Second Amendment Sanctuary

[JimL]

What does "shall not infringe" mean to you Jim?

So, answer me this Sparko, I'm not sure if I specifically asked this of you before, but do you think everyone should be free to possess their own nuclear weapons, or should that right be infringed upon?

[Sparko]

So, answer me this Sparko, I'm not sure if I specifically asked this of you before, but do you think everyone should be free to possess their own nuclear weapons, or should that right be infringed upon?

"Bearing arms" is pretty clear it means personal weapons like guns and knives, etc. "arms" comes from being able to carry ("bear") the weapon and use it in a fight.

[seer]

He did suggest they could work with Democrats on gun legislation if it targeted criminals instead of gun owners.
----

How about this: a mandatory five years in prison for anyone using a firearm in the commission of a felony. The leftists would never accept it...

[JimL]

"Bearing arms" is pretty clear it means personal weapons like guns and knives, etc. "arms" comes from being able to carry ("bear") the weapon and use it in a fight.

I see, so you do agree that there is a limitation? You can carry/bear bombs by the way.

[Sparko]

I see, so you do agree that there is a limitation? You can carry/bear bombs by the way.

Or.. we can understand that "arms" means "firearms" not "bombs"

How would you defend yourself personally using a nuclear bomb? You would kill yourself in the process.

[One Bad Pig]

Or.. we can understand that "arms" means "firearms" not "bombs"

How would you defend yourself personally using a nuclear bomb? You would kill yourself in the process.

Easy. Let it be known that you carry around a nuclear bomb with a dead man switch linked to your vital signs. If you die, everyone around you does too.

40651883.jpg

[Sparko]

Easy. Let it be known that you carry around a nuclear bomb with a dead man switch linked to your vital signs. If you die, everyone around you does too.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41487[/ATTACH]

I already do that, so don't tick me off!

[simplicio]

So we know there is an upper limit on the weapons allowed by the first amendment, atom bombs are not included.

Next question is the whether the 20mm Cannon or a howitzer ownership should be protected, I assume not because those cannot be carried.

Which brings us down in size (and power) to something like the m2, a 50cal crew served machine gun used as the basic heavy machine gun in the army (usually mounted in a jeep but carried by Arnold Schwarzenegger). Should ownership of that weapon be protected as a right?

[Mountain Man]

Or.. we can understand that "arms" means "firearms" not "bombs"

"Arms" refers to any kind of weaponry.

[Mountain Man]

So we know there is an upper limit on the weapons allowed by the first amendment, atom bombs are not included.

Next question is the whether the 20mm Cannon or a howitzer ownership should be protected, I assume not because those cannot be carried.

Which brings us down in size (and power) to something like the m2, a 50cal crew served machine gun used as the basic heavy machine gun in the army (usually mounted in a jeep but carried by Arnold Schwarzenegger). Should ownership of that weapon be protected as a right?

I think the standard of "undue risk" should be applied. In other words, does the risk to the community outweigh the benefits to the person wielding it? That's an easy judgment call to make for nuclear devices. It's not so clearcut when discussing firearms. Even a mounted machine gun doesn't obviously fail the test.

[Teallaura]

How about this: a mandatory five years in prison for anyone using a firearm in the commission of a felony. The leftists would never accept it...

Er, neither would I. As sentencing option, yeah, sounds okay. But 'mandatory' ends up with insanely unjust sentencing. Destruction of property, I believe, can be a felony (has to do with the value). Shooting a show dog could then result in five years. I've had pets killed but I wouldn't go quite that far.

But serious restitution and community service? You bet. You shoot a dog without cause, kiss weekends goodbye for at least a year.

[JimL]

Or.. we can understand that "arms" means "firearms" not "bombs"

Oh, but "firearms" is not exactly what it says, Sparko. Are you interpreting now?

How would you defend yourself personally using a nuclear bomb? You would kill yourself in the process.

But the clause wasn't put there as a self defense right, it was there for the purpose of a well regulated militia.

[Sparko]

Oh, but "firearms" is not exactly what it says, Sparko. Are you interpreting now?

But the clause wasn't put there as a self defense right, it was there for the purpose of a well regulated militia.

OK you convinced me. Nukes are included.

[JimL]

I think the standard of "undue risk" should be applied. In other words, does the risk to the community outweigh the benefits to the person wielding it? That's an easy judgment call to make for nuclear devices. It's not so clearcut when discussing firearms. Even a mounted machine gun doesn't obviously fail the test.

Sounds like you're arguing for limitations, MM. Does the clause mention anything about "excepting arms that are an undue risk to the community?"

[demi-conservative]

I think the standard of "undue risk" should be applied. In other words, does the risk to the community outweigh the benefits to the person wielding it? That's an easy judgment call to make for nuclear devices. It's not so clearcut when discussing firearms. Even a mounted machine gun doesn't obviously fail the test.

There always needs to be a judgment call, whether it's about speech or guns. The conservative rhetoric about Constitutional protections doesn't convince because even they think that the line is a judgment call on how much is protected.