I fully support the 2nd Amendment. And not even in the "people need to defend themselves from criminals" kind of way. Full on take arms against the gvt. kind of way. I fully believe that the rights should extend to anything and all a private party can afford to keep, in order to match the strength of the government.
My problem is that according to my logic, an individual should be able to own tanks and recreational McNukes if they can afford to keep and protect it.
My question is: Is there a logic, pro-gun limit to the 2nd amendment?
oh of course there is. the rule was never meant to allow any kind of gun. 2nd amendment was intended to apply to hunting rifles only. It's been perverted by the NRA to mean any firearm of any kind, regardless of power.
Connor Garcia
The scalia argument was that arms was only for small arms, and even though the intent was for citizen and goverment parity the 2nd amendment should cover only small arms, which would allow all weapons up until you reach tanks.
Austin Martin
A government giving the right to armed sedition makes no goddamn sense. That's why the 2ndA gives the right to bare arms to regulated militias, not dumb yokels.
Jayden Garcia
Can civil enforcement or the national guard own it? So can citizens.
Nathan Hall
The 2nd amendment is not to protect hunting rights, you dense cunt.
Camden Foster
If you can safely store a McNuke then by all means. The only reason we don't have nuclear flying cars right now is because they might accidentally drive them across the border into enemy hands.
Ethan Gray
Every amendment in the constitution does not outline a right you ought to have or have not. It declares rights which you always possessed.
Rights by definition are unlimited.
"Shall not be infringed" you dipshit.
Jacob Ramirez
This is a true story. Also freedom of the press was only meant to cover quill and ink, but it's been preverted by the ACLU to cover any form of media, regardless of bandwidth.
Matthew Jones
I know that, but the amendment was intended to only apply to rifles.. not crazy insane shit like handguns.
Kevin Morales
There is no reason a civilian should be allowed to have an assault rifle or a handgun, period.
Lincoln Murphy
don't enlighten the willfully ignorant ignore them then fuck their women
Hunter Cooper
dude if you're trolling say assault weapon. Saying assault rifle is only for people that actually know anything about guns
Levi Morgan
But whose to say if I have my Number 5 Nuke Meal properly stored? If we go by the "every gun law is unconstitutional", who cares.
So can we agree that personal use nukes should be legal?
Sebastian Anderson
Handguns existed in 1791. They even clarified that the 2nd amendment extended to canons.
Ryder Walker
The amendment applies to standard military hardware. This would include FA & 3RB rifles, drones, tanks, jets, etc. Nukes aren't standard military equipment, we don't have marines charging into battlefields with a grenade launcher designed to lob pocket nukes at Muslims.
Financially you can own a tank or even a jet in the US but maintaining it is extremely costly. 3RB/3 round burst is also unavailable to civilians because it wasn't developed until after the Hughes Amendment to FOPA in 1986 iirc. There are legal full auto rifles available but they're all registered. It's an artificially limited market with a high markup because of the legal hassles to transfer and the Amendment's laws dictating that no new FA rifles may be purchased after 1986.
Nukes are just not something a civilian needs. But we really need to get FAs back and 3RB available.
Blake Kelly
No. The Revolutionary War was won in large part because the assembled militia were already armed. Our Navy consisted almost entirely of privately owned merchant ships outfitted with privately owned cannon. The men who just finished that war only years prior did not want to build a government that would have choked their own war efforts had it been in place. The citizens are meant to be free to arm themselves just as well or better than any military. Period.
>muh nukes, muh salt guns, muh tanks The 1st Amendment applies to the modern forms of communication, the 2nd applies to modern instruments of war, the 4th applies to digital records, etc. Government get out, reeeeeee, etc.
David Gray
There is supposed to be no limit long as you can afford it. All current licenses and taxes are against the second amendment and the ATF are treasonous scumbags who the founding fathers would hang for their crimes.
Angel Cook
A tank is a vehicle. You can legally own them in america, that doesn't mean you are allowed to drive them down the road.
Austin Peterson
>Nukes are just not something a civilian needs. Thankfully we're militia, not "civilians" :)
Christian Campbell
It could be reasonably argued that "arms" refers to specific weapons, with "ordnance" (or some other word) referring to another set of specific weapons. With such an argument, "arms" would refer to things that one can personally transport. Such a definition would have an upper range roughly at mortars.
Well Scalia is a fucking dumb ass, you could have a ship with canons which are not small arms without some stupid license bullshit.
Wyatt Phillips
The 2A includes all armaments, but not ordinance. Ordinance meaning highly destructive (not only lethal, but DESTRUCTIVE) devices which are typically intended for siege-style military conflict. So, a civilian should be allowed to own a pistol, shotgun, rifle, automatic weaponry, fully automatic weaponry, precision rifles, or anything else they could realistically carry on their person. A citizen should NOT be allowed to own nuclear warheads, grenades, RPGs, landmines, or the like.
