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

[Pericles]

So when someone asks a challenging question and you have no answer to it, the person is a troll?


The question asks whether exercising the second amendment means guns only or whether it includes any weapon such as a grenade, a tank, a rocket launcher, etc.

You flatter yourself too much.

The only difference between pistol, rifle, grenade, artillery, etc. is range and effect. I will choose a weapon type consistent with the threat to be neutralized. I don't see how you are more qualified to make that choice than I am. The possession of any type of weapon is not the issue - it is inappropriate use.

I suggest to you that a just society would punish inappropriate use, while an unjust society would punish the possibility of inappropriate use. I would not limit someone's freedom, because that person might use freedom wrongly. Risk is the price we pay for freedom.

 

[Origanalist]

The people who wrote the second ammendment were not proposing that the government keep all the weapons beyond long guns in armories to be distributed when needed.

If they were I somehow completely missed that point.

 

[erowe1]

If the military of every developed country has grenades and tanks then it is logical for the US to have those weapons as well. It would be foolish and idiotic otherwise.

Why do civilians need grenades and bazookas? Nobody has yet given me a good reason for a civilian to carry anything other than a gun for self defense. I am comfortable having a gun strapped next to me, I have no reason whatsoever to be carrying a grenade.

Unless you are advocating an anarchy, then any form of government even a minarchy grants some power to officials that civilians do not have.

You're contradicting yourself.

First you say it would be foolish not to have the same weapons that the military of other countries have. Then you say that civilians shouldn't have those weapons. Which is it? Either there is a need for them, or there isn't. It can't be both. And if there is a need, then there can't be some distinction drawn where it's only right for the government to use them and not civilians.

You say that any form of government, even minarchism, grants powers to officials that civilians don't have. What do you base that on? Where do these powers come from? If they come from the people, then the people can only delegate powers to the government that are theirs to delegate. If they don't have the right to carry grenades, then they can't delegate that power to the government. If the government gets that right some other way, and not from the people, then who are these special people that make up "the government"? And what's to stop me from simply saying I'm it?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The 2nd Amendment isn't about self-defense, the founders didn't even conceive of a society where anyone would question the right of self-defense. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be armed to any extent in order to be secure from tyranny and invasion.

I understand that. But do you have any problem with the picture of a person strapping himself in grenades, carrying a bazooka, marching around city hall? Carrying guns I understand, but if one grenade gets thrown somewhere then we have a big problem.

With regard to "carrying", the intent of the Second Amendment is a companion to the Forth. It is clear that random "stop and frisk" is intended to be unconstitutional. The excuse of a person having weapons is not an exception, so much so that there is a specific Amendment for weapons.

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.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Czolgosz]

The Constitution limits government, the Second exists for the purpose of being explicit about rights. After "shall not be infringed" there are no other caveats or exceptions provided, for a reason.

States are just as bad as the Fed, except in BFE Wyoming. Individual rights must always trump. Voting with your feet will have you constantly on the move.


Finally, you really believe anyone can write a law which affects 99.99% of free people and be successful in discouraging the .01% who would possess something like a nuke?

 

[erowe1]

Finally, you really believe anyone can write a law which affects 99.99% of free people and be successful in discouraging the .01% who would possess something like a nuke?

.01% is generous. It's more like 0%. There has long been a problem with governments owning nukes. There has never been a problem with individuals owning them.

 

[Dr.3D]

.01% is generous. It's more like 0%. There has long been a problem with governments owning nukes. There has never been a problem with individuals owning them.

Last I knew, there is only one country that couldn't be trusted not to use nukes. That would be the one that has used them already.

 

[CroSpartacus]

Not in the least, I think anarchists are idiots, to be honest. I'm not even a libertarian.

But what you said was ridiculous. You want local armories (I assume protected by government employees) to guard weapons to be used in case the government becomes oppressive. Do you not realize the absurdity of that?

With guns and rifles I see no problem in private citizens carrying those and owning them. What I am concerned about is again anybody, private citizen or policeman, walking around strapped in grenades or carrying a rocket launcher outside city hall. Do you feel concerned about that scenario?

If you agree that a police force is necessary then you acknowledge that there is a body of people granted privileges that not everyone has. If there is to be any government or any society at all it is a fact that some people will have more privileges that not everyone has.


You seem like you place zero trust on policeman. Don't you think there will be policeman who will not side with the government should it become oppressive? Should a citizen militia be in charge of guarding an armory? If so, what's to stop them from becoming as bad as a police force?

 

[CroSpartacus]

What kind of a response is that? Anybody who disagrees with you is an anarchist, or some other term you consider derogatory?

You seem rather arrogant to me and the type who likes to get in everybodies business and tell them how they have to live. Tell me, did you even support Ron Paul?

Well I would rather be called an anarchist then a troll for asking a decent question. It seems that many on this board don't seem to want the police or military to do anything. I am trying to understand why we need a police force or a military if we don't believe they should have certain powers.

I support Ron Paul and I highly doubt Ron Paul would support the idea of allowing everyone to carry bazookas and mortars. He never said that and I would like to see if there is a source proving me wrong.

I want to get in everyone's business? If you read properly, I stated several times that citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms. I am not so open to allow everyone to carry heavy artillery in public square. You inciting that I am some big statist is pretty arrogant. Show some respect that people will have different opinions.

 

[Dr.3D]

With guns and rifles I see no problem in private citizens carrying those and owning them. What I am concerned about is again anybody, private citizen or policeman, walking around strapped in grenades or carrying a rocket launcher outside city hall. Do you feel concerned about that scenario?

