The "bearing arms" debate...

[oldandslow]

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dallas Chief]

Boy this thread ran afoul quickly from what oldandslow was asking. Not that difficult of a question to answer really, but alas this is CP and always full of the interwebs drama.

In my humble view of the definition, arms= firearms. The items you listed- tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke, don't fall into that category. Once again, in my view of the definition of "arms". FWIW

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by frazod

LOL exactamundo

[BucEyedPea]

Okay, here's a new one.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

"We currently have no evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" or any of its listed variations."

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

"We currently have no evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" or any of its listed variations."

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
-Gin Rummy

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

"We currently have no evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" or any of its listed variations."

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation

Well, it was on Facebook and I liked it. I just went to check and it was linked to The Tea Party page. I'll check into it, to see if your link accurate too.
Because it says they "currently" have no evidence of it.

[Aries Walker]

So, Justice Scalia.



He says - and I actually tend to agree with him on this point - that the use of the word bear means that the Second Amendment only applies to weapons which can be carried, so there go your cannons, your missile launcher, your nuclear warheads.

He continues by pointing out the obvious next argument, which is "What about rocket launchers"? He doesn't give a direct answer to that, but he does say that the benchmark would be "What limitations are within the understood limitation that the society had at the time?" As the society at the time has no hand-held missile launchers, automatic weapons, flamethrowers, or bazookas, and they had only the most primitive of hand grenades, I feel comfortable with the level of strictness (or outright illegality) we have on these weapons.

The logical conclusion is that the Second Amendment was not written to allow the average citizen access to any and every weapon in the military arsenal, then or now. The entirety of the gun debate is arguing where to draw the line between allowable, and too much.

[BucEyedPea]

Per Wiki it was first reported in Matt Carson, On A Hill They Call Capital: A Revolution Is Coming‎ (2007), p. 131.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

So, Justice Scalia.



He says - and I actually tend to agree with him on this point - that the use of the word bear means that the Second Amendment only applies to weapons which can be carried, so there go your cannons, your missile launcher, your nuclear warheads.

He continues by pointing out the obvious next argument, which is "What about rocket launchers"? He doesn't give a direct answer to that, but he does say that the benchmark would be "What limitations are within the understood limitation that the society had at the time?" As the society at the time has no hand-held missile launchers, automatic weapons, flamethrowers, or bazookas, and they had only the most primitive of hand grenades, I feel comfortable with the level of strictness (or outright illegality) we have on these weapons.

The logical conclusion is that the Second Amendment was not written to allow the average citizen access to any and every weapon in the military arsenal, then or now. The entirety of the gun debate is arguing where to draw the line between allowable, and too much.

This was already brought up by Al North by saying the SC. No one has to agree with the court for their opinion. So I disagree with your logical conclusion, as not logical.

Scalia also not really an originalist. He has even said he's not a strict constructionist too. And, I have said earlier I don't give a rats ass what the SC thinks. The govt cannot be trusted to restrain it's own power. They even clarified Heller by finally clearing up the incorporation doctrine which I feel is bogus, but also claiming a gun has to be used for lawful purposes. Well, that rules out getting rid of a tryannical govt. Govt will always protect it's own power—and that's the problem.

I'll go by the quotes where it shows the word "militia" means the people and the actual definition of arms.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, it was on Facebook and I liked it. I just went to check and it was linked to The Tea Party page. I'll check into it, to see if your link accurate too.
Because it says they "currently" have no evidence of it.

Well, that is solid source to be sure. Funny how some people just never have a sense for what sounds made up.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Per Wiki it was first reported in Matt Carson, On A Hill They Call Capital: A Revolution Is Coming‎ (2007), p. 131.

So you need to get a Matt Carson picture and stick the quote on that, because Jefferson didn't say it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

So you need to get a Matt Carson picture and stick the quote on that, because Jefferson didn't say it.

Your site says it currently has no evidence of it. It doesn't make the hard claim you're making.

It does have this though:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Wonder where that blood comes from, 'eh?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Well, that is solid source to be sure. Funny how some people just never have a sense for what sounds made up.

I was not saying it was a source at all. You can't read. I was just saying that's where I saw it where people were clicking like which I did. I still like it. I'm gonna use it and claim anonymous on it. I did go back over there and tell others what your link said and linked that. I am editing the picture too. I disagree, that it sounds made up, especially if by Jefferson and the below quote, which I've seen around quite a lot.

Right from your link.:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."~ Jefferson

So in the meantime, I'll use the "blood of patriots" for handling "tyrants" now. It has the same spirit while I change the photo out with another quote.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...erty-quotation


In the meantime, you never offer any contribution but only criticize other contributors. You're a sniveling coward who plays it safe by never making any contributions of your own.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

So, Justice Scalia.



He says - and I actually tend to agree with him on this point - that the use of the word bear means that the Second Amendment only applies to weapons which can be carried, so there go your cannons, your missile launcher, your nuclear warheads.

He continues by pointing out the obvious next argument, which is "What about rocket launchers"? He doesn't give a direct answer to that, but he does say that the benchmark would be "What limitations are within the understood limitation that the society had at the time?" As the society at the time has no hand-held missile launchers, automatic weapons, flamethrowers, or bazookas, and they had only the most primitive of hand grenades, I feel comfortable with the level of strictness (or outright illegality) we have on these weapons.

The logical conclusion is that the Second Amendment was not written to allow the average citizen access to any and every weapon in the military arsenal, then or now. The entirety of the gun debate is arguing where to draw the line between allowable, and too much.

The entire debate comes down to rather we have enough laws that law abiding gun owners need to follow. The answer to this is yes. If you do not agree with this you can **** off because YOU ARE MY ENEMY plain and simple~

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Your site says it currently has no evidence of it. It doesn't make the hard claim you're making.

It does have this though:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Wonder where that blood comes from, 'eh?

My site, Monticello.org:

For almost 90 years, Monticello has been maintained and kept open to the public by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., which owns over 2,500 acres of Jefferson's 5,000-acre plantation. As a private, nonprofit 501(c)3 corporation, the Foundation receives no ongoing federal, state, or local funding in support of its dual mission of preservation and education.

Your source - a fiction book written in 2007

No one had ever seen the quote prior to appearing in the book of fiction and no one has been able to attribute it to him since then.

Can you ever just ****ing admit you're as gullible as a child?