Does the second amendment apply to machine guns, grenades, and other heavy equipment?

[CroSpartacus]

We have the right to bear arms. I understand the argument for carrying shotguns and hand guns. I am wondering what the view is towards carrying machine guns or guns that can quickly kill a group of people Rambo style. Do these types of guns still apply under the second amendment? Is there a line drawn in what the military can use and what civilians can? I am thinking about the thought of a civilian carrying grenades, mortars, and other equipment. I think it will be difficult to argue that a civilian can walk around with a bazooka or a machine gun.

 

[sailingaway]

There were privately owned cannon used at the battle of Concord. I suspect machine guns were covered. Nuclear bombs I'd have to think about.

 

[thoughtomator]

Keep in mind that the primary objective of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizens to throw off tyranny by force. Machine guns and grenades can be useful for that purpose. I have a tough time imagining a scenario where a nuclear weapon could be effectively used to the same end.

 

[Dr.3D]

We have the right to bear arms. I understand the argument for carrying shotguns and hand guns. I am wondering what the view is towards carrying machine guns or guns that can quickly kill a group of people Rambo style. Do these types of guns still apply under the second amendment? Is there a line drawn in what the military can use and what civilians can? I am thinking about the thought of a civilian carrying grenades, mortars, and other equipment. I think it will be difficult to argue that a civilian can walk around with a bazooka or a machine gun.

According to the founders, there was not supposed to be a standing army. So all of those weapons the military use would belong to the people who would make up the militia. Many of those heavy arms would probably be kept in an armory and only brought out in the event the militia found it necessary to distribute them.

 

[Origanalist]

We have the right to bear arms. I understand the argument for carrying shotguns and hand guns. I am wondering what the view is towards carrying machine guns or guns that can quickly kill a group of people Rambo style. Do these types of guns still apply under the second amendment? Is there a line drawn in what the military can use and what civilians can? I am thinking about the thought of a civilian carrying grenades, mortars, and other equipment. I think it will be difficult to argue that a civilian can walk around with a bazooka or a machine gun.

It would indeed be difficult, and most likely totally unnecessary. Unless defending ones self from a tyranical government.

Is there a line drawn in what the military can use and what civilians can?

I say no, it pretty much defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

 

[Len Larson]

If an argument is made that a weapon should not be in the hands of the individual, then how do they justify allowing that weapon in the hands of the govt?

 

[Neil Desmond]

It means anything, not just some arbitrary list of whatever someone wants to add to that list.

 

[idiom]

You shouldn't own cluster bombs, chemical weapons or land-mines. Neither should the military. You probably shouldn't own hollow points either. The military isn't allowed them. (Well, non-American Militaries, cuz 'Murica).

If there was a civil war the use of the above are war crimes. and pretty inhumane.

Don't know why you would want to own a nuke. They have serious upkeep and give off hard radiation.

You should be pretty handy with improvised explosives, timers and subterfuge. And possibly high powered bolt action rifles.

The last few are going to be much more handy in a war on the government than an AR-15. If anything one of the most important 2nd Amendment over-reaches is the DMCA. The ability to hack police and other government communication network to seek information, to confuse and to ambush, would be one of the most important tools in a modern revolutionary war.

A modern revolutionary war would be one on infrastructure. Most military units in the US can't scratch their arse right now without a 1000 gallons of fuel and a satellite uplink.

 

[madengr]

According to the founders, there was not supposed to be a standing army. So all of those weapons the military use would belong to the people who would make up the militia. Many of those heavy arms would probably be kept in an armory and only brought out in the event the militia found it necessary to distribute them.

Probably not, since the first thing the British tried was to seize the armory. Weapons dristributed amongst the population are much more resistant to tyranny.

 

[Dr.3D]

Probably not, since the first thing the British tried was to seize the armory. Weapons dristributed amongst the population are much more resistant to tyranny.

I'm not talking about the weapons that were already distributed amongst the population. I'm talking about cannon, and other heavy weapons. You have to admit, there were armories back then since as you said, the British tried to seize them. It would seem by the time the British were able to do so, those weapons would have already been distributed amongst the militia.

Keeping all of the heavy weapons in one central location would be silly anyway. There would have to be many armories. Some would probably be in the possession of militia members at various locations unknown to the enemy.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Didn't George Washington himself have cannons on his porch, always loaded and ready?

Shall not be infringed. The Founders no doubt meant any weapon in existence at the time. And the speed at which the weapon can be fired and reloaded would probably not change that (with regard to "machine guns").