Was a time when it would have been perfectly normal for private citizens to carry whatever weapons the military did.

If you agree that a police force is necessary then you acknowledge that there is a body of people granted privileges that not everyone has. If there is to be any government or any society at all it is a fact that some people will have more privileges that not everyone has.

Yes, most often the police force was elected by the people and both the people and the police force carried the same weapons.

You seem like you place zero trust on policeman. Don't you think there will be policeman who will not side with the government should it become oppressive? Should a citizen militia be in charge of guarding an armory? If so, what's to stop them from becoming as bad as a police force?

A policeman is only good for investigating a crime that has already happened and apprehending those responsible for committing it.
When the people who are guarding an armory become as bad as the police force, those guarding the other armories will help take them out of business by arming the citizens of the surrounding areas.

 

[Origanalist]

I want to get in everyone's business? If you read properly, I stated several times that citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms. I am not so open to allow everyone to carry heavy artillery in public square. You inciting that I am some big statist is pretty arrogant. Show some respect that people will have different opinions.

This is not up to you to decide.

 

[Dr.3D]

Well I would rather be called an anarchist then a troll for asking a decent question. It seems that many on this board don't seem to want the police or military to do anything. I am trying to understand why we need a police force or a military if we don't believe they should have certain powers.

There shouldn't be a military except in times of war. The problem is, the government has seen to it that we are in a constant time of war. This is why we have a standing army. The founders were against having a standing army.

I support Ron Paul and I highly doubt Ron Paul would support the idea of allowing everyone to carry bazookas and mortars. He never said that and I would like to see if there is a source proving me wrong.

I want to get in everyone's business? If you read properly, I stated several times that citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms. I am not so open to allow everyone to carry heavy artillery in public square. You inciting that I am some big statist is pretty arrogant. Show some respect that people will have different opinions.

The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. This means the government is supposed to be "the people."

 

[CroSpartacus]

You flatter yourself too much.

The only difference between pistol, rifle, grenade, artillery, etc. is range and effect. I will choose a weapon type consistent with the threat to be neutralized. I don't see how you are more qualified to make that choice than I am. The possession of any type of weapon is not the issue - it is inappropriate use.

I suggest to you that a just society would punish inappropriate use, while an unjust society would punish the possibility of inappropriate use. I would not limit someone's freedom, because that person might use freedom wrongly. Risk is the price we pay for freedom.

Grenades can kill a large number of people and when tossed in a public area can cause a lot of deaths. A gun can quickly shoot down a person that needs to be shot without incurring the loss of innocents. Are you telling me that something like a grenade launcher or a flame thrower is just about the same thing as a gun? Please. Why do you need a grenade? How are you going to use a grenade to protect yourself or to kill a criminal without killing other people?

I doubt that Ron Paul would ever support such an idea.

 

[Dr.3D]

Grenades can kill a large number of people and when tossed in a public area can cause a lot of deaths. A gun can quickly shoot down a person that needs to be shot without incurring the loss of innocents. Are you telling me that something like a grenade launcher or a flame thrower is just about the same thing as a gun? Please. Why do you need a grenade? How are you going to use a grenade to protect yourself or to kill a criminal without killing other people?

I doubt that Ron Paul would ever support such an idea.

Seems that would depend on the situation and the number of criminals one was trying to protect oneself against.

 

[tod evans]

Wonder why it is that the person who is going to supposedly wield these terrible weapons is either severely demented or in some way unstable in these fictitious scenarios..

Haven't ya'll determined that nut-jobs and "criminals" are going to ignore laws anyway?

 

[erowe1]

Well I would rather be called an anarchist then a troll for asking a decent question. It seems that many on this board don't seem to want the police or military to do anything. I am trying to understand why we need a police force or a military if we don't believe they should have certain powers.

I'm not sure if we need police or military. But let's say for the sake of argument that we do.

Then, given that we need them, yes, of course they should have certain powers. Just not any powers that the rest of us don't have.

You inciting [insinuating?] that I am some big statist is pretty arrogant.

Everything you've said so far suggests that "statist" is a label you should accept for yourself without reservation.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government...derp derp.

 

[idiom]

So when someone asks a challenging question and you have no answer to it, the person is a troll?


The question asks whether exercising the second amendment means guns only or whether it includes any weapon such as a grenade, a tank, a rocket launcher, etc.

You seem to be entirely ignoring my posts. The purpose of the second amendment is to keep the government in check. It is a restriction on the government.

Grenades and Bazookas are excellent means for keeping the government in check.

Your worries about people shooting up malls with heavy weapons are really strange. Historically people have used single action weapons to great effect. Mass murders have also been committed with Sarin Gas.

Are you going to ban pool and house cleaners?

 

[mport1]

Who cares about the 2nd amendment? Humans have a right to property so they should be fee to own any type of weapon they want. If "government" can own all those weapons, why can't everyone. Government is jus made up of people, so how can they have more rights than other people.

 

[Pericles]

Grenades can kill a large number of people and when tossed in a public area can cause a lot of deaths. A gun can quickly shoot down a person that needs to be shot without incurring the loss of innocents. Are you telling me that something like a grenade launcher or a flame thrower is just about the same thing as a gun? Please. Why do you need a grenade? How are you going to use a grenade to protect yourself or to kill a criminal without killing other people?

I doubt that Ron Paul would ever support such an idea.

Have you considered the possibility that you might have a grenade fixation? What weaponry I need for any particular circumstance has no relationship to the type of weaponry I have a right to possess.