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

[erowe1]

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.

You're not giving a clear explanation. I still can't tell what weapons you think agents of the government have a right to carry, and what weapons civilians have a right to carry, and if those two categories differ at all.

Do you think that agents of the government have a right to use weapons that civilians don't have a right to use? If so, where do those agents of the government get that right?

If you do think that, then it seems like you're saying that there's this one special group of people who work for the government who get to have all these weapons that nobody else can have and that group can use those weapons against everybody else to make sure they don't get them.

 

[CroSpartacus]

You're not giving a clear explanation. I still can't tell what weapons you think agents of the government have a right to carry, and what weapons civilians have a right to carry, and if those two categories differ at all.

Do you think that agents of the government have a right to use weapons that civilians don't have a right to use? If so, where do those agents of the government get that right?

If you do think that, then it seems like you're saying that there's this one special group of people who work for the government who get to have all these weapons that nobody else can have and that group can use those weapons against everybody else to make sure they don't get them.

The military carries heavy artillery, tanks, and bombs. Because other armies in other countries carry these types of weaponry, it is obvious that the US military should carry them as well. The military has bases all over the country that carry these types of weaponry where they are stored and used for practice to train recruits. Suppose that the door is open and anyone can own hand grenades, is it logical to believe someone walking around wrapped in grenades who says "I am exercising the 2nd amendment" is sincere?

This is how I view it: I have no problem with people carrying guns with them or shot-guns out in the open. I have no problem with this because if a person walks into a school or university with a gun planning to kill a lot of people, armed citizens can easily take him down and save lives. This is where the problem lies if everyone can carry grenades. Suppose someone walks into a university strapped with grenades and tosses them in a large auditorium. The grenades explode and kill a large amount of people, it is too late to respond and kill the criminal because the grenades have already exploded where the killer threw them. Some might argue "well if we ban grenades then a criminal is still not going to follow the law" that may be true, but still shooting down a criminal with a gun will kill him much faster then throwing a grenade at him (endangering lives of people near him as well) This is a big reason I don't see any logical reason for citizens to walk around with grenades of bazookas.

 

[Dr.3D]

Snip~
Suppose that the door is open and anyone can own hand grenades, is it logical to believe someone walking around wrapped in grenades who says "I am exercising the 2nd amendment" is sincere?
~Snip

Would you settle for people being able to own and keep hand grenades in their homes?

 

[VIDEODROME]

Looking at references to Arms or even Armory I just seem to see it linked to firearms.

 

[Carson]

What if the private sector was the only entity that was allowed to own any weapons?

Sure we need to provide for a national defense. Should counting on those that comprise the nation to come forward be within reason? If not, why not? What I mean is, if they aren't coming forward, why are they not.

We would have some direct accountability and a little heart attached to them.



P.S. Would we look at what is being done with the weapons differently if they had a human being that could be looked in the eye? Say for a particular drone perhaps?

 

[CroSpartacus]

Would you settle for people being able to own and keep hand grenades in their homes?

I do not see any reason why anyone needs grenades for self defense. The problem with grenades is that all a criminal has to do is throw them in a mass body of people and many innocents will be killed long before someone can shoot the criminal down. Even if responsible citizens carry grenades they cannot toss them at a criminal because 1. It is much quicker to use a gun. 2. It can kill innocent people nearby. I feel the same with a machine gun. Machine guns are designed to kill a large number of people quickly. Do citizens need a machine gun to kill one person? They certainly can't use a machine gun when innocent people are near the criminal so there is no logical reason why anyone needs to carry a machine gun, or bazooka, or a mortar.

Those types of heavy weaponry I think should be stored in local armories where should the need arise to overthrow an oppressive government then the citizens can get access to them.

 

[Origanalist]

Those types of heavy weaponry I think should be stored in local armories where should the need arise to overthrow an oppressive government then the citizens can get access to them.

Shirley you can't be serious?

 

[erowe1]

The military carries heavy artillery, tanks, and bombs. Because other armies in other countries carry these types of weaponry, it is obvious that the US military should carry them as well. The military has bases all over the country that carry these types of weaponry where they are stored and used for practice to train recruits. Suppose that the door is open and anyone can own hand grenades, is it logical to believe someone walking around wrapped in grenades who says "I am exercising the 2nd amendment" is sincere?

This is how I view it: I have no problem with people carrying guns with them or shot-guns out in the open. I have no problem with this because if a person walks into a school or university with a gun planning to kill a lot of people, armed citizens can easily take him down and save lives. This is where the problem lies if everyone can carry grenades. Suppose someone walks into a university strapped with grenades and tosses them in a large auditorium. The grenades explode and kill a large amount of people, it is too late to respond and kill the criminal because the grenades have already exploded where the killer threw them. Some might argue "well if we ban grenades then a criminal is still not going to follow the law" that may be true, but still shooting down a criminal with a gun will kill him much faster then throwing a grenade at him (endangering lives of people near him as well) This is a big reason I don't see any logical reason for citizens to walk around with grenades of bazookas.

I still can't tell what your position is.

