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

[pacelli]

If God forbid Al Qaeda or some nut organization physically infiltrates our military and political arms of government, and pops off large numbers of troops and our leaders, I would hope that law abiding American citizens (including veterans) would have access to those weapons, to be able to fight those terrorist bastards on US soil if necessary.

We pay for those weapons with our tax dollars, we should have the right to access them in the event of a catastrophic attack on US soil, to prevent those weapons and armories falling into the hands of Al Qaeda operatives.

The continuity of government plan does not account for such a scenario.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I am all for governments not having nuclear bombs. In the world we live in I do not see that happening. Why endanger our society any more by allowing more people to have access to nuclear bombs? Unlike guns, that can be used for good, there is nothing good at all nukes can be used for.

Nobody has given me the affirmative stating that Ron Paul would support such ideas.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your night-stand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals.It is about preventing tyranny.
- Ron Paul

 

[idiom]

I know the purpose of the second amendment. Saying that historically people usually use guns in a mall does not address the possibility about the dangers of allowing heavy weaponry in public. The days of carrying swords around were wonderful because you can kill a criminal, the days of the founders were great because you only had muskets. We live in an age where one man can destroy dozens of people. Are you planning an armed revolution? If not, you have no reason to be playing Rambo. That is why I mentioned having an armory stored for heavy weaponry should there be any reason to use them.

You don't understand at all. The purpose of the second amendment is precisely to continuously plan an armed revolution. It prevents a monopoly on force. The perpetual threat of armed revolt is the only tool capable of taming the terrible entity that is government.

Its for self defence against the police. Self defence against the entire US military.

The government may not infringe upon the peoples ability to overthrow it. That is what it means.

 

[Pericles]

You don't understand at all. The purpose of the second amendment is precisely to continuously plan an armed revolution. It prevents a monopoly on force. The perpetual threat of armed revolt is the only tool capable of taming the terrible entity that is government.

Its for self defence against the police. Self defence against the entire US military.

The government may not infringe upon the peoples ability to overthrow it. That is what it means.

Exactly. The founders of the United States were revolutionaries. They built into the Constitution the ability of the people to remove the government at any time by being armed, and having the ability to communicate and assemble as fundamental rights of the people.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Exactly. The founders of the United States were revolutionaries. They built into the Constitution the ability of the people to remove the government at any time by being armed, and having the ability to communicate and assemble as fundamental rights of the people.

Not really. That was amended to the Constitution after it was written. The anti-Federalists were wise to the game.

 

[TheTexan]

Not really. That was amended to the Constitution after it was written. The anti-Federalists were wise to the game.

It was considered a given that the right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be infringed. In that sense it was "in the Constitution."

But yes, the AF's were all "that's not gonna work we best be more specific.."

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

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.

If you're going to make positive philosophical statements, don't get all butthurt when people question them. That's what happens. And if you don't have your logic right, maybe philosophical discussions aren't your thing.

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.

Yeah, on both I think... the second statement for sure.

 

[CroSpartacus]

If you're going to make positive philosophical statements, don't get all butthurt when people question them. That's what happens. And if you don't have your logic right, maybe philosophical discussions aren't your thing.


Yeah, on both I think... the second statement for sure.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not angry about anything. If everyone is going to ignore my question of whether it is a grave matter of concern when a citizen is carrying a weapon that is not simply for self-defense, but has the potential for serious destruction, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Maybe common sense and a bit of cautiousness is not your thing. I am not comfortable to be standing next to, or having a loved one standing near, a person holding a bomb or a flame-thrower. Call me crazy, but I see no logical reason why anyone would need those types of weapons. After following Ron Paul for years, I never heard him say anything to the extent of allowing private citizens to own nukes. Maybe philosophical discussions are not his thing either.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not angry about anything. If everyone is going to ignore my question of whether it is a grave matter of concern when a citizen is carrying a weapon that is not simply for self-defense, but has the potential for serious destruction, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Maybe common sense and a bit of cautiousness is not your thing. I am not comfortable to be standing next to, or having a loved one standing near, a person holding a bomb or a flame-thrower. Call me crazy, but I see no logical reason why anyone would need those types of weapons. After following Ron Paul for years, I never heard him say anything to the extent of allowing private citizens to own nukes. Maybe philosophical discussions are not his thing either.

