From pocket knife to A-bomb, what's considered "bearing arms"?

[SWATH]

The argument about it posing a danger to neighbors is a slippery one. One could make the argument that a sniper rifle is a "danger" to anyone in the neighborhood within say a few miles or so. The argument cannot be based on proximity or level of danger.

 

[tmosley]

I would say they can have any weapon they can safely store. In most cases, nuclear arms can't be stored safely without government or corporate backing.

Really, any conventional weapon should be fine. From pocketknife to jet fighter.

 

[madengr]

Related – hand crank Gatling guns are legal to own and last I heard had no paperwork other that that for a normal rifle. Electric Gatling guns are also legal but will attract a great deal more scrutiny. Also, who can afford to shoot one???

Hand cranks are legal however motorized are not.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just because people owned them doesn't mean that it's a right. Lots of people legally own Chia Pets but that doesn't prove it's a right.

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Ammendment V, U.S. Constitution.

Constitution 2x4 thwacks you right between the eyes, ChickenHawk!

 

[ChickenHawk]

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Ammendment V, U.S. Constitution.

Constitution 2x4 thwacks you right between the eyes, ChickenHawk!

Hey, no need for 2x4s, I'm with you on this. I was just pointing out that ownership doesn't prove that it is a right.

 

[Expatriate]

The argument about it posing a danger to neighbors is a slippery one. One could make the argument that a sniper rifle is a "danger" to anyone in the neighborhood within say a few miles or so. The argument cannot be based on proximity or level of danger.

Yes, and I suppose you could use the same argument to ban cars, aircraft, and anything that could catch fire and burn your neighbor's house down. It would be impossible to create a completely safe society through legislation, what I would like to know is; did the Founders intend it to be a unalienable right for someone to store, say, a hundred tons of gunpowder in close proximity to his neighbors, when a single lightning strike could ignite it and obliterate many uninvolved innocent people along with their property?

I would like to delve into this further if possible. Does anyone know of an online source for the Federalist Papers or any commentary by the Founders which could relate to a further understanding of the 2nd Amendment?

All I know is that I would not feel secure or safe if my neighbor or the government kept an explosives stockpile near my residence, possessing the power to kill me or damage my property in the event of an accidental detonation.

From what I have learned of the Founders and the Constitution, I have always been struck by the sheer common sense upon which the principles of our republic rest. I would be surprised to find that this does not follow my expectations, but I am willing to learn.

 

[rmodel65]

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote

 

[bojo68]

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote

Precisely, which is why I believe ANY weapon a govt. can have, the people can have.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Precisely, which is why I believe ANY weapon a govt. can have, the people can have.

Would that not inevitably lead to, any weapon a government can have, any foreign government can also have?

 

[jsgolfman]

Yes

 

[Pericles]

Would that not inevitably lead to, any weapon a government can have, any foreign government can also have?

Note that the Soviet Union developed the H-Bomb before the US was able to do so. While I support the legal argument that any citizen is legally entitled to own any type of weapon, the practical limitations of doing so, tend to limit how many will be possessed. I doubt, I'll be able to make or buy a nuke for $1000, so the expense tends to limit ownership - the M1A2 series tanks are about $4 mil each, so your own private army gets expensive. The main issue in having a nuke is the radiation issue - your neighbors will sue your ass for radiation pollution of their property.

For the cost of having a nuke, I rather own an armored CAV Troop.

 

[Original_Intent]

FYI it's legal to own a nuclear bomb in Utah.

Since the Original Intent of the 2nd amendment was to insure that the people always had the necessary firepower to reign in their government as needed, I'd say that means any weapon the government (military) can have, an individual can have.

Also since government derives it's power from the governed, and we supposedly cannot give the government any right that we ourselves do not possess, again this indicates that what is good for Uncle Sam is good for Joe "the plumber" Sixpack

 

[Smiley Gladhands]

Oh, a Constitutional Amendment is definitely needed to make any sort of arms illegal. As it stands, all arms are legal. Any subsequent law that conflicts with the 2nd amendment is non-law and therefore null and void. Let's try to go by the book on this stuff. Amend it or live with it, but the worst thing you can do is ignore it.

Amen. If the government wants to restrict the possession of any weapon, then it better go about amending the constitution. I'd rather the 2nd amendment be clarified than ignored. If we don't follow the rules, then we have no rules.

 

[Conservative Christian]

All of the following should be completely legal, with no background check or purchase permit required:

All handguns, including high capacity semi-automatics
All shotguns, including high capacity semi-automatics
All rifles, including high capacity military-style rifles that fire three-round bursts.

-----------

All fully automatic rifles and machine guns should be legal, including those of current manufacture, but should require a background check and purchase permit.

Sorry, but I just don't support the right of citizens to own anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers etc.

 

[Uriel999]

Man y'all need to read the constitution more strictly, the second amendment just guarantees the right to bear arms

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

If we had A-Bombs, maybe they'd think twice about treating us the way they do.

Nuclear Detterence





People should not fear their Government, Government should fear the people.