Should Americans be able to have unrestriced access to all types of weaponry?

[jsalcedo]

So do gas lawn mowers, Barbecues, arc welding and bovine methane.

Being able to launch LAW rockets at old Yugos at 300 yards tops my list on things to do before I die.

 

[kannonfyre]

Yes, RKBA should be UNIVERSAL

I agree with oldfart 100%. Where I live, it's illegal to carry almost any weapon at all in public. All you have are your hands and feet for self defence.

Would sure be nice if international law made RKBA a universal right. Definately be comforting to have a Glock for CCW, a Mossberg for home defence and a 7.62 x 39mm semi auto for service rifle matches. Yep, I'd be in heaven......

 

[Admiral Thrawn]

Being able to launch LAW rockets at old Yugos at 300 yards tops my list on things to do before I die.

LOL! Yes, I must admit, that would be fun.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Individual humans should be able to own anything. Note that I did not say "any weapon," but "anything." Important distinction.

The right to keep and bear arms is merely an extension of the right to own property. There is no limit on the type of property one can own, only on the uses that one can put it to (i.e. no injuring others except in self-defense.)

- Chris

 

[buzz_knox]

You can't "bear" most WMDs and thus they don't fall within the scope of the 2nd Amendment as written. Further, such weapons are not particularly suited to fighting an oppressive government on your own territory, let alone self-defense, so they don't fall within the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[braindead0]

Just think how many water skiers you could get up out of the water behind the New Jersey!

That would be..all of them!

You can't "bear" most WMDs and thus they don't fall within the scope of the 2nd Amendment as written. Further, such weapons are not particularly suited to fighting an oppressive government on your own territory, let alone self-defense, so they don't fall within the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't think so, if the 'Spirit' of the 2nd meant 'bear' in a literal sense (something you can physically carry), then horses wouldn't be covered as well as armed ships (most merchant vessels were armed, and nobody is going to 'bear' a 30 pounder). Letting loose a tactical Nuke on the massed forces of a oppressive goverment could be an appropriate response, as there may be no other choice.

We the people should be able to have anything the goverment has in the way of weapons. I don't think I'd have any problems with the government applying reasonable control to the *firing* of these weapons...

 

[scotjute]

I voted for # 2 No, tho I didn't care for its wording. While I haven't sat down and contemplated all the ramifications of 2nd amendment, I've always viewed it as the arms a citizen would have owned back and used back then, such as pistols, rifles, shotguns, swords, knives, etc., and hence to their modern equivalents today. Cannons, mortars, hand-grenades, missiles, etc. would not be covered. Of course my definition would allow for fully-auto versions of the above. Any change to the understanding of 2nd amendment should be thru a constitutional change, ideally. Reckon once one had a letter of marque issued, then all bets would be off.

 

[riverdog]

Using buzz_knox's reply as a basis, it seems to me that the currently available 50BMG Cal weapons are on the edge of being bearable and should be allowed under the 2nd Amendment, as are many fully automatic/selectable weapons of lesser caliber. I don't know of any larger calibers of firearms that are readily "bearable". An argument could be made for LAW rockets in that they are bearable. While I voted "No, they're too dangerous", I would rather have voted, "No, some weapons are not applicable under the 2nd Amendment".

 

[Tamara]

scottjute,

Cannons, mortars, hand-grenades, missiles, etc. would not be covered.

Why not? People certainly owned all that stuff back then, plus warships and cavalry horses and...


buzz_knox,

You can't "bear" most WMDs and thus they don't fall within the scope of the 2nd Amendment as written. Further, such weapons are not particularly suited to fighting an oppressive government on your own territory, let alone self-defense, so they don't fall within the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

You can't "bear" the cannons of privateer warships, either.

As far as "falling within the spirit of the Second Amendment", even the most careful reading of the Constitution leaves me scratching my head as to where the Feds derive the power to ban ownership of anything. It certainly ain't from the Constitution.

 

[MicroBalrog]

All of the rights in the Constitution are subsets of ONE right - the right to be FREE, i.e. to do whatever you please, as long as you don't harm anyone innocent. So WMD's don't count, coz you can't really use them in any way that won't harm innocents.
I have a few harmless uses for a Solothurn 20mm in mind...

 

[Minuteman]

Faenaro wrote:

"Bear arms" can be construed to mean many things. I think it means anything that you could operate and carry alone. That is if you could reload it alone, fire it alone and carry it (without a vehicle) alone then it is okay.

As I understand it, this is correct. The idea, again, as I undersand it from the reading I've done, behind the 2nd Amendment is that a nation of vigilant and trained riflemen cannot be defeated by a government's army with the most high-tech weapons available. The 2nd Amendment is not there to give individuals the power to cause mass destruction or mass casualties. The idea behind the government having tanks, fighter aircraft, artillery, ICBMs, etc., is that the government is supposed to be beholden to we the people, and therefore those weapons are "ours."

braindead0 wrote:

We the people should be able to have anything the goverment has in the way of weapons. I don't think I'd have any problems with the government applying reasonable control to the *firing* of these weapons...