If you're going to make positive philosophical statements, expect scrutiny. You have a bunch of it you're ignoring. Pretty simple.

Ron Paul is doing whatever he wants right now, and I don't think he's going to come defend your philosophical standpoint, or defend your lack of historical background. Those things are up to you.

 

[idiom]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not angry about anything. If everyone is going to ignore my question of whether it is a grave matter of concern when a citizen is carrying a weapon that is not simply for self-defense, but has the potential for serious destruction, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Maybe common sense and a bit of cautiousness is not your thing. I am not comfortable to be standing next to, or having a loved one standing near, a person holding a bomb or a flame-thrower. Call me crazy, but I see no logical reason why anyone would need those types of weapons. After following Ron Paul for years, I never heard him say anything to the extent of allowing private citizens to own nukes. Maybe philosophical discussions are not his thing either.

How do you threaten the government without serious weapons? The grave concern is letting the government loose on an unarmed populace. This outweighs the threat of someone firing a bazooka in a mall.

Its extremely hard to achieve a mass murder of five figures or more without government backing and disarming the populace. Hundreds of thousands were killed with machetes in Rwanda in the space of three months. Machine guns and flame throwers could have saved all of them without even needing to be used.

The bloodshed was halted when enough Tutsis finally acquired machine guns and not a moment before.

 

[CroSpartacus]

How do you threaten the government without serious weapons? The grave concern is letting the government loose on an unarmed populace. This outweighs the threat of someone firing a bazooka in a mall.

Its extremely hard to achieve a mass murder of five figures or more without government backing and disarming the populace. Hundreds of thousands were killed with machetes in Rwanda in the space of three months. Machine guns and flame throwers could have saved all of them without even needing to be used.

The bloodshed was halted when enough Tutsis finally acquired machine guns and not a moment before.

In the days of the founders there were local armories. If this armory is to be guarded by a police force or a militia I do not care. If there is a need to fight the government then citizens will have access to heavy equipment through the armories. It is inevitable that many towns would open up their armories to the citizens, if not then there is no revolution to begin with. Even just war doctrine states that a revolution needs to have a chance for success, if no community is willing to open an armory then there is not much of a grievance. Allowing everyone to carry heavy weaponry requires one gang war in an inner city to cause hell to break loose. Imagine gangs firing bazookas and blowing up houses.

 

[TheTexan]

Allowing everyone to carry heavy weaponry requires one gang war in an inner city to cause hell to break loose. Imagine gangs firing bazookas and blowing up houses.

Gang wars are a state created problem. Not a gun created problem.

End the drug war, and that specific form of violence just disappears almost entirely.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Imagine gangs firing bazookas and blowing up houses.

Yeah... that happens... all over the world... right now. Those gangs are usually backed by some government. In a lot of cases, they'll even put it on the news for you.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not angry about anything. If everyone is going to ignore my question of whether it is a grave matter of concern when a citizen is carrying a weapon that is not simply for self-defense, but has the potential for serious destruction, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Oh come on... haven't you seen any of the Hollyweird stuff, like Die Hard or Clint Eastwood doing a one up on his .44 Magnum? I mean what else are you going to use when you need to take the bad guy out with extreme pregidous? or if you have a hotel full of terrorists?

Maybe common sense and a bit of cautiousness is not your thing. I am not comfortable to be standing next to, or having a loved one standing near, a person holding a bomb or a flame-thrower. Call me crazy, but I see no logical reason why anyone would need those types of weapons. After following Ron Paul for years, I never heard him say anything to the extent of allowing private citizens to own nukes. Maybe philosophical discussions are not his thing either.