If you think that the US military should have bases all over the world with people carrying all the types of weapons they do, then doesn't that mean that people in general have the right to do the very same thing? Or else, wouldn't it mean that government agents have rights that the rest of us don't, simply by virtue of their being government agents?

I wouldn't like to see someone wrapped in grenades no matter what their excuse was. But I would not take any consolation if someone told me, "Oh, it's ok for them. They're with the government." On the other hand, if it is ok for the government, then whatever is ok for the government to do, has to be ok for civilians too. And if I ever did see government agents armed like that, it would give me greater conviction that we need more civilians to be similarly armed.

I think you raise valid points about under what circumstances it would be appropriate to use any given kind of weapon. But whatever those circumstances are that make it right to use any given weapon, the fact that the person using it works for the government should not be taken into consideration.

 

[CroSpartacus]

I still can't tell what your position is.

If you think that the US military should have bases all over the world with people carrying all the types of weapons they do, then doesn't that mean that people in general have the right to do the very same thing? Or else, wouldn't it mean that government agents have rights that the rest of us don't?

I wouldn't like to see someone wrapped in grenades no matter what their excuse was. But I would not take any consolation if someone told me, "Oh, it's ok for them. They're with the government." On the other hand, if it is ok for the government, then whatever is ok for the government to do, has to be ok for civilians too. And if I ever did see government agents armed like that, it would give me greater conviction that we need more civilians to be similarly armed.

Never did I say the US military should have bases all over the world. I said that because nearly every country has a military that carries heavy weaponry, so should the US military. The purpose of grenades, machine guns, and mortars etc. are to be used in war because that is where mass bodies of people are fighting each other. A regiment is charging at your base trying to kill you? That is where a machine gun or a grenade is supposed to be used. I see no reason why a private citizen needs that for self defense.

If we are to have any government at all then we do grant certain powers to it. The problem is that many times people grant a lot of powers to it. We have a police force that has powers we do not have (arrests, tickets, etc.) And we also have a military that has powers we do not have which I think should be the use of heavy weaponry in war.

My stance on the issue is that there should be a separation between weapons of self-defense and weapons of war. Guns are weapons of self-defense and every person has a right to own one. Bazookas and tanks are weapons of war and I see no logical reason why a private citizen needs those weapons to protect himself while walking down a street.

Government does not have rights, it has privileges. With those privileges I think the military is granted the use of heavy weaponry for war.

 

[Origanalist]

Government does not have rights, it has privileges.

Someone forgot to tell the government that.

With those privileges I think the military is granted the use of heavy weaponry for war.

And they will use that against you if you do not do as they wish, and all the rifles in the world aren't going to help you.

 

[erowe1]

Never did I say the US military should have bases all over the world. I said that because nearly every country has a military that carries heavy weaponry, so should the US military. The purpose of grenades, machine guns, and mortars etc. are to be used in war because that is where mass bodies of people are fighting each other. A regiment is charging at your base trying to kill you? That is where a machine gun or a grenade is supposed to be used. I see no reason why a private citizen needs that for self defense.

Why add "for self defense" at the end of that?

If you think a legitimate use of grenades, machine guns, mortars, etc. is to use in battle, then you have already decided that there exists a legitimate use for them. If there exists a legitimate use for them, then how could you tell someone they have no right to have them? Maybe their purpose for having them is to use in that legitimate way.

Also, if there's a group of people who do have the right to carry those weapons and other groups that don't, then who gets to declare which people belong to which group, and to impose its will on the group that isn't allowed to have those weapons by taking them away or prohibiting them from buying them or such things? The government again? Who are these special people that occupy the government, and where do they get all these rights the rest of us don't have?

 

[erowe1]

Government does not have rights, it has privileges.

So you're saying the government doesn't have the right to tell me what weapons I can and can't own?

 

[presence]

Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.

Tench Coxe, 1788

 

[pcosmar]

wOw,,
surprise SURPRISE.


You couldn't have found one of the dozen or so threads on exactly this same subject?

 

[Origanalist]

wOw,,
surprise SURPRISE.


You couldn't have found one of the dozen or so threads on exactly this same subject?

Apparently not, or he would have realized after reading them how foolish he would end up looking. The concept that government is more trustworthy of control of weapons of war is only a good one if you're part of the government.

 

[angelatc]

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.

ALl citizens should be allowed to own anything the military owns. Don't want private nuclear weapons? Then make it illegal for the military to have them either.

 

[Invi]

ALl citizens should be allowed to own anything the military owns. Don't want private nuclear weapons? Then make it illegal for the military to have them either.

bingo.

 

[Pericles]

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.

Thread could have ended right there^

 

[erowe1]

ALl citizens should be allowed to own anything the military owns. Don't want private nuclear weapons? Then make it illegal for the military to have them either.

I don't want anybody to own nuclear bombs. But of all the factors that make it difficult for my next door neighbor to have one, the fact that it's illegal is surely not the most significant.

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Civil Pro/Con Gun Debate?

Does anybody have a link to an intelligent video debate, operating under the premise:

Legislative gun-control restrictions reduce deaths caused by violent crime.

(Pro and con arguments should, of course, be included in the debate.) I'm trying to find some kind of discussion that does not deteriorate into mischaracterizations of the opposing party.

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.