Consider, for example, the environazis. A WMD in the hands of a group like the Animal Liberation Front is likely to get used against other people because it's a small and narrow group of people making the decision. In the hands of our government, however, we as a nation get to have some say in the use of WMDs...theoretically anyway.

Minuteman

 

[Tamara]

Minuteman,

Who was Congress supposed to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to? The captains of Navy warships?

 

[MicroBalrog]

Actually, I think the govt. shouldn't have WMD's either.

 

[Minuteman]

Tamara wrote:

Who was Congress supposed to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to? The captains of Navy warships?

Let's look at JohnDog's definition of a Letter of Marque and Reprisal.

JohnDog wrote:

It was essential an "authority given to private persons to fit out an armed ship and use it to attack, capture, and plunder of enemy merchant ships in time of war".

First of all, it does not say that citizens may own battleships. Second, this is a power granted to the government by the people to be done "in time of war". It doesn't say that in time of war the government must grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but that it may. I understand this to mean that this is something the government can do if a wartime situation gets desperate enough, perhaps such as an invasion of and prolonged fighting in the U.S., as we had during the Revolutionary War. Also, if I'm not mistaken, those civilian merchant vessels outfitted with cannons became our nation's first Navy. The Confederacy did the same thing during the Civil War as they didn't have a Navy, it was during wartime, and they were being invaded at times from the sea and ports were being blockaded.

Minuteman

 

[BigG]

I got a hankering for an M1 Abrams for that downtown traffic.

 

[10-Ring]

Unrestricted...NO.

 

[David Park]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think it's interesting that gun rights advocates will decry hidden meanings that gun grabbers find in the word "Militia" (e.g., Militia = National Guard), and yet they will find their own hidden meaning in the word "bear", as if somebody shouldn't be able to own an M1 Garand or .50BMG rifle if they are not strong enough to carry it. (Maybe McCarthy and Conyers should add that to their bill?)

As Tamara and others have said repeatedly, people in the 18th century did own cannon and warships, and not only were they not arrested, they were actually encouraged by the government on occasion (with Letters of Marque and Reprisal, for example), which would seem to me to be plenty of evidence of the intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The entire concept of a militia is that the tools of war remain in the hands of the populace. When citizens owned warships, the gov't didn't need a navy, because the citizens were in effect a naval militia. The citizens also didn't worry about a powerful, tyrranical gov't, because without the citizens the gov't had no power.

All that said, I might support a Constitutional amendment to regulate ownership of NBC weapons.

 

[Joe Demko]

We've been down this road before, so I'll give the concise version of my POV.
Since some weapons, high explosives for example, can become dangerous simply by being improperly stored or maintained, I can't get behind the idea of just anyone being able to own such items completely unrestricted.
The solution, I believe, lies in zoning laws. You could, if you wished, then own all the explosives you could afford provided you stored them in an appropriately zoned area. e.g. residential areas are not zoned for explosives storage, but if you purchase some property outside the city limits you could build a storage bunker there and have at it.

 

[FPrice]

On a philosophical level, if you can be trusted at all, you can be trusted with anything.

Conversely, if you can't be trusted with big stuff, you can't be trusted with anything!

 

[cordex]

Agree with Chris.
People own property. None of the gov't's business what that property is.
People who initiate force (with their property, or with their fists) are subject to regulation and adjustment ... at times, lethal adjustment.

"Oh dear, cordex, what about ANTHRAX?!?! There will be blood glowing in the streets when the depleted uranium NUCLEAR WEAPONS get detonated over every little traffic dispute!"

I don't shoot people when they cut me off. Why would I nuke them?

"Well ... you might not, and maybe some of those Libertarian nutjobs like Chris Rhines, Lendringser and Tamara might not, but the terrorists will surely buy them at K-Mart and use them!"

*whew* Glad that our WMD laws kept terrorists from taking out the WTC, smacking the Pentagon a good one, taking down the Murrah Federal building, spreading anthrax through the postal service, etc. You think Sarin is available at your local drugstore in Japan? Hold your breath in the subway because here's a newsflash - the people who aren't going to obey the law aren't going to follow your regulations either.

If Achmed bin Foreignterrorist or Joe Domesticterrorist want to kill, maim and destroy, your laws against private ownership of nukes and chemweaps and 155 tubes aren't going to stop them. They have not stopped them in the recent past.

Now, looking at the issue from a realistic point of view, I'd say that if a bill were introduced into congress saying "All man-portable weapons are now cash and carry, but nukes are still a no-no." I'd support the heck out of it, because it is better than what we have now.

Since some weapons, high explosives for example, can become dangerous simply by being improperly stored or maintained, I can't get behind the idea of just anyone being able to own such items completely unrestricted.

A car can become extremely dangerous if improperly maintained. Improperly stored gasoline can likewise be dangerous.
Why draw the line at high explosives?

 

[Daniel]

* I trust good ol' (insert billionaire here) just as much as I trust the .gov that I do not know: very little ... no diff to me who owns the big boomers.