I've seen a number of flame throwers for sale. This guy sells them, but it's the first I've ever run into any state or federal laws mentioned. Normally, it's cash and carry...

http://flamethrowerexpert.com/broke.html

Buying and Selling Working Flame Throwers

I am interested in purchasing any model flamethrowers available and occasionally I have units for sale. Most units I sell to contacts that I know, and if I don’t already have a buyer, I will offer complete and working units on subgun.com in the classified section under flamethrower. Any flamethrowers I offer will be in working condition with a rebuild report in booklet form. For more on rebuilding see my restoration section.

I am always looking for partial or complete US Models, but I will purchase any parts or pieces of foreign units. I have restored one Japanese Model 100, one German WWII F41 and greatly enjoyed the experience of firing both. You can see photos of the Japanese on multiple websites by googling WWII Japanese Flamethrower. It was fired by the USMC Paris Island Historical Association at the Mid Atlantic Air Museum WWII Air Show in June, 2008.

I will brokerage flamethrowers that have been properly rebuilt and tested In most cases, each model has a certain collector or museum that has the most interest. I will negotiate with sellers on an individual basis for a fair price for both parties. There are some laws both state and federal, and we will adhere to the letter of the law. For all sales, I require a background check and a legal waiver stating that you understand the dangers and will not hold me liable.

=====
You would actually be surprised at how many women carry them in their purses. It's called a can of hair spray and a BIC lighter...

=====

As to the second, I think the founders really screwed the pooch with one word: "A well REGULATED militia..."

-t

 

[TheTexan]

As to the second, I think the founders really screwed the pooch with one word: "A well REGULATED militia..."

Yep. It doesn't take a doctorate in American history to know that by "well regulated" they meant "well trained/disciplined," but of course that doesn't matter anymore. They've twisted the words and meaning of the Constitution so far from its original intent that the paper the Constitution was written on would serve greater purpose wiping ass than keeping the government in check.

 

[idiom]

In the days of the founders there were local armories. If this armory is to be guarded by a police force or a militia I do not care. If there is a need to fight the government then citizens will have access to heavy equipment through the armories. It is inevitable that many towns would open up their armories to the citizens, if not then there is no revolution to begin with. Even just war doctrine states that a revolution needs to have a chance for success, if no community is willing to open an armory then there is not much of a grievance. Allowing everyone to carry heavy weaponry requires one gang war in an inner city to cause hell to break loose. Imagine gangs firing bazookas and blowing up houses.

Hahahahaha.....

 

[Expatriate]

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.

Um, even many opponents of the 2nd Amendment admit that it covers the weapons that existed when it was written (see: Piers Morgan blathering about muskets) - point being that grenades, rockets and bombs of all sorts were common when the 2nd Amendment was written and are definitely covered by it. Hell, there were privately owned warships back then that could flatten entire towns and kill thousands in a short span of time using nasty things such as grapeshot and explosive shells.

 

[tod evans]

Allowing everyone to carry heavy weaponry requires one gang war in an inner city to cause hell to break loose. Imagine gangs firing bazookas and blowing up houses.

I could see this happening maybe once.......A bunch of hoodlums gets out of line and the locals, the "well regulated militia", not the cops, quash the insurrection immediately with minimal cost to the taxpayers....

Survivors could be subjected to tax-payer funded courts..

Makes a whole lot of sense to me compared to the tax-payer funded media shows we have now.

 

[erowe1]

Imagine gangs firing bazookas and blowing up houses.

Isn't that what we have now? And the gangs are called states.

 

[KrokHead]

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

Ideally bazookas, machine guns, M-16s, are all arms and you have the right to own one. Now if you blow up someone's car in anger or spray some bullets in the air because you are in a bad mood then that's what jail's for.