Matthews Challenges 2nd Amendment Advocate Over…Bazookas?

http://radioviceonline.com/ ^ | April 20, 2010 | Jim Vicevich

[Dead Corpse]

For the record, it is not the constitutional answer...

Then show us the clause in the Constitution that gives the FedGov that regulatory power.

We'll wait...

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

[Dead Corpse]

You are the one creating arbitrary exclusions where none exist.

Sorry... Go fish.

[Gilbo_3]

what tools of the soldier are not tools of war ???

you think the 2A refers to shovels and muskets, as the founders didnt forsee the eventualities of tech...

FReedom aint free, it takes honorable and Godly men to live in a FRee Republis...anything less and you are relegated to varying depths on the tyrannical food chain...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Then show us the clause in the Constitution that gives the FedGov that regulatory power."

I have previously. Its article I section 8 and the pre-amble to the Constitution. The government has the power of providing for the common defense. The Congress has the power to declare war. Nukes are for the common defense and for making war. They are not for personal protection. But then again, I have stated this many times in other posts and you don't get it.

Now answer my question from a previous post, what position of yours did I misrepresent and build a straw man argument from?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"what tools of the soldier are not tools of war ???"

All tools of the soldier are tools of war, but not all tools of war are tools of the soldier. For instance, as a Marine (soldier of the sea) I carried a lot of things. I even carried 60 mm mortar rounds from time to time. However, I never carried a nuke. It's not a soldiers tools of war. It's a governments.

[Dead Corpse]

Um... Sorry. But my Copy of the Constitution doesn't include the word "nuclear" in it anywhere. The power to declare war only means the FedGov can have nukes, not that it can stop anyone else in the US from having them.

Nor does the Second limit itself to just "personal protection". You lose on the comprehension fail again.

[Dead Corpse]

SADM. W45 backpack nuke.

You fail again...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Nor does the Second limit itself to just "personal protection". You lose on the comprehension fail again."

So now the 2nd amendment is for offensive purposes? Why don't you read what the author of the 2nd amendment (James Madison) wrote about in Federalist paper #46. The second amendment is there as the enabler of the God given right of protecting oneself. From either another person or a tyrannical government.

BTW, I am so broken up over the fact that you state I lost the argument. Not! I think other readers of this thread know what the truth is. The 2nd amendment does not give us the right to personally own nukes. No matter how much a you call me names and berate me.

[Favor Center]

“1. Admit that I am correct that the founding fathers never imagined things as powerful and deadly as nukes, dirty bombs etc. That these are not the arms that the founders were talking about. “

So, your view is also that since the Founders did not envision the Internet, speech using it is not protected by the First Amendment?

“That is why you are getting frustrated. “

Actually, I think it is YOU who are getting frustrated here.

[Favor Center]

“In your limited understanding perhaps you did not know that buying mass quantities of fertilizer such as required to make a homemade bomb is illegal.”

So, I guess farming is illegal?

[Dead Corpse]

Nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights even comes close to giving that power to the FedGov. A fact you continually ignore, spin, or outright lie about.

The Second Amendment is about our Right to fight back. The Constitution is an explicit list of things the FedGov was given the power to do.

Two very important facts you would obscure by arbitrarily giving the Fedgov whatever power you personally feel they should have.

Also, Madison's BoR was directly based on Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights.

"No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence—yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havock, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, -will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great-Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally difusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?" - June 14, Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. George Mason.

[Gilbo_3]

I even carried 60 mm mortar rounds from time to time.

hmmm...so now you are willing to move beyond select fire rifles...peel back those shades of gray and you may yet find the truth, FReedom is all, or will eventually, by decree of guys like you and the emotional masses, be nothing...

[tarheelswamprat]

"Fertilizer and deisel are legal, are they not?"

In your limited understanding perhaps you did not know that buying mass quantities of fertilizer such as required to make a homemade bomb is illegal. It is a controlled item for this reason.

