illegal not because its a mine but mine its a man trap. Its the equivilant of rigging a shotgun to your front door Tom & Jerry style and shooting the mailman. Needless to say that is not self defense.
                              C4 bricks and patrol mortars.

                              If the average Joe had this, it wouldn't be good.

                              Keep in mind, the Second Amendment shouldn't be taken too literally, as it would just create chaos.

                              I'll make a whole thread on a new law that was placed recently in a few hours to make my point.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                                You can actually own most of those things. Honestly if you wanted to you could by a tank to drive around in. With fully functioning gun and coax too as long as you have the right paperwork. We were just talking about it in another thread yesterday.
                                Well, you'd have to modify it such that you could meet street use laws meaning different head and tail lights, adding mirrors, ensuring you have sufficient visibility from the driver's seat, and are using tracks that won't damage pavement. Armored cars are possible and have been done before.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X