People lived fairly far apart at that time. Did the Founders ever write anything about homes in close proximity to each other, and possibly limits on quantity and storage of powder in those situations? Essentially a zoning law?

 

[erowe1]

I think it will be difficult to argue that a civilian can walk around with a bazooka or a machine gun.

Is it difficult to argue that anybody at all, including the military, should ever have those weapons? Because if it's ever right for anyone, then you can't say it's wrong for someone just because they're a civilian.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

People lived fairly far apart at that time. Did the Founders ever write anything about homes in close proximity to each other, and possibly limits on quantity and storage of powder in those situations? Essentially a zoning law?

Found this link. Seems that gunpowder safety laws were indeed the start of a slippery slope...

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/Safety Regulation in Early America.html

Gunpowder storage laws are another example of a safety regulation not so terribly different from laws we have today. Before the Revolution--and even for some time afterwards--quite a bit of American gunpowder was still made at home--and sometimes, those doing so were not terribly sensible about where they made it. An interesting item that I found from a 1957 article about Maryland gunpowder making manages, in a single paragraph, to convey how common pistols were, how few restrictions there were on who could have them--and how inappropriately some people chose where to make gunpowder. "An earlier explosion occurred on October 17, 1783, in the yard of a Mrs. Clement in Baltimore, where some gunpowder had been placed to dry. Three boys, two of them Negroes, went into the yard to clean their pistols. One of them carelessly fired his pistol near the powder, causing it to blow up. One boy was killed and the other two seriously injured."3
This, plus other accidents involving gunpowder, unsurprisingly led to regulations restricting the storage of gunpowder in cities. In 1797 Baltimore required gunpowder to be stored in public magazines.4 It is unclear if this requirement applied to all quantities of gunpowder or only quantities above a certain size. New Brunswick, New Jersey's 1813 ordinance regulating storage of gunpowder applied only to quantities of fifty pounds or more.5 Boston's 1821 ordinance (which was apparently not the first such regulation) licensed possession of more than five pounds of gunpowder within any building (residential or business) in the city. Wholesalers and retailers were regulated as to the quantities, storage methods, and public notice requirements, but quantities under five pounds were exempt from all regulation.6 (I find it interesting that the town where I lived for many years in California had the same limit on black powder in residences--five pounds. It would be interesting to trace the history of such laws, and see when this limit was first set.)

...

 

[VIDEODROME]

Didn't George Washington himself have cannons on his porch, always loaded and ready?

Nothing says "Get off my lawn." like a cannon

 

[tod evans]

The police should never be permitted superior weaponry to the citizens....


For any reason!

 

[Brett85]

I would say that the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily apply to the things you mentioned, but those things should be regulated by the states, not the federal government.

 

[madengr]

It's perfectly legal to walk around with a bazooka or machine gun provided open carry is not prohibited in your state. They would be NFA items though. Now obtaining them at an affordable price is the problem due to GCA, NFA, and Volker amendment.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It's perfectly legal to walk around with a bazooka or machine gun provided open carry is not prohibited in your state. They would be NFA items though. Now obtaining them at an affordable price is the problem due to GCA, NFA, and Volker amendment.

This.

I can buy a tank if want, a helicopter gunship with miniguns, hell, I could commission an aircraft carrier if I wanted to.

But why would I want to do that?

Only government, and especially this government, seems intent on raining down death from the air for the last 100 years or so.

This is the silliest of "gun control" arguments:

"You can't have a civilian with nukes", "Only government should have nukes", "They are the only ones responsible enough".

Government...right. The same government that incinerated over a quarter of a million people with nukes. Government that killed 100 million last century by "conventional" means of genocide, mostly carried out against "civilians" previously disarmed by that same government.

 

[Origanalist]

Nothing says "Get off my lawn." like a cannon

 

[CroSpartacus]

Is if difficult to argue that anybody at all, including the military, should ever have those weapons? Because if it's ever right for anyone, then you can't say it's wrong for someone just because they're a civilian.

If every country agreed not to have bombs that would be nice, but judging from the world we live in that is not going to happen. If I had a gun by my side and I was walking out in the streets where other people also had guns at their sides I wouldn't worry too much. However, if a person was carrying something like a machine gun with ammunition wrapped around his body I would be concerned.

I think the idea of every community having an ammunition armory is not a bad idea. I am just perplexed at the idea of someone strapping grenades over his body justifying that he is exercising the second amendment.

I am not happy with governments having nukes, but the idea of common citizens having nukes does not give me any relief.