Luis Ross
Your rights end where others begin. If your feelings infringe on the freedoms of other’s livelihood, you are probably a cunt. Unless you’re Chinese, then you have no right to anything but a painful death
William Perry
>So can we agree that personal use nukes should be legal? Yes, dumb fuck. If everyone was able to have a nuke, we would be living in a society where we had the technology and economic ability to produce roughtly 20kg of enriched uranium and provide that for 350 MILLION people. 7 BILLION KILOGRAMS of enriched uranium for personal nukes for the entire population of the United States. That's half a trillion dollars of RAW uranium assuming the price on goog is correct, and says nothing about how much it would actually cost to refine all of that, build a personal suitcase nuke out of it, and the logistics of selling one each to every 350 million people in the US.
By the time the US actually aquires the economic means to create these many devices, the social standard of living would be so fucking alien and different from today, it likely WOULD BE POSSIBLE to actually give every person a suitcase nuke and have them maintain and use it perfectly responsibly.
Keep in mind: > people still living off of government assistance and food stamps > dumb niggers with stolen guns who murder each other over scuffing $300 shoes And these people are the same people.
Your entire arguement of personal nukes is a fucking fantasy, because by the time we actually can give everyone a personal nuke, everyones "problems" will be fucking resolved and the nukes wouldn't be necessary.
Jayden Gray
Well regulated just means “very capable and practiced”
Andrew Diaz
>My problem is that according to my logic, an individual should be able to own tanks and recreational McNukes if they can afford to keep and protect it. Yes If you dont like it amend the constitution I would actually be fine with an amendment banning nukes as long as it also greatly reduced Federal power
Luis Hill
>My problem is that according to my logic, an individual should be able to own tanks and recreational McNukes if they can afford to keep and protect it.
people, in fact, do. Even nukes. Two private entities bought nukes for testing nuclear missile degradation.
Isaac Hughes
All civies in the US are militia, so for the US they're interchangeable.
Ryan Bell
Exactly We need nukes now
Jaxon Wright
generally speaking, large ordinance is off the table because it involves others. if you have mcnukes, you're a country at that point. see ancap memes for how this goes wrong.
Christian Jenkins
there are more issues with that than just the legal aspects. can you afford a nuke or a tank? will anyone sell you one? you can buy a tank and restore it to working order provided you have the funds. a couple months back there was a leopard on gunbroker for $300k. the reason nobody commits crime with a personally-owned tank is because no criminal can afford to blow 300 grand plus the cost of ammo (if anyone even sells it) just to go on a murder spree. in effect, this problem solves itself.
Blake Allen
the founders had an idealistic high brow society in mind when writing the constitution, not these degenerate times
There aren't even laws in the US prohibiting the creation of nuclear weapons. Just a few laws about unlicensed possession and acquisition of things like plutonium and mostly laws against unregulated transportation of said devices.
Wyatt King
The question you should be asking is whether the founding fathers would've had a problem with citizens owning ironclad warships or armstrong guns. The answer is no, any civilian who could afford a battleship could get one. Sure, they'd be used for trade, but they had the option to turn on the government nonetheless.
The problem with nukes, though, is the same as with biological and chemical weapons - collateral damage. There's no way they would allow weapons of mass destruction under the second. You can't target a tyrranical government with them. Innocent civilian lives, infrastructure, food and water supply will all be destroyed, the ecosystem possibly for ever, and that's without even accounting for global warming.
So, what's wrong with civilians owning tanks? If a dindu steals your tank and goes on a rampage then you get executed for treason as an irresponsible tank owner. As long as you're on private property and not breaking the law then the government has nothing to it.
Robert Nguyen
>executed for negligence when owning nukes
Pretty much what I had in mind
Jacob Gutierrez
You don't get to own weapons of mass destruction.
The founders would not have permitted smallpox blankets under the second amendment.
Even today, in 2018, smallpox blankets would still be considered a biological weapon, and could therefore be construed as weapons of mass destruction.
Henry Evans
>For the general purposes of national defense,[31] the U.S. Code[32] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:
>any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of: toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors >a disease organism >radiation or radioactivity[33] >For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[34] the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons".[35] Yep, smallpox blankets are WMDs. You heard it here first, folks.
Kevin Howard
The people who wrote the Constitution never wrote or dictated the word 'firearm' in their lives. The word they used was 'arms' which referred, depending on context, meant heraldry or weapons. The 2nd. Amendment could be interpreted to protect the right to bear a coat-of-arms.
But weapons meant to them hand guns, various shoulder guns, bows and crossbows, knives, swords, spears, pikes, javelins, cannons, and hand grenades. You may have the right to bear hand grenades. I myself use to bear a javelin in public, but no one ever seemed to notice or care.
Cooper Edwards
>open carrying a javelin For when you get mugged by a T-90?
Nolan Reyes
Not the missile, the track and field event.
Lucas Perry
Thats exactlt what the second amendment is there for. Problem is you cant trust randos with your safety anymore. Welcome ro the beautiful society where it is groomed to end itself majesticaly
Thomas Sanders
you need an atf stamp
Nolan Bennett
> You can get a BATFE stamp for a T-90? Is it an actual stamp? My brother collects stamps and his birthday is coming up. Back in the 1980's the state of Oklahoma made it a crime to sell marijuana without buying a tax stamp from the county where you planned on selling (it was illegal to sell it of course even with the stamp). The county clerk refused to sell it to me unless I swore I was going to use it as intended.