Ignorance and arrogance is a sad and pathetic combination. Favor Center is correct. Farmers regularly buy "mass quantities" of fertilizer in quantities sufficient to make countless numbers of "homemade bombs". A ton of fertilizer will easily fit in a pickup truck. Farmers also, along with truckers, homeowners and millions of other ordinary Americans regularly buy "mass quantities" of diesel fuel in similarly sufficient quantities.

Simply purchasing these materials is not illegal. In order for it to be actionable by the authorities it must be accompanied by other questionable activity sufficient to constitute probable cause.

Ironically, in your zeal to denigrate others' "limited understanding" you demonstrate your own. Cite the specific statute and relevant text which defines and quantifies what constitutes your vague terms "mass quantities" and "such as required", and further states that purchases of these quantities of materials alone, unaccompanied by additional probable cause factors, is illegal.

Your subjective opinions and your vague, ill-defined terms are irrelevant. Show us the law, the actual text, or at least keep quiet and spare us your arrogant, condescending bluster.

[taxcontrol]

“Different contexts” ... that’s good because my whole point is, and has been, that in the context of the founding fathers, the term ordnance is used differently that arms.

[Favor Center]

““Different contexts” ... that’s good because my whole point is, and has been, that in the context of the founding fathers, the term ordnance is used differently that arms.”

You misunderstand me as to “context”. In the context of weapons, not organizations or branches of service, both words mean the same now as then.

“Arms” include “ordnance”. There is nothing to indicate that any of the Founders intended to restrict us to small arms alone.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

My mistake. It’s what I get for trying to reconstruct the McVeigh thing from memory. It was the blasting caps and dynamite that he stole that is the controlled substances. If you would like to denigrate me, fine. Before doing so, read the whole littany of posts. I was the one first that was claimed to have limited understanding on a variety of subjects. I was responding to that.

This is merely a side argument, a rabbit trail if you will. The main point is that everything under the sun considered arms are not arms as defined in the 2nd amendment. Read my previous posts for further expansion on this. I have no desire to re-write them. As for my posts, you don’t have to read them. Its a free country. Don’t try to infringe on my rights of free speech. I won’t tell you to shut up either. Goodbye.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I guess you don’t want to make a choice between the three. I’ll put you in the gutless category. One who wants to spout things but doesn’t want to follow them to their logical conclusion. At least deadcorps made his choice, even though it’s ridiculous. I give him more credit than you, gutless.

[Dead Corpse]

There is nothing to indicate that any of the Founders intended to restrict us to small arms alone.

Indeed, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest otherwise. The weapons aboard your average merchantmen that made them such ready Privateers, the fact that a number of civilians owned their own CANNONS, even grenades were not unknown and were perfectly legal to own during the Founders time.

Look down the bore of a 32-pound gun from the late 1700's and tell me the Founders didn't know exactly what they were purposing...

[Dead Corpse]

The main point is that everything under the sun considered arms are not arms as defined in the 2nd amendment.

This assertion is what is getting you in trouble on two points.

1. The Constitution makes no such distinctions.
2. Almost anything under the sun can be used as a weapon.

Is there some hidden cipher that decrypts just what "arms" are embedded in the language of the Constitution? Maybe a secret decoder ring you possess that lists those "arms" covered by the 2A that can be gleaned from the text of the Constitution itself.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

Line 1. 12th word. First Letter.

Section 2. Para 2. Second Word. 3rd Letter.

Section 10. Second word. First letter.

Article 2. Para 5. Line 2. 7th word.

See! AR-15!!!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

So you evade Madison’s discussions on this in Federalist #46. Figures. As for the standing army. It is true that many of the founders originally felt that a standing army was not needed and against the principles of a free country. However, then Madison became President and the War of 1812 happened. After that war, fought mainly by our militia, we were soundly beaten by a professional army and he changed his mind on that subject. Federalist #46 shows that what Madison thought was that the second amendment was a check against a standing army. There was a standing army at the time of the start of the War of 1812, but it was very small.