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

[RCA]

I know we are guaranteed the right to own a "gun" via the 2nd Amendment, but what about automatics, grenades, flamethrowers, bazookas, tanks.........or A-bombs? At some point don't you have to say to Joe sixpack, "no, you can't build your own A-bomb for self defense?"

Food for thought....

 

[Truth Warrior]

"Governments prefer unarmed peasants."

 

[Expatriate]

I would say the spirit of the 2nd Amendment entitles you to anything that can be kept without a clear and present danger to your neighbors. (if you want to keep 500 pound bombs, you'd have to have a minimum blast area around the storage facility without innocent bystanders)

I'm sure in the days of the Founders none of them would have approved of their neighbor storing several tons of gunpowder twenty feet from their front door. But back then people generally lived farther apart as well.

If you want nuclear weapons, well there is a fallout issue as well as the initial blast radius, so you'd just about have to have your own continent in order to store them safely without infringing on your neighbor's rights. But our wonderful government doesn't exactly do that do they? A number of nuclear weapons sites are located near population centers.

Just my two cents.

 

[Expatriate]

Take a look at Switzerland. Private citizens are allowed to own military-grade weapons, and yet Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. They don't even need a national police force. The fact is, giving your population greater responsibility creates a more responsible population.

I know we are guaranteed the right to own a "gun" via the 2nd Amendment, but what about automatics, grenades, flamethrowers, bazookas, tanks.........or A-bombs? At some point don't you have to say to Joe sixpack, "no, you can't build your own A-bomb for self defense?"

Food for thought....

The word is "arms" Not once in the 2nd does it mention "guns". Many cannon and even warships were privately owned back then and were integral to our victory in the Revolutionary War.

 

[ChickenHawk]

I think it's a mistake to argue in favor of bearing arms using the 2nd amendment as your primary defense. The 2nd amendment is one Supreme Court justice away from extinction. The argument should be made that banning weapons has no value to society and does far more harm than good regardless of whether or not it's a right. There is more than enough historical evidence to prove this point conclusively.

In the case of weapons that are intended more for offense than defense and by their nature produce random destruction, such as large bombs, there is a case to be made for government control. Of course just because there is a case to be made doesn't mean it's necessary. I think the nature of nuclear weapons make them pretty impractical for anyone to own that doesn't have millions of dollars to spend on their handling, storage and maintenance.

 

[torchbearer]

The second amendment doesn't say "right to bear arms... except for assualt weapons or bombs."
Thus, you have the right to any weapon.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I think it's a mistake to argue in favor of bearing arms using the 2nd amendment as your primary defense. The 2nd amendment is one Supreme Court justice away from extinction. The argument should be made that banning weapons has no value to society and does far more harm than good regardless of whether or not it's a right. There is more than enough historical evidence to prove this point conclusively.

In the case of weapons that are intended more for offense than defense and by their nature produce random destruction, such as large bombs, there is a case to be made for government control. Of course just because there is a case to be made doesn't mean it's necessary. I think the nature of nuclear weapons make them pretty impractical for anyone to own that doesn't have millions of dollars to spend on their handling, storage and maintenance.

Wouldn't that be "unconstitutional", and require an amendment to change? < snicker >

 

[ChickenHawk]

Wouldn't that be "unconstitutional", and require an amendment to change? < snicker >

Amendments are so 18th century. It's a lot easier just to appoint a judge.

 

[NMCB3]

Yes A-Bombs are arms protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Alawn]

Any weapon that a soldier in the army can have I should be able to have as well. That includes all guns, grenades, rocket launchers and even tanks. The point of the 2nd Amendment is so I can defend myself against US soldiers. What good is it if they can have grenades, bazookas, tanks, automatic weapons and I can't.

 

[Ron Paul Vermont]

An A-bomb is not a gun.

gun
1. weapon that fires bullets: any weapon, from a small handheld pistol to a large piece of artillery, that has a metal tube through which bullets or missiles are fired by an explosive charge

Anything that does not fit in this definition is debatable about whether it should be legal. Don't even think about taking away my assault rifle though.

 

[tpreitzel]

An A-bomb is not a gun.

gun
1. weapon that fires bullets: any weapon, from a small handheld pistol to a large piece of artillery, that has a metal tube through which bullets or missiles are fired by an explosive charge

Anything that does not fit in this definition is debatable about whether it should be legal. Don't even think about taking away my assault rifle though.

a gun is a specific type of armament.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Amendments are so 18th century. It's a lot easier just to appoint a judge.

Yeah, I guess that it is really much simpler now, since [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Federal Constitution Is Dead[/FONT] .

 

[ChickenHawk]

An A-bomb is not a gun.

gun
1. weapon that fires bullets: any weapon, from a small handheld pistol to a large piece of artillery, that has a metal tube through which bullets or missiles are fired by an explosive charge

Anything that does not fit in this definition is debatable about whether it should be legal. Don't even think about taking away my assault rifle though.

Actually, by that definition, a nuclear weapon could be considered gun.

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Wrong forum. This topic is periodically discussed in the "Bearing Arms Forum".

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Bearing ARMS?

Every try flying through ANY of the Commercial Airports?

There's your "ARMS LIST" : cork screws, nails, sissors, wire cutters...

TSA, FAA, DHS... NEOCONS con-artists of America AN Insult and Joke on the American people!

 

[Razmear]

I would consider the right to bear arms to include any weapon that an average person could bear the weight of.

That would include any type of rifle or other personal weapon of the persons choosing but exclude cannons and A-Bombs.

Just my interpretation, but it does say bear arms, which I would interpret as carry.

eb

 

[cien750hp]

i would say anything, so long as it does not pose a risk to other people.
its like the drug issue, you can do what you want so long as you don't harm others.
so if you want to have a tank, you can have a tank, you just cant fire it and blow up your neighbors house.

 

[crackyflipside]

I would consider the right to bear arms to include any weapon that an average person could bear the weight of.

That would include any type of rifle or other personal weapon of the persons choosing but exclude cannons and A-Bombs.

Just my interpretation, but it does say bear arms, which I would interpret as carry.

eb

My opinion as well, if someone can carry it, they should be able to own it.

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

The citizens of Mass. in 1774-1775 organized and purchased and made both gunpowder, stored in barrels, and cannon, ranging from 2 pounders to 6 and 12 pounders. Clearly you do not have to be able "lift" the arms to be able to bear or own them.

And think, would the ATF allow you to have a 12 pounder, of the same manufacture as 1775, in your front yard nowadays? or store the barrels of powder in your barn...