Posted on 02/19/2018 9:26:27 AM PST by Simon Green
I'll keep things simple for the purposes of this poll. If it were up to you, what sorts of weapons would a law-abiding American be able to purchase with little or no paperwork?
1. Absolutely anything.
2. Anything short of WMDs (nuclear, chemical, biological).
3. Anything capable of being wielded by a single person (up to and including grenades, rocket launchers, MANPADs, etc), but none of the above.
4. Any firearm including full auto, SBRs, silenced weapons, but none of the above.
5. The current status quo at the federal level, but none of the above.
6. The current status quo, but ban "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines.
7. Even more restrictive (please explain).
Number 4 would work for me, even though I will personally restrict myself to #5 for financial reasons.
Anything the government has plus one. If you have a nuclear warhead, point it at Washington DC. That is the proper relationship of citizen to government.
The fighting ships during the Revolutionary War were private ships (”Privateers”). With cannon and a fighting crew. No different than a B-52 today in many regards. I suppose one might be able to make a case against WMD’s, but not sure how.
The role of the 2nd Amendment was for self defense - both personal, community, and national. So today, to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government that would be willing and able to deploy WMD against the citizens, then I think if that’s what it would take to fight back would be okay. I have to admit though, I don’t like the idea of the next-door neighbor having a shed full of Sarin gas or something. I guess that might be where the states’ National Guard comes in?
#1 - Letters of Marques and Reprisals, spelled out in the CONUS, makes it clear what the intent was.
These were essentially licenses issued to private parties to attack and capture property, usually ships, belonging to enemies of the issuing authority.
It seems very clear that this section contemplates private ownership of armed vessels capable of taking on other armed vessels belonging to enemies of the United States.
The 2A does not wipe out this clause -- it supplements it in limiting powers of government.
My belief is that this clause makes ownership of any weapon which is currently carried by any vessel of any nation legal for a US citizen. It may even make ownership of any weapon which is superior to weapons carried by ships of other nations legal.
Now there are a lot of people, some with fine legal minds, who will disagree. But if you read the simple black words written on the white paper this is what they mean. Now one can do all sorts of mental and legal gymnastics and tie oneself into a knot to try to make them mean something sees, but this is the plain and simple meaning of the original words.
#1.
tannerite isn’t illegal so maybe don’t need c4.
some places - flamethrowers\miniguns\grenade launchers\machine guns are legal.
Shall not be infringed is very clear.
Any weapon.
In 1789 citizens had cannons, the artillery of the day.
Because the 2nd Amendment specifically recognizes the right of individuals (the people) to keep and bear weapons of military utility, a well regulated [trained] militia being necessary for the security of a free state, it must be 3.
Scalia had it wrong. “Bear” did not mean “hold in your hands and carry”. “Bearing” an arm means to be able to have it with you at all times, to use it. Period. Just because Scalia got a lot of things right, doesn’t mean he got everything right.
#1
If you can afford it, buy it.
Since, as Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence, that government derives it’s just power from the consent of the governed, how could the government have any arm or weapon the citizens don’t have the power to give them?
If this is true, the citizens have the power to have any weapon the government needs. If the citizens don’t have that power, they can’t delegate it to the government.
I vote #1.
...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
The answer to the poll is that the second amendment expected the people to have available the same arms that the standing army had.
-PJ
I must have at least 50 links to articles on the subject, but I didn’t keep that one. I think it was a law professor several years ago discussing the issue in a forum in Colorado. In his opinion that was the best legal thought about what was covered by the 2nd amendment. I now ask myself, “If you remember the statement so well, then why didn’t you retain the link?”.
Any weapon that when possessed or used can be controlled by the user and doesn’t indiscriminately threaten and violate the rights/lives of others which pretty much covers all military type firearms including machine guns are covered. You can argue that even a tank’s power can be controlled.
WMD type weapons where the power of the weapon can’t be controlled and its use or mere existence in an unsecured environment threatens the rights of innocent people becomes a different issue.
1.
With no paperwork beyond sales slips.
#1
Our forefathers owned cannon and Gatling guns with the governments blessing.
#4 with a bit of #3 on the side.
The Tiffany family (owners of NYC’s Tiffany’s) bought a Colt Machine Gun a donated it to the Rough Riders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.