* If the big boomers were legal, the chance of me dying by the big boomers is quite miniscule ('bout the same chance as now, with them being illegal and all that): a higher probability than being whacked in the noggin' by the magic meteorite; though a little less than being eaten to death by ants.

Own what you want if I were the father.

 

[Joe Demko]

A car can become extremely dangerous if improperly maintained. Improperly stored gasoline can likewise be dangerous.

Because your car isn't likely to explode in the driveway from neglect and level the whole block. I think it might have been Mr. Eatman who described explosives, nerve gas, etc. as weapons that are, by their nature, always pointed at everyone in their area of effect. Simply by neglect, these are weapons that can discharge themselves. I would never knowingly allow you to point a loaded gun at me, no matter how much you might assure me that the safety was on and your finger was off the trigger. By the same token, I won't knowingly stand by while you store a cannister of sarin in the apartment across the hall or stockpile nitroglycerin in your adjoining townhouse. I don't object to you owning these things, as such. I object to you storing them in close proximity to other people (large numbers of other people, perhaps) whose lives now depend on you properly storing and handling some dangerous materials. Even the military knows better than to build a barracks right next to the ammo dump.

 

[Ian]

My ethical argument is that people have the right to property. Period. You don't hurt anyone, and you can do what you like.

But that doesn't seem to pursuade many people (perhaps freedom looks too frightening?), so perhaps more utilitarian arguments could help.

Should we ban horizontal shoulder holsters? Hey, if there are a lot of people around, it's very likely that your pistol is pointed at one of them. What if you were carrying an old pistol, and its sear broke and it fired and killed someone?

Seems about as justified to me as banning explosives. IF there are people around, and IF they're improperly maintained, and IF they're improperly stored, and IF they're powerful enough to damage someone else's property...same number of ifs there.

How about chlorine gas? Should we ban it? It's has some awfully nasty effects on people. Well, you can make it simply by mixing the ammonia and bleach in your pantry. Are we willing to ban ammonia and bleach? Or table salt (if they really wanted to, I'm sure someone could find a way to pull the chlorine out of table salt)? Or do we just ban the poison ghases that are hard to make? But that's utterly pointless, because it leaves the easy ones available.

How about nuclear and biological material? Do you think that weapon are the only uses for these things? Heck no! Where does nuclear power come from? The same stuff as fission bombs. Diseases can't be cured without possession and study of the diseases themselves. If individuals are not punished for having these things, society will derive great benefits from their innovation. These benefits will far, far outweight any harmful uses of the material in question.

People have a right to own property. Period.

 

[David Park]

re: explosives

I live in an apartment. Should I be banned from reloading, because my large quantities of flammable material (which may include black powder, an actual explosive) are "pointed at" my neighbors in the same building? How much black powder is too much? How will regulations be enforced ("safe storage" searches by the BATF for anyone who buys a Dillon press)?

I understand the "some things are just too dangerous" argument, but the question is where do we (meaning the gov't) draw the line, and what justification do we have for drawing the line there and not moving it later.

Historical note: before the "destructive devices" law (1934? 38?), people could buy dynamite over the counter along with their Tommy guns.

 

[Shaggy]

I've posted my take on the 2A before: I think it can reasonably be interpreted to cover any weapon that can be fired by a human being from the standing position, accurately, with no explosive or incendiary ammunition. This would cover a .50 caliber rifle, for example, but not a mortar or RPG7.

That sounds right to me.

So does this written by Judge Kleinfled in his recent decent in the 9th circuit.

the primary meaning of "bear" is "to carry,"21 as when we arrive at our host’s home "bearing gifts" and arrive at the airport "bearing burdens." ..... the OED(oxford english dictionary) says that the "main sense"24 of "bear" is "to carry."25 True, sense 6(a) of "bear" in the OED is "To carry about with one, or wear, ensigns of office, weapons of offence or defence,"26 and the OED lists among the fourth sense of "arms," "to bear arms" — marked as figurative by the editors — defined as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." Certainly the phrase has often been used this way, in judicial opinions and elsewhere. But that does not vitiate the "main sense" of "bear": to carry. The word was used the same way when Congress adopted the Second Amendment.

I would think the 2A applies to any shoulder fired weapon that any average person could "bear". I think that common sense dictates a line be drawn someplace. I would be a happy camper if we could get back to the pre-1934....heck, pre-1968 days and at that point, I don't think the average citizen could buy a bazooka and hand grenades at the local suprlus store but I could be wrong. I know you could by a Lahti or a Solothurn anti tank gun with 20mm shells and you could do that in the 50's and 60's I believe. Those weapons are still legal today if you can find somebody who has a transferable one and you have the cash.

The problem with drawing lines or picking calibers etc....is that nobody knows what's next. Whatever happens today, will be twisted in the years to come. If we are allowed defense at all, will the debate not be explozives but what power photon beam the average citizen can own???? Tough questions.....with no easy answers. Who defines reasonable? I'm sure Schumer thinks he's reasonable. These are complex issues that I'm not sure will ever have a written in stone answer. Obviously the founders thought they had a written in stone document with the ability to change through an amendment process. But that could'nt be further from the truth. Judges have amended the constitution more than any legislature